The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Normalization alone is not a path for Israeli-Palestinian peace > Comments

Normalization alone is not a path for Israeli-Palestinian peace : Comments

By Alon Ben-Meir, published 9/11/2020

The normalization of relations between Israel and Sudan is another step forward toward the establishment of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yup, and must include a negotiated two-state solution all the new players that are included in the so-called, normalisation, who must also insist this is a pathway they can all agree with and progress with every instrument they can individually or collectively apply/bring to bear!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 9 November 2020 10:28:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zionism doesn't have to be like what we have seen more recently ; but Likud are the inheritors of the traditions of Irgun and Revisionism. Judah Magnes showed a different kind of Zionism is possible. And more like him is what we need today. Jews who recognise the Palestinians are human beings with human rights - and that demands engagement and compromise

Zionism wasn't originally strictly about a "Jewish State" as much as it was about establishing a "Jewish National Home" ; The Holocaust changed everything ; but even a state where Jews control the apparatus of force can be 'binational' if the remainder of the State apparatus is binational ; shared between Jews and Palestinians. Such a state can institutionalise co-determination between the two national communities.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 9 November 2020 10:44:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel could become democratic. It could not only recognise the civil rights of non-Jews but also give equal validity to all branches of Judaism. It could also allow civil marriage and have an integrated public school system. It could do all that and still be a Jewish homeland.
Posted by david f, Monday, 9 November 2020 11:30:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel is the only democratic country in the middle east which gives the vote to non-jews in its recognised territory. The people have built a Jewish homeland in spite of the genocidal attempts of its neighbours. Its policies are based on the realism of the status quo and the dreams of activists like Judah Magnes are as much fantasy as a functioning Marxist state.
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 4:17:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What few remember, is that the original founders of Israel did not mean to make it a Jewish home/state, but a place to establish and develop the Hebrew culture. It was the holocaust that changed everything, following which the world instead supported a Jewish state out of pity for the Jewish refugees.

For the founders of Israel this was an unhappy but necessary/practical compromise, for soon every willing Jewish immigrant was needed to fight the Arab resistance.

Without a common culture, what is the point in having a shared home/state? Is it worthwhile just on the grounds of ethnic fears, preparing for the next Hitler [which would likely never come again]? What a miserable situation to have to share a home only out of fear (that would often indicate domestic violence)!

Why would people who cherish the Western/European culture and its values want to live in the Middle-East? wouldn't it be preferable for them to live in Europe, America or Australia, away from these stupid wars with the Arabs/Palestinians?

Israel could become many things and there surely are Jews (and others) outside Israel who wish it to turn around their way, but if Israel is to become anything but what it is, a home for the Hebrew culture, then why should it exist at all?

It is difficult to find a country more democratic than Israel, with Australia and the USA left far behind. While there are Jews (and Israelis!) who hate the preferences of the majority of Israeli voters, this does not make Israel any less democratic.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 8:17:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently, there is no agreed upon definition of democracy. With its denial of the vote to women, slaves and those considered foreigners even though their ancestors may have been in Athens for many generation ancient, democratic Athens would not be considered a democracy by today's standards. However, we all don't agree on what defines current standards of democracy. By my standards of democracy Israel is not a democracy. By some other standards it is a democracy.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 10:03:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Australia one does not need to be a woman, a slave or a descendant of a foreigner for their votes to count for naught: suffice that you live in a non-marginal electoral division!

While your vote matters not, your neighbour across the road, on the other side of the invisible electoral line, may have a very strong voting power just because their grandparents happened to built their house on the "right" side of the street while yours built your house on the "wrong" side.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 11:22:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

If the prime minister were elected by a popular vote it wouldn't matter which side of the electoral boundary you lived on. Montesquieu recommended separate and independent executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government. Australia avoids that by having the executive part of parliament. The US avoids that by the Electoral College.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 12:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F

Most people prefer to use the dictionary definition.

Democracy = "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them"
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 12:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear shadowminister,

What is the evidence for your statement that most people prefer to use the dictionary definition you cited? That definition would not apply to the Athenian democracy as it had no representatives. Athenian citizens voted directly. The meaning of words change with usage, and dictionary definitions reflect the usage of the person or people writing the dictionary.

In my opinion subsidies to religious schools violate S. 116 of the Australian Constitution and are illegal. The US Supreme Court operating under the US Constitution which has almost identical wording to S. 116 regarding religion agrees with my opinion. The Australian High Court doesn't. Future judges on the Australian High Court may agree with my opinion and that of the US Supreme Court. In my opinion democracy requires a greater degree of separation of religion and state than exists in Australia. I doubt that most people prefer the dictionary definition you cited of democracy as they probably don't consult the particular dictionary you cited or any dictionary when they refer to democracy.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 5:24:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I completely agree: democracy in Australia and the USA is broken.

Which brings us back to the topic: Israeli democracy, though still imperfect, should be praised as superior to ours.

Regarding your last post to Shadowminister, democracy literally means the rule of the [majority of the] common people. Should the majority of the common people want to subsidise a religion (or more accurately, whatever passes for "religion" in their minds), then this would be a legitimate part of the democratic process. We may not like it (albeit you and I would probably oppose it for different reasons), we may call it by many bad names, but "undemocratic" is not one of them. It could however make us wonder whether democracy is a good idea to begin with.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 6:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I also question whether democracy is a good idea. However, I don't think I disagree with you for the reason for separation of religion and state. I don't believe religion is necessarily bad, but power corrupts. The union of state and religion puts the power of the state in the service of religion. I think that corrupts religion. Do you agree?

Putting the power of religion in the hands of government corrupts government. Do you agree?
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 7:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Yes, I agree on both counts - thank you!

---

BTW, I had a funny thought:
Section 116 of the Australian constitution only speaks of religion, not of fake imitations, so when a church falsely claims (either maliciously or mistakenly, both all too common) that its practices constitute a religion, nothing in the constitution prevents the state from supporting it, mandating its practices; or alternately, banning them.

Example 1:
Q. "How come the law forces me to sacrifice my first-born to Moloch, isn't this against the constitution?"
A. "No, 116 does not apply because Moloch-worship is not a true religion!"

Example 2:
Q. "Can Australia criminalise Buddhist practices?"
A. "Yes, Buddhism recognises no God, so we do not consider it a religion"

Example 3:
Q. "Can the law protect young people from the horrors of Scientology"
A. "No, we have no means to prove that scientology is not a religion"

Another funny thought: if some decent behaviour (say giving one's seat to the elderly, planting trees for the environment or the prohibition on bribes) also happens to be a religious observance of some religion, then Section 116 as written, prohibits the state from enforcing it!

First a ridiculous grandiose presumption as if human politicians are capable of judging spiritual matters, arbitrating as if they were prophets which practices lead towards or away from God, then a sloppy statement that prevents government from making good laws - allowing only bad ones... Has anyone ever proof-read this constitution? It would be better this idiotic and embarrassing Section never existed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 November 2020 11:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

No democracy is perfect, but there hasn't yet been a viable alternative.
Posted by shadowminister, Thursday, 12 November 2020 4:25:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear shadowminister,

Since I never maintained that any democracy is perfect I don't know the relevance of your statement. It is possible that a well-managed authoritarian government could be better than a poorly managed democracy. In elections in the United States because of the electoral college the results are that the popular vote for president may be different from the electoral college results. In Australia the prime minister is determined by the number of seats held by the party rather than by the majority of the voters. Would a dictator preferred by a majority necessarily be worse than a democratic leader elected by a minority?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 November 2020 7:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy