The Forum > Article Comments > Israel has really overstepped the line > Comments
Israel has really overstepped the line : Comments
By Bruce Haigh, published 16/1/2009For Israel to have created more instability and uncertainty in the Middle East is irresponsible and selfish in the extreme.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
-
- All
Posted by HarryG, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 9:05:25 PM
| |
Despite Israel's democratic ideals and pretensions, it suffers a fatal flaw.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel "Israeli demographic policy “As Israel's continued existence as a "Jewish State" relies upon maintenance of a Jewish demographic majority, Israeli demographers, politicians and bureaucrats have treated Jewish population growth promotion as a central question in their research and policymaking. Non-Jewish population growth and immigration is regarded as a threat to the Jewish demographic majority and to Israel's security, as detailed in the Koenig Memorandum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenig_Memorandum (snip) "During the 1970s about 163,000 people immigrated to Israel from the USSR. Later Ariel Sharon, in his capacity as Minister of Housing & Construction and member of the Ministerial Committee for Immigration & Absorption, launched an unprecedented large-scale construction effort to accommodate the new Russian population in Israel so as to facilitate their smooth integration and encourage further Jewish immigration as an ongoing means of increasing the Jewish population of Israel.[21]" &c Between 1990 & 2000, about 816,000 migrants arrived from former USSR states. That's about 12% of the current Israeli population of 7.1 million. (http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton53/shnatone53.htm) Israel's constitution enshrines privileges to a specific ethnic group at the expense of others. Until that ends, Israel is part democracy and part ethnocracy. Israel's defenders need to keep in mind that, ideally, democracies are secular states. To quote Abraham Lincoln, from his Gettysberg Address, "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." If Israelis are unable to move on from their ethnocracy, and offer genuine equity to their Arab citizens, then perhaps they can work meaningfully toward toward recognition and genuine co-operation with Palestine. I'm hoping that the people of Gaza have not died in vain. Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 9:56:15 PM
|
You may very well be right; I believe you are wrong. I heard today that New Hampshire still has the death penalty on its books, and its last execution was in 1939.
The ALP had the nationalisation of banks on its platform for many years, but it was not really serious after 1951.
I am sure there are better examples (I know these are not especially good).
I know that Hamas is a relatively recent “invention” and I don’t know enough about Islamic fundamentalists of, say, one hundred years ago to know if they also preached death to those of different faiths.
The CIA used to go round killing anyone they did not like; the Christian fundamentalist Pat Robertson thinks US should kill Hugo Chavez. It’s not written down in a charter, and he is only a leader of some sort of fundamentalist group, but thankfully wiser heads prevailed.
If you treat your neighbour properly, he is unlikely to want to kill you, no matter what his or your religion. We have never treated Hamas properly.
It is rather arrogant of us decide to kill them all because they are the ones that are “bad”.
The poor taste joke about providing the Palestinians with more stones to throw at their antagonists' tanks gets another run.
Mal, I admit, the above is not a perfectly reasoned argument which puts the issue at rest. I cannot say categorically that I am right and you are wrong.
Have a look at the history of “these people”, look at the conditions that they live under, look at who they see is their enemy, and wonder why THEY are “screwed up”.
I think there are enough good arguments put forward by many of the OLO posters for you to realise that it is not a black and white issue.
Ask yourself why Islamic fundamentalism is such a “problem” now. Is it perhaps because of the way Palestinians have been treated since 1948 and before? And why is Christian fundamentalism, the driver of Republican America, so strong in the second half of the 20th century?