RJ, I am not trying to say Arabs don't have full legal rights. I just do not believe that Jews would allow loss of political control to Arabs. Certainly, not now or in the forseeable future. Ultimately, that means they do not have the same rights in the fullest sense, the ability to take political control, to seize and exercise power. I think you appear to concede as much and that is all I am saying. But clearly then if Israel sees itself a democracy (with current de facto limitations given the hostility to Jews in the Middle East), then there should not be talk of a Jewish state, either. A democracy is a collection of an atomized group of individuals, not different groups. At least that is how I understand it, anyway.
I think I am being pushed into Owen's direction on this issue of the Jewish state...

freeman3 wrote:RJ, I am not trying to say Arabs don't have full legal rights. I just do not believe that Jews would allow loss of political control to Arabs. Certainly, not now or in the forseeable future. Ultimately, that means they do not have the same rights in the fullest sense, the ability to take political control, to seize and exercise power. I think you appear to concede as much and that is all I am saying. But clearly then if Israel sees itself a democracy (with current de facto limitations given the hostility to Jews in the Middle East), then there should not be talk of a Jewish state, either. A democracy is a collection of an atomized group of individuals, not different groups. At least that is how I understand it, anyway.
I think I am being pushed into Owen's direction on this issue of the Jewish state...

I don't think we are that far apart. But you can be a Democracy and something else. I believe that Ireland and Bulgaria have rights of return. The US honors Christian holidays. Most democracies have a national character. France honors French culture and the French language. Would they ever cede control to an English speaking majority? No. Does that mean that English speakers don't have full Democratic rights or that France is not a Democracy?

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

There are and have been Arab members of the Knesset. But they are not proportionate to the numbers of Arab voters,

source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... s_.2812.29

There are 12 MKs. 10% of the total.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 7oMu_q3HuQ

Using the figures in the above document, I calculate that Arabs make up 20% of the population, 15% of the electorate, and 12.5% of the overall turnout in the 2013 Knesset elections. Even though Arab voting is more 'efficient', there is still a disparity.

Relative turnout is lower (but overall turnout is tending to decline as well), and in part that is Arab voters not being enthused to vote by the parties themselves, but it is also noted as a distance opening up between Arabs and the state since 2000.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

There are and have been Arab members of the Knesset. But they are not proportionate to the numbers of Arab voters,

source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... s_.2812.29

There are 12 MKs. 10% of the total.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 7oMu_q3HuQ

Using the figures in the above document, I calculate that Arabs make up 20% of the population, 15% of the electorate, and 12.5% of the overall turnout in the 2013 Knesset elections. Even though Arab voting is more 'efficient', there is still a disparity.

Relative turnout is lower (but overall turnout is tending to decline as well), and in part that is Arab voters not being enthused to vote by the parties themselves, but it is also noted as a distance opening up between Arabs and the state since 2000.

Thanks. So 12.5% of those who vote but 10% of the parliament. That's better than Hispanics do in the US, and women just about anywhere. In all seriousness, I do agree with you that the trend lines are not good and have gotten worse since 2000. There's a certain polarization happening in all western societies as we cling to our own media. It's also not coincidental that the 2nd Intifada began in 2000. By the way, this morning's WSJ reports that the Israeli government is likely to move to the right after March's election.

I thought your first site was interesting. I note that there are Arab legislators in Yisrael Beitenu and Meretz (secular, labor Zionist). In the past there have been Arab legislators in Likud, Kadima, and Labor. I also note that there have been Arab acting Presidents (which really surprised me), Speakers, and Ministers, which seems relevant to our earlier discussion. I realize someone will poo poo this observation because the above names have mostly been non-Muslim Arabs, but it hardly suggests that Israel is only for Jews and does not have democratic rights and real opportunity for its non-Jewish citizens.

I think this is a fair portrayal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/world ... p-war.html

Yes. Thanks for posting. I thought that the final comment about keeping the totality in mind--not just individual incidents--was also a good point.

Due to "local preferences" publisher of atlases omits Israel from atlases for sale in the Middle East...http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... tional_pop

ray

I think this is a fair portrayal

I'm surprised you say this and I wonder
Why ?
You've got this...

“Even in the fog of war, there are things that we expect ourselves to abide by,” said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman. “It’s important to see that we are looking at these exceptional incidents with a magnifying glass.”

contrasted with this:

Bill van Esveld, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, said that “it is positive” to see more investigations, but that after a previous Israeli operation in Gaza, Cast Lead, in 2008-’09, the military reviewed “scores of attacks” and convicted only three soldiers of wrongdoing, with “the longest sentence imposed on someone who stole a credit card.”
“The poor track record of past investigations and the lack of accountability don’t give much hope that the same process will yield a just outcome this time,” he said.

Is this not an indictment of the Israel investigation process ?

This may mean more to the international community than an internal investigation.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/ ... _vote.html

And ironically may back fire if Hamas were also to be charged by the ICC for crimes like firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel.

freeman3 wrote:Due to "local preferences" publisher of atlases omits Israel from atlases for sale in the Middle East...http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... tional_pop

Yes, that is the local preference. Did you see this story:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 014/10/09/

The singers on the “Arab Idol” show were Arab citizens of Israel who live in Galilee, but the Saudi MBC-TV network was forced to apologize to hundreds millions of viewers for acknowledging the existence of the Jewish state and not identifying the contestants’ homeland as “Palestine.”

MBC had been threatened with boycotts and Internet campaigns, including”Shut Down Arab Idol,” “Palestine is Arab, not Hebrew” and “Together Against Arab Idol.”

The protesters, commented the international public policy group Gatestone Institute, “were not demanding a two-state solution and an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

“They were protesting against Israel’s existence; that is what really bothers them.”

“Their success in forcing MBC to remove Israel from the map is a symbolic victory for those who seek Israel’s destruction.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/arab-idol-vi ... XEHlc7y.99

Ricky:

ray

I think this is a fair portrayal

I'm surprised you say this and I wonder
Why ?
You've got this...

“Even in the fog of war, there are things that we expect ourselves to abide by,” said Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman. “It’s important to see that we are looking at these exceptional incidents with a magnifying glass.”

contrasted with this: ...

The NYT article showed 2 different points of view and it is up to the reader to discern which makes more sense. My own view is that while the IDF may be biased (as are all militaries), they are more fairly portraying the challenges faced in a fog of war situation than HRW which has an anti-Israeli agenda.

http://www.hrw.org/

ray

The NYT article showed 2 different points of view and it is up to the reader to discern which makes more sense. My own view is that while the IDF may be biased (as are all militaries), they are more fairly portraying the challenges faced in a fog of war situation than HRW which has an anti-Israeli agenda

HRW has an anti Israel agenda? Could you illustrate this?
I just went to their website and on the landing page there are links to dozens of stories. None concerning Israel.

rickyp wrote:HRW has an anti Israel agenda? Could you illustrate this?
I just went to their website and on the landing page there are links to dozens of stories. None concerning Israel.

Took me Google and five seconds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-ders ... 27701.html

rickyp wrote:http://www.hrw.org/

ray

The NYT article showed 2 different points of view and it is up to the reader to discern which makes more sense. My own view is that while the IDF may be biased (as are all militaries), they are more fairly portraying the challenges faced in a fog of war situation than HRW which has an anti-Israeli agenda

HRW has an anti Israel agenda? Could you illustrate this?
I just went to their website and on the landing page there are links to dozens of stories. None concerning Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... o-monitor/

http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lin ... ghts-Watch

It's certainly complicated.

Maybe criticism comes with the job?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ghts_Watch
Africa
HRW has been accused of unfair and biased reporting of human-rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia.[95]

Eritrea
In April 2009, the organization published a report accusing the Eritrean government of serious human-rights violations.[96] Sophia Tesfamariam, director of the US Foundation for the Horn of Africa, refuted the report's allegations and called it an "anti-Eritrea report": "HRW goes to great lengths to embellish the truth in its attempts to paint a bleak picture of Eritrea and its government". She described it as “not only short on facts and evidence, but also short on intellectual and professional integrity”.[citation needed]

Ethiopia[edit]
The Ethiopian government has raised questions about HRW's methods, commissioning a report dismissing "Human Rights Watch allegations of abuses in the Ogaden as hearsay and its methods as slapdash".[97]

Asia
Bangladesh
A special tribunal dealing with war crimes during Bangladesh's 1971 independence war with Pakistan asked Human Rights Watch to explain why it should not be charged with contempt of court for a statement from the organization that the trial of former Islamic party leader Ghulam Azam was "deeply flawed" and did not meet international standards. Azam was sentenced to 90 years in prison for war crimes. The U.S. ambassador in Bangladesh expressed concern over the prosecutors' move against the organization.[98]

Saudi Arabi
A prominent Saudi human-rights activist described the Human Rights Watch report on Saudi Arabia as partially untrue, and said the report does not fully take into account the religious background of the Saudi people.[99]

Ricky: Maybe criticism comes with the job?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ghts_Watch

Yes. I'm keeping an open mind.

What do you think of this? http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... KsKfmd0yAI

In June 2006, Garlasco had alleged that an explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people had been caused by Israeli shelling. However, after seeing the details of an Israeli army investigation that closely examined the relevant ballistics and blast patterns, he subsequently told the Jerusalem Post that he had been wrong and that the deaths were probably caused by an unexploded munition in the sand. But this went down badly at Human Rights Watch HQ in New York, and the admission was retracted by an HRW press release the next day.


Since the Garlasco affair blew up, critics of Human Rights Watch have raised questions about other appointments. An Israeli newspaper revealed that Joe Stork, the deputy head of HRW’s Middle East department, was a radical leftist who put out a magazine in the 1970s that praised the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. In 1976 he attended an anti-Zionist conference in Baghdad hosted by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.


Stork’s boss, Sarah Leah Whitson, and most of his colleagues in the Middle East department of Human Rights Watch, also have activist backgrounds — it was typical that one newly hired researcher came to HRW from the extremist anti-Israel publication Electronic Intifada — unlikely to reassure anyone who thinks that human-rights organisations should be non-partisan. While it may be hard to find people who are genuinely neutral about Middle East politics, theoretically an organisation like HRW would not select as its researchers people who are so evidently on one side.