Netanyahu says there will be no Palestinian state.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/wo ... &referrer=

freeman3 wrote:Netanyahu says there will be no Palestinian state.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/wo ... &referrer=

Yes, that is interesting. He didn't say forever; he just said now given what's going on in the Arab world. But I agree that is a lot of cold water on a lot of people.

This gives the Israeli people a clear choice. That seems very healthy to me. I could see a lot of Israelis who were on the fence to shift leftward. But clearly Netanyahu's calculation is different than that.

I guess I'm old fashioned Ray. I took anti-Zionism as oppossing the State of Israel. And I don't.
But I do support a two state solution... and in modern terms I see that makes me anti-Zionist. (wikipedia below)
Like about half of Israelis...
Nethanyahu has finally come clean on his unwillingness to accomodate the creation of a Palestinian state so you can stop pretending he's been actually negotiating in good faith...

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State.

your accusing senators of being agents of Israel ... you are saying that they are bought and paid for by wealthy Zionists even when websites show that most of their campaign contributions are from other sources ...

Agent? no. Heavily influenced by cash. yes. The fact they have all kinds of donors doesn't mitigate the fact that on issues revolving around Israel they are beholden to these donors. Just as they are beholden on matters of financial regulations to Wall Street Donors, and climate to Kocj and Exxon...
Bought and paid for.
ray

you are suggesting that Israel is responsible for the US invading Iraq, and G. Bush's decisions vis-à-vis Iraq as if he and his gang couldn't make their own decisions

...
They had influence and provided intelligence that Bush's folks used...
ray

yes, I get your drift ... Zionists are the all powerful puppeteers who control Washington .

.
All powerful? No. But they certainly have had their way....
Till Bibi over played his hand.

Ricky:

I guess I'm old fashioned Ray. I took anti-Zionism as oppossing the State of Israel. And I don't.
But I do support a two state solution... and in modern terms I see that makes me anti-Zionist. (wikipedia below)
Like about half of Israelis...

Ricky, I appreciate the more thoughtful tone, but your statement is not convincing. Keep in mind that the party that will hopefully unseat Netanyahu is the Zionist Union. This is the liberal / Labor / Peace Now party which supports a 2 state solution. So to follow your tortured logic, you are now calling the people who vote for the Zionist Union "anti-Zionist".

Zionism does not mean all of the Biblical lands. Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland that is on some of the Biblical lands. (The historical lands included the East Bank of the Jordan River, but only a few crackpots are claiming that.) I would include the Jewish Right of Return as part of that principle. You have voiced philosophical disputes with that principle. From some perspectives it is a bit odd. Fair enough. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

However, if you do believe that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland, then you have to embrace the fact that the Jewish people have a right to defend themselves against external enemies (who threaten to wipe them off the map) and terrorism.

Ricky:

Just as they are beholden on matters of financial regulations to Wall Street Donors, and climate to Kocj and Exxon...

I do agree with you that Washington is a cesspool of special interests. You left out unions, trial lawyers, and anti-oil interests (solar subsidies, rail subsidies, wind subsidies, etc.)

RAYJAY

So to follow your tortured logic, you are now calling the people who vote for the Zionist Union "anti-Zionist"

.
Its not my logic. Its Wikipedias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

rayjay

The historical lands included the East Bank of the Jordan River, but only a few crackpots are claiming that.

Netanyahu's declaration that there will not be a Palestinian State on his watch puts him squarely in this category.

rayjay

However, if you do believe that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland, then you have to embrace the fact that the Jewish people have a right to defend themselves against external enemies (who threaten to wipe them off the map) and terrorism.

I already said that many times. Its possible to hod that belief and support the establishment of a viable Palestinian State.
Unless you are a Zionist? Or do you hold that it is possible to be a Zionist and support a Palestininan State?

rayjay

You left out unions, trial lawyers, and anti-oil interests (solar subsidies, rail subsidies, wind subsidies, etc.)

If you see their influence as corrupting, then you'll agree that Kristols and other's PACs have the same corrupting influence on foreign policy?
If Israel did not have a lobby group with the money and influence of AIPAC do you not think US foreign policy would be different?
And the question then is, would that difference be positive for the US or negative?
I think its possible to argue convincingly that US policy on Israel has not genuinely benefited, and perhaps harmed US interests over time.

Ricky:

Or do you hold that it is possible to be a Zionist and support a Palestininan State?

Given that the Zionist Union in Israel supports a Palestinian State, yes.

Ricky:

Its not my logic. Its Wikipedias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

No, it's not; you need to learn to read more carefully.

BTW, early poll results show that Likud is more likely to form the next coalition (63 to 57). The source is pro-Likud, but the UK papers appear to be saying the same thing.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 015/03/17/

Ricky:

I think its possible to argue convincingly that US policy on Israel has not genuinely benefited, and perhaps harmed US interests over time.

The Israelis have provided several advantages to the US over the years. In the 60's and 70's they enabled the US to get their hands on all sorts of Soviet equipment. They also increased confidence vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and the inadequacies of its system. In the 80's the Israelis destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility which may have progressed for many years under Hussein with horrendous results during the Iran-Iraq war or the invasion of Kuwait. Knocking out Syrian Nukes and delaying Iran's building of nukes has been valuable. Perhaps Israel is responsible for nukes not yet being used in the Middle East.

They've made key contributions to US weapon systems. There are many countries who are now interested in the Iron Dome including South Korea, India, and the US. Many other weapons projects are being jointly developed between the 2 countries. The intelligence sharing has also been a bonanza for both countries. I don't think any of us really understand the depth of the relationship, but necessity is the mother of invention so the Israelis have stayed on the forefront.

It's also good to have a steady democratic ally in this most troubling of regions. Would we really rather have another Syria, Egypt, or Lebanon. Frankly, without Israel, there's a good chance that Jordan would have fallen by now.

I know you like to point out that Israel and Netanyahu made a bad call in 2003. Sure they did, but the suggestion that this is responsible for Bush's blunder in Iraq is silly. There were many forces at work here. Bush was a cowboy and Cheney and Rumsfeld egged him on. Kerry, Clinton, Powell, and many others supported the decision. The notion that Israel is somehow responsible for Bush's decision is fantasy since none of the key players who made the decision dispute the Israeli importance, and they are the ones who know. If it's conjecture then what is your certainty based on?

here's what wikipedia says about ani-Zionism Ray

In the modern era, anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State

.

That defines me.
And defines the Zionist Union too, doesn't it?

Just because they have Zionist in their name.... doesn't make them Zionists I guess.

ray

I know you like to point out that Israel and Netanyahu made a bad call in 2003. Sure they did, but the suggestion that this is responsible for Bush's blunder in Iraq is silly

Again. I never said "responsible".
I said their intelligence contributed to the mistake, as did their advice and influence...
Bush made the final call. Israel was thrilled he made the call he did.

rickyp wrote:here's what wikipedia says about ani-Zionism Ray

In the modern era, anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State

.

That defines me.
And defines the Zionist Union too, doesn't it?

How does that define you and how does that define the Zionist Union?

Anyone know how many seats the Likud picked up? I think there's like 120 seats in the Knesset, and it's done by party lists entirely, instead of by districts and first past the post. We actually talked about this in one of my international relations classes. And Israeli governments are usually coalitions. They're in the Guiness Book of Records for the longest time taken to form a coalition government after a general election, if I'm not mistaken.

Sorry, I know we were busy talking about Zionism and such, but I was curious.

JimHackerMP wrote:Anyone know how many seats the Likud picked up? I think there's like 120 seats in the Knesset, and it's done by party lists entirely, instead of by districts and first past the post. We actually talked about this in one of my international relations classes. And Israeli governments are usually coalitions. They're in the Guiness Book of Records for the longest time taken to form a coalition government after a general election, if I'm not mistaken.

Sorry, I know we were busy talking about Zionism and such, but I was curious.

Google doesn't work where you live?

Exactly 120 seats ... Israeli government are always coalitions (so far) ... Netanyahu's party received 30 seats by some reports ... the 2nd largest showing was the left of center Zionist Union which received 24. ... you need 61 for a majority and to become PM ... the expectation is that Netanyahu will get to 63 with right wing parties, religious parties, and centrist parties.

rayjay

How does that define you and how does that define the Zionist Union?

If you accept the definition in wiki[pedia quoted as the modern defintion of of anti-zionist, which you call me, then yes I'm anti-zionist .
But then so is the Zionist Union. (nee labor party) .
because they also favor a two state solution...

That's not mangled logic. However it appears that you accept that the Zionist union is a Zionist party because of its name rather than its stated policies.

Depends on what Kulanu do...
With them its majority coalition. Without a minority coalition...
And its theoretically possible that Kulanu and Yesh Atid could join Zionist Union and Maretz and the Arab Parties. (It would take the Arabs changing their pledge to never be part of government but it might happen with Nethanyahu's position on a Palestinian state so clear now.)

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/18/8244003/is ... on-results

rickyp wrote:Depends on what Kulanu do...
With them its majority coalition. Without a minority coalition...
And its theoretically possible that Kulanu and Yesh Atid could join Zionist Union and Maretz and the Arab Parties. (It would take the Arabs changing their pledge to never be part of government but it might happen with Nethanyahu's position on a Palestinian state so clear now.)

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/18/8244003/is ... on-results

I would like that result, but unfortunately it is wishful thinking. (To your parenthetical phrase: I think it is very important that the Arab party has pledged to never be part of the government -- what does that tell you?)

We need to take a step back and see this election for what it is. One party said they wanted a 2 state solution; the other party said not on my watch. Netanyahu made this pledge right before election day. I would say it is even stronger than GHWB's pledge to not raise taxes. Likud won. Elections have consequences. The Israeli people have voted that they prefer the current situation than trusting the Palestinians. They chose a PM who will not be cajoled by anyone, including the President of the United States, to let down his guard as it relates to the Palestinians or Iran. We all need to pause and acknowledge that.

Ricky earlier in these pages called Netanyahu a crack pot. That would mean that Ricky thinks that 25% of the Israeli electorate voted for a crackpot and another 22% voted for parties that are even more extreme.

If you believe in Democracy and I do, then you have to respect these results. I also note that the Israeli electorate is very well educated and has access to a free press. It's probably not perfect but it is in line with that of other western democracies.

So, what does it mean? The Israelis have determined that the risks of making concessions to the Palestinians are not worth the rewards. I think that is because they mistrust that there are actual rewards to be had. They have said that US, European, and world condemnation are less important than their own perception of their security.

That's a big statement on election day.