[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...549062395.html

Abbas resigns as Palestinian PM





Ramallah, West Bank: Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, increasingly unpopular and worn out by a power struggle with Yasser Arafat, resigned today, dealing a serious blow to a US-backed peace plan.

Arafat accepted the resignation, and now has two weeks to name a new prime minister, said a senior Palestinian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the meantime, Abbas' cabinet will remain in place as a caretaker government.

Abbas' departure means even greater uncertainty for the "road map" peace plan, already in serious trouble because of spiralling violence in recent weeks and the collapse of a unilateral truce by militants.

With Abbas gone, Israel and the United States don't have a negotiating partner, at least temporarily. The two nations shun Arafat, saying he is an obstacle to peace-making.

Abbas' departure was expected to further hurt Arafat's international standing, if he is seen as having engineered the prime minister's departure.

Abbas' resignation could also lower the threshold for possible Israeli action against Arafat; Israel's defence minister has raised the possibility of sending Arafat into exile.

Israeli Cabinet Minister Danny Naveh today called for Arafat's ouster, Israel Army Radio said. Other government officials withheld comment today, and Israel's position on the matter remained unclear.

Abbas had his resignation letter delivered to Arafat by two senior officials today before addressing the legislature in a closed-door session to explain his decision.

Palestinian officials said they feared the resignation would lead the region into further chaos.

"We are entering a new crisis and the price of this crisis will be the shedding of a lot of blood," said Kadoura Fares, a legislator from the ruling Fatah movement.

Abbas has been frustrated by the constant wrangling with Arafat, his aides said. He was also hurt by the near-collapse of the road map and his inability to improve the daily lives of Palestinians.

The prime minister, on the job just four months, met with legislators in a closed-door session today, entering the building through a back door.

On Thursday, when he addressed legislators, he was heckled and shoved by an angry crowd of Arafat supporters, including several armed and masked men.

Even if he hadn't resigned, Abbas might have been forced out. He faced a vote of confidence in parliament in the coming days, and there was growing dissatisfaction in parliament with his performance and his difficulties with Arafat.

Abbas' resignation could also end up being a blow to Arafat, even if at first it appeared the veteran leader had outmaneuvered his politically inexperienced prime minister.

Israel's defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, said earlier this week that Israel might have to expel Arafat before the end of the year, if Arafat keeps getting into the way of peace efforts. Israeli analysts have said Abbas' departure was one scenario in which Israel might decide to act.

Until now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has held back on expulsion, both because of US opposition and because of warnings from his security advisers that sending Arafat abroad would do more harm than keeping him relatively isolated at his West Bank headquarters.

Abbas and Arafat have been wrangling ever since Arafat appointed the prime minister under intense international pressure in April. The latest standoff was over control of the security forces. Abbas, backed by the United States, demands command over all men under arms, but Arafat refuses to relinquish control over four of the eight security branches.

The prime minister has said he will not clamp down on militants, as required by the US-backed "road map" peace plan. However, being in control of all the security forces would have given him greater authority in renewed negotiations with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and renegades from his own Fatah movement.

Earlier this week, Abbas told parliament it must either back him or strip him of his post, saying he is not clinging to the job and would just as soon step down.

[macvillage.net]

Good for him. Take his family to Italy, or somewhere else, and life.

He just became the scapegoat. Israel never wanted to deal with him. Arafat never considered him in charge.

Good for him. He made the right choice.

Now enemies have to face each other head on.

Better than putting him in the middle. A middleman never makes anything smoother. Just adds another step.

[theolein]

I felt really sorry for the poor bastard. I can't imagine many places where it can be more painful to be trying to make peace. Anyway, good for him. He got out of the firing line.

And now the Israelis and the Palestinians can carry on massacring one another.

What fun.

I think this whole episode should be a lesson to the rest of humanity on just how wonderful religious and ethnic conflicts can be. Those conflicts have the capability to span generations and continents.

Perhaps they all need a good dose of secular atheism?

[lil'babykitten]

Apparently one of the options Arafat seems to be considering is to re-instate Abbas, ask him to form a new cabinet and then become PM again! This might be Arafat's way of squeezing out Mohammed Dahlan. ( The Palestinian Security Chief)

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by theolein:

Perhaps they all need a good dose of secular atheism?

Or at least adhere to the tenants of their own respective religions.

It's too bad Abbas called it quits. He seemed to have a genuine interest in peace, something Arafat doesn't. I don't blame the guy for calling it quits. Being in a constant power struggle with Arafat is not the way to get things done. If anyone should resign, and give a real chance at peace, it should be Yasser.

Still, even though I don't fault the guy for resigning, I wish he had stayed (or comes back).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Or at least adhere to the tenants of their own respective religions.

But then bigotry and murder can't continue.





Kind of ironic, in the holyland. 2 groups, split over religion of all things. Both claim to be religious states. Yet they both act as immoral (by any religions standard).


This may die down in 40 years, when all the old Palestinian and Israeli leaders die.

Perhaps when those who lived with this stupidity, their entire lives... get into power... they will realize this is stupid.

But until then...

Bombs away.

It's like religious dodgeball.


IMHO: More reason why religious states suck. They are bigots, and cause problems.

Governments, who keep out of such matters, don't have the problem, as religion separated from western europian politics, wars came to an end... and gasp... even a union Europian Union. Protestants, and Lutherans in a Union!!!!!! Go back 200 years, and see how something like that would have went over in France or Germany.

Religious states will always be in a state of war. That's the principle behidn them. That's how they work.

Arab State, Jewish State, Christian State, whatever....

It always involves constant war.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Kind of ironic, in the holyland. 2 groups, split over religion of all things. Both claim to be religious states. Yet they both act as immoral (by any religions standard).

This war is not over religion. It's about ethnicity and land.

[christ]

Originally posted by Mithras:
This war is not over religion. It's about ethnicity and land.

and greed and xenophobia, buried under a blanket of religion.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by christ:
and greed and xenophobia, buried under a blanket of religion.

It's about bigotry.

[Zimphire]

It's about the Palestinians hating the Jews.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by theolein:
I felt really sorry for the poor bastard. I can't imagine many places where it can be more painful to be trying to make peace. Anyway, good for him. He got out of the firing line.

No doubt! It was probably only a matter of time before someone tried to take him out. Considering that he really didn't have any authority to begin with it will probably do him some good to take a nice long holiday instead of being said scapegoat.

[vmarks]

And actually, the Palestinians have never claimed in my recollection any intention to form a theocracy.

Israel isn't a theocracy.

Macvillage.net, woe to your political science teachers if they led you to believe otherwise.

[vmarks]

Unfortunately, I am not suprised to see Mr. Abbas resign.

He took the position hesitantly, insisting that Arafat give the position real power and not undermine it. At the first sign of Arafat undermining, he threatened to resign. Arafat continued, even going so far as to create a position which made Security Minister Dahlan redundant, so Abbas followed through.

Good on him for not allowing himself to become Arafat's scapegoat or puppet. Too bad that his popularity has gone down the tubes as Arafat paints Abbas as the US-and-Israeli's puppet, although it just isn't so.

[Nicko]

... back to F.U.B.A.R.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And actually, the Palestinians have never claimed in my recollection any intention to form a theocracy.

Israel isn't a theocracy.

Macvillage.net, woe to your political science teachers if they led you to believe otherwise.

Palestinians want an "Arab State".

Israel is a self proclamed "Jewish State"... it was founded on that principle.

he Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, signed on 14 May 1948 by members of the National Council representing the Jewish community in the country and the Zionist movement abroad, constitutes the nation's credo. Included therein are the historical imperatives of Israel's rebirth; the framework for a democratic Jewish state founded on liberty, justice and peace, as envisaged by the biblical prophets; and a call for peaceful relations with the neighboring Arab states for the benefit of the entire region.

When you put a specific religion as the core belief and orientation of the government. It's a religious state.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00k90

It acts, and refers to itself as one.

Looks like a duck, quacks likea duck, DNS like a duck, bone structure of a duck, tastes like duck.... it's a duck.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Palestinians want an "Arab State".

Israel is a self proclamed "Jewish State"... it was founded on that principle.

That may be so, but what they REALLY want is for all the Jews to leave. Until that happens, they wont be happy.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Palestinians want an "Arab State".

Israel is a self proclamed "Jewish State"... it was founded on that principle.


When you put a specific religion as the core belief and orientation of the government. It's a religious state.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00k90

It acts, and refers to itself as one.

Looks like a duck, quacks likea duck, DNS like a duck, bone structure of a duck, tastes like duck.... it's a duck.

"Arab" is not a religion, Robert/Macvillage.

Arabs are usually Christian or Muslim, although there's no reason why they couldn't be Ba'hai or convert to Judaism.

We've been over how Israel is not a Theocracy (religious state) and can still be a Jewish state. Israel is a democracy with equal rights for all citizens, no matter their religion or race. To the extreme displeasure of some orthodox Jews, Israel does not use Jewish Law (halakha from the Torah) as it's law. Laws are passed through the Knesset with fierce debate and votes. And there are Arabs elected to Knesset seats, so they have representation. A religious state, a theocracy, would not do so.

It is set up as a Jewish country because every other country in the world has proven in the past their inability to protect Jews from persecution. It is a safe haven. This doesn't mean other countries can't or haven't improved, but it means that there's safe refuge if and when other countries of the world fall into decline with regard to persecution.

As for how it 'walks,' it walks like a democracy following English parliament in many ways with some influence from the American justice system.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
"Arab" is not a religion, Robert/Macvillage.

Arabs are usually Christian or Muslim, although there's no reason why they couldn't be Ba'hai or convert to Judaism.

We've been over how Israel is not a Theocracy (religious state) and can still be a Jewish state. Israel is a democracy with equal rights for all citizens, no matter their religion or race. To the extreme displeasure of some orthodox Jews, Israel does not use Jewish Law (halakha from the Torah) as it's law. Laws are passed through the Knesset with fierce debate and votes. And there are Arabs elected to Knesset seats, so they have representation. A religious state, a theocracy, would not do so.

It is set up as a Jewish country because every other country in the world has proven in the past their inability to protect Jews from persecution. It is a safe haven. This doesn't mean other countries can't or haven't improved, but it means that there's safe refuge if and when other countries of the world fall into decline with regard to persecution.

As for how it 'walks,' it walks like a democracy following English parliament in many ways with some influence from the American justice system.

Equal Rights?

If a Muslem man, is a murderer. Israeli forces (as they warn well in advance, to ensure everyone knows what will happen), destroy the families home. Before investigation, or public hearing.

Does the same happen for a Jewish murderer? Does the military destroy the family home? Do Jewish people get trials?

It's a religious state. Being a democracy is only in regards to how the government runs. It has nothing to with this conversation.

A state designed to protect and ensure the rights of one religious group, and is focused around 1 religious group is a religious state.

There has never been a pure religous state in world history. Of course other people live therer... but they are the minority, and persecuted by the state.

The jews were persecuted by Europian religous states from 1000 AD - 1600 AD. Those were christian religous states (mostly protestant).

Just a Democracy was not a US invention (despite US claims). Democracy has been used in Religous states of the past. A religous state doesn't have to be a monarchy. It didn't take very long for someone to realize 1 vote out of 100 doesn't matter. As long as the ratio in a democratic government is kept at a "favorable" measurement... there is no problem with a democracy, and a religous state.

Any government designed and catered around a religion (regardless of the religion)... is a religious state.

[Logic]

: golf clap : for that post macvillage.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Equal Rights?

If a Muslem man, is a murderer. Israeli forces (as they warn well in advance, to ensure everyone knows what will happen), destroy the families home. Before investigation, or public hearing.

You completely fail to read the words "equal rights for citizens.

If a Muslim man is a murderer and a citizen, he gets a trial same as everyone else, and no property is destroyed.

If he is not a citizen, and is more than a murderer, but a terrorist, then it is clear- when you commit terrorism, you place not only yourself in jeopardy, but your family. So terrorists have to make the decision, do they value human life so little as to render their families homeless?

Does the same happen for a Jewish murderer? Does the military destroy the family home? Do Jewish people get trials?

A Jewish murderer who is a citizen gets the same trial and sentence considerations as a Muslim murderer who is a citizen, as a Christian murderer who is a citizen.

Non-citizens who are not residents but attack from outside, who reside in areas where the PA is supposed to hold sway but won't, are not subject to the same rules, because their acts are acts of terror and warfare.

It's a religious state. Being a democracy is only in regards to how the government runs. It has nothing to with this conversation.

Incorrect. It has everything to do with this conversation.

A state designed to protect and ensure the rights of one religious group, and is focused around 1 religious group is a religious state.

There has never been a pure religous state in world history. Of course other people live therer... but they are the minority, and persecuted by the state.

A state designed to protect the rights of all citizens (Israel) and ensure that persecution of a religion whose practitioners have suffered in Europe well into the 20th century, in Arab countries well into the 20th century, and even in America in the 19th century, less so in the 20th is not a religious state.

As for pure religious states, what of the countries of the world who claim to practice Shar'ia, Islamic law?

Arabs cannot rise to be members of government in a government that would persecute them- you can't have it both ways. Israel makes political office an opportunity available to all, and some have pursued and achieved it, Arab, Jew, immigrant, and native-born.

The jews were persecuted by Europian religous states from 1000 AD - 1600 AD. Those were christian religous states (mostly protestant).

European. no 'i'. And you ignore Catholicism, and it went on into the 20th century. Why else would Vatican II in the 60's openly declare that the Jews are not responsible for killing Christ? To try and put an end to one of the most virulent lies that spurs on anti-semites.

Just a Democracy was not a US invention (despite US claims). Democracy has been used in Religous states of the past. A religous state doesn't have to be a monarchy. It didn't take very long for someone to realize 1 vote out of 100 doesn't matter. As long as the ratio in a democratic government is kept at a "favorable" measurement... there is no problem with a democracy, and a religous state.

Any government designed and catered around a religion (regardless of the religion)... is a religious state.

Democracy wasn't a US invention. Parliamentary democracy originated outside of the US. This is obvious. What you don't get is, if Israel were a religious state following Halakha, there would be no need for a legislative body. All the law is already written.
There would only be need for a judicial body, and even then it wouldn't need to be centralized.

But instead, Israel's government is made up of a coalition of different religions and different viewpoints on religion and all other matters, which invariably disagree wildly. If they disagree too much, the government falls apart and we get new elections. There are the religious and the vehemently non-religious. Somehow through debate and votes, it all shakes out as a balance.

Which pretty much makes Israel's legislative process and results much like other countries in the world who practice parliamentary government with more than two major parties. The difference being, Israel has a duty to protect Jews because the rest of the world has failed miserably and proven that it can fail again, and because Israel has been fighting for her right to exist among the nations of the world, despite her neighbors best attempts to eliminate her.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
: golf clap : for that post macvillage.

Watch it, I fully expect theloin to come and berate you for doing that.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[B]You completely fail to read the words "equal rights for citizens.

If a Muslim man is a murderer and a citizen, he gets a trial same as everyone else, and no property is destroyed.

If he is not a citizen, and is more than a murderer, but a terrorist, then it is clear- when you commit terrorism, you place not only yourself in jeopardy, but your family. So terrorists have to make the decision, do they value human life so little as to render their families homeless?



A Jewish murderer who is a citizen gets the same trial and sentence considerations as a Muslim murderer who is a citizen, as a Christian murderer who is a citizen.

Non-citizens who are not residents but attack from outside, who reside in areas where the PA is supposed to hold sway but won't, are not subject to the same rules, because their acts are acts of terror and warfare.



Incorrect. It has everything to do with this conversation.



A state designed to protect the rights of all citizens (Israel) and ensure that persecution of a religion whose practitioners have suffered in Europe well into the 20th century, in Arab countries well into the 20th century, and even in America in the 19th century, less so in the 20th is not a religious state.

As for pure religious states, what of the countries of the world who claim to practice Shar'ia, Islamic law?

Arabs cannot rise to be members of government in a government that would persecute them- you can't have it both ways. Israel makes political office an opportunity available to all, and some have pursued and achieved it, Arab, Jew, immigrant, and native-born.



European. no 'i'. And you ignore Catholicism, and it went on into the 20th century. Why else would Vatican II in the 60's openly declare that the Jews are not responsible for killing Christ? To try and put an end to one of the most virulent lies that spurs on anti-semites.



Democracy wasn't a US invention. Parliamentary democracy originated outside of the US. This is obvious. What you don't get is, if Israel were a religious state following Halakha, there would be no need for a legislative body. All the law is already written.
There would only be need for a judicial body, and even then it wouldn't need to be centralized.

But instead, Israel's government is made up of a coalition of different religions and different viewpoints on religion and all other matters, which invariably disagree wildly. If they disagree too much, the government falls apart and we get new elections. There are the religious and the vehemently non-religious. Somehow through debate and votes, it all shakes out as a balance.

Which pretty much makes Israel's legislative process and results much like other countries in the world who practice parliamentary government with more than two major parties. The difference being, Israel has a duty to protect Jews because the rest of the world has failed miserably and proven that it can fail again, and because Israel has been fighting for her right to exist among the nations of the world, despite her neighbors best attempts to eliminate her.

Good post.

Last night I took the time to read a section of the holocaust again, specifically pertaining to the Ottoman empire and the Balkans. There was an immensley interesting series of lectures that went over the Balkan history, right up until the modern.

What I have to disagree with is your claim that Jews were persecuted equally by Moslem states as by Christian states. By all accounts, Jews fared far better in Moslem countries than they did in Christian countries. Especially under Ottoman rule (which was almost all of the middle east at the time and over 700 years in length) they were, as were the subject Christian populations, able to freely practice their religion and even attain positions of wealth and power.

Persecution of Jews was for most of recorded history, a particularly Christian thing (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox). The Moslem hatred of Israel is (or was, since it seems to have become simply anti-Jewish over the years) more related to Zionism and the land that Israel sits on. I agree fully that most Arab governments never really cared about the Palestinians and mostly used their cause as an aid in their attempts to conquer Israel, but it truly does seem as if the sentiment of the common Moslem man/woman these days has changed as they see Israelis as persecuting the Palestinians (and the raids in Jenin etc were aynthing but nice and friendly). You must know that even a large segment of the Israeli population is against the idea of assasinations.

To be fair, when I was reading up on the holocaust last night it brought my childhood back to me. My father was a Swiss jew and had a lot of very graphically explicit literature on the decimation of Jews in Europe and as a child I remember being very wary of Germans, even though, ironically, my best friend was a German of Yugoslavian Croat fascist descent and a good friend of mine when I got older had a German grandfather who was in the SS. This goes to show that children don't have to be put in the same boat or persecuted for the crimes of their ancestors.

It also reminded me of Jewish friends I had, they had much more of an upbringing with holocaust literature and memories than I did. The holocaust was and is unfathomable in it's organised hatred and cruelty, but is certainly also the best documented of many genocidal episodes in human history. The fact of living with the holocaust up close in literature and living in a state which has been practically under siege from its brith (a typo that became a bad pun) must and does have a huge effect on its population and people of the same group.

I would have been sent to a death camp under the Nazis, having a Jewish father and being crippled, but have had exposure to much less holocaust literature and Jewish people since I left South Africa. I have, however, also had a number of Muslim friends (and met a fair amount of Muslims that I couldn't stand) and particularly one guy who was in the PLO. His story was also one of persecution, sorrow and flight and did change my worldview somewhat.

Sadly, I think that Israel and the Palestinians have all but lost the ability to communicate with one another, and that the peace process has become a road bump in a civil war that will continue unabated until both sides have simply lost so many lives and are so exhausted that they finally come to an agreement or until one anihilates the other.

I think it's damn sad.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by theolein:
Sadly, I think that Israel and the Palestinians have all but lost the ability to communicate with one another,

No, the ability is still there. It always has been. The Palestinian terrorists usually throw a monkey wrench in before peace is made.

and that the peace process has become a road bump in a civil war that will continue unabated until both sides have simply lost so many lives and are so exhausted that they finally come to an agreement or until one anihilates the other.

I think it's damn sad.

I think it's sad that Israel offered the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted, and it was all for not because of the homicide bombers not wanting peace.

Some Palestinians will never be happy until every single Jew is off this planet.

And that my friend, is damn sad.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, the ability is still there. It always has been. The Palestinian terrorists usually throw a monkey wrench in before peace is made.


I think it's sad that Israel offered the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted, and it was all for not because of the homicide bombers not wanting peace.

Some Palestinians will never be happy until every single Jew is off this planet.

And that my friend, is damn sad. [/B]

We know Israel could have never offered what was promised. Even Israel knew that. Perhaps those involved in negotiations wanted it. But they would have never recieved the necessary approval for it to have went through.

Saying that it was "offered", is a bit short of the truth. It was "discussed". Since it wasn't something that could be offered.

Even if it was capable of happening, and the appropriate people approved of the treaty... it still wouldn't have been a solution. The agreement did not allow for any form of *viable* defense, against their own (inside), or outsiders. Any 1 person with a weapon could have ruled.

Perhaps that's a conspiracy on Israel's behalf to ensure it would fail (if approved). Or perhaps that was a mere oversight, and lack of thorough planning of the proposed treaty. Or perhaps it was just wipped together to look like something was moving forward.

But to say it was "offered", is a false statement. Israel could never have had enough backing to "offer" what the treaty claimed. Even if it did get that backing in the government... it would have caused a civil war. Something no government wants.

theolein, history only records the bad.

Originally posted by vmarks:
If a Muslim man is a murderer and a citizen, he gets a trial same as everyone else, and no property is destroyed.

If he is not a citizen, and is more than a murderer, but a terrorist, then it is clear- when you commit terrorism, you place not only yourself in jeopardy, but your family. So terrorists have to make the decision, do they value human life so little as to render their families homeless?

Now Israel has very different rules for citizens, and non-citizens (which goes against many UN Policies for treatment of foreigners, but that's a whole other issue).


Now America, gives this guy:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

A life sentence (within the laws, as a life sentence is applicable for such a crime), for giving (and selling later on) military secrets, to Israel... and that creates outrage. He gave top military secrets to a foreign entity. Note he was granted Israeli Citizenship.

He is the only one punished (not his family, friends, neighbors, uncles, aunts, ex-girlfriends).

So America can't prosecute someone within the bounds of our laws, for commiting a crime, to a degree not before seen (he gave more classified info, than any other single individual).

Yet Israel, reserves the right, to punish families, for the crimes of an outsider.

Double standard.

[b]A Jewish murderer who is a citizen gets the same trial and sentence considerations as a Muslim murderer who is a citizen, as a Christian murderer who is a citizen.

Non-citizens who are not residents but attack from outside, who reside in areas where the PA is supposed to hold sway but won't, are not subject to the same rules, because their acts are acts of terror and warfare.

[b]

And if it's a Jewish outsider (perhaps an American Citizen)... don't say it's never happened, since with the tourism in Israel, it's statistically impossible that a non-israeli jew commited a murder.

It's called "bigotry" in English.

[b]Incorrect. It has everything to do with this conversation.

A state designed to protect the rights of all citizens (Israel) and ensure that persecution of a religion whose practitioners have suffered in Europe well into the 20th century, in Arab countries well into the 20th century, and even in America in the 19th century, less so in the 20th is not a religious state.

As for pure religious states, what of the countries of the world who claim to practice Shar'ia, Islamic law?

Arabs cannot rise to be members of government in a government that would persecute them- you can't have it both ways. Israel makes political office an opportunity available to all, and some have pursued and achieved it, Arab, Jew, immigrant, and native-born. [b]

And how many "high ranking" are non-Jewish?

Not many societies (other than America) have ever limited a group from obtaining power through law. It's not necessary.

As long as there is a voting majority, who will keep the voting minority at bay. There is no need.

And how many non-Jewish PM's has Israel had? Think one could possibly achieve such a status? I highly doubt it. Not even close.

European. no 'i'. And you ignore Catholicism, and it went on into the 20th century. Why else would Vatican II in the 60's openly declare that the Jews are not responsible for killing Christ? To try and put an end to one of the most virulent lies that spurs on anti-semites.

It was *reiterated* during Vatican II. As it was stated originally by the Vatican around the time of the Crusades. Though not many ears recieved the sound, and comprehended it.

There is a difference.

Democracy wasn't a US invention. Parliamentary democracy originated outside of the US. This is obvious. What you don't get is, if Israel were a religious state following Halakha, there would be no need for a legislative body. All the law is already written.
There would only be need for a judicial body, and even then it wouldn't need to be centralized.

But instead, Israel's government is made up of a coalition of different religions and different viewpoints on religion and all other matters, which invariably disagree wildly. If they disagree too much, the government falls apart and we get new elections. There are the religious and the vehemently non-religious. Somehow through debate and votes, it all shakes out as a balance.

Which pretty much makes Israel's legislative process and results much like other countries in the world who practice parliamentary government with more than two major parties. The difference being, Israel has a duty to protect Jews because the rest of the world has failed miserably and proven that it can fail again, and because Israel has been fighting for her right to exist among the nations of the world, despite her neighbors best attempts to eliminate her.

Every religous state has a Judicial System, and a group to make laws.

There is no set of laws, ever created by any poltical/cultural/religious group that covers everything. It's just a fact of life.

The goal of these bodies (such as a Judicial Branch) is to interpret the rules, and apply them to cases tha don't always fit perfectly ("I didn't kill him, I made him bleed"). And to create new laws that mimic the policies, ethics of the laws before.

Halakha covered Hacking and, creating viruses right? Clear enough for a court of law.... oh wait. No court is needed. No wait, how do we know... damn.

Not possible If there was really a set of rules that covered it all, everyone would adopt them. They just don't exist. It's not possible, as society, technology, and idiology change to much.

*If* Israel really had such diversity in it's government. This whole situation would have been resolved long ago.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Now Israel has very different rules for citizens, and non-citizens (which goes against many UN Policies for treatment of foreigners, but that's a whole other issue).

Actually, no.

Different policies for agressors who are non-citizens who attack from outside are one thing. Non-citizens who attack as residents from within are another.

Nevermind that Israel has long been in the practice of trying the folks that are within Israel proper and putting them in prison, and for those who are waging war in the areas where the PA is supposed to be keeping order and failing to do so, at least terrorists know that it will leave their families homeless if they decide to support killing Israelis.

Now America, gives this guy:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

A life sentence (within the laws, as a life sentence is applicable for such a crime), for giving (and selling later on) military secrets, to Israel... and that creates outrage. He gave top military secrets to a foreign entity. Note he was granted Israeli Citizenship.

He is the only one punished (not his family, friends, neighbors, uncles, aunts, ex-girlfriends).

So America can't prosecute someone within the bounds of our laws, for commiting a crime, to a degree not before seen (he gave more classified info, than any other single individual).

Yet Israel, reserves the right, to punish families, for the crimes of an outsider.

Double standard.

No double standard there, just your poor comparison.

Different crimes. Different sentences, and not an act of war. Pollard was also a US citizen mind you, and tried as such.

Really, there's nothing here to refute because you failed to make a coherent point. Pollard sold secrets, was tried as an American, sentenced.

And if it's a Jewish outsider (perhaps an American Citizen)... don't say it's never happened, since with the tourism in Israel, it's statistically impossible that a non-israeli jew commited a murder.

You're lacking a complete sentence there. Without it, it's hard to refute you because again, you've failed to frame an argument.

All I can infer from what you've said is that you fail to understand any difference between one individual murdering another and strapping a bomb on with the intent to kill as many as possible, indiscriminate of age. The latter is terrorism. The former is simple murder. The latter is an act of guerilla warfare.

It's called "bigotry" in English.

Sometimes, you see things that aren't there.

And how many "high ranking" are non-Jewish?

Try the Balad party, Meretz party and Avodah party. Azmi Bishara. Husnia Jebara (a woman and an Arab!) Abdulmalik Dehamshe. Ahmad Tibi. Talab Al Sanee'. Dr. Jamal Zalhalqa. Wassil Taha. Abdul-Wahab Darawshe. An others I cannot recall, who total in the very least 13 or 14 members.

Now, those members are not lackeys who go along willingly with whatever the rest of the government says. No.

After Israel's retaliatory attack against a Syrian radar station in Lebanon in April 2001 in which three Syrian soldiers were killed, Knesset member Abdulmalik Dehamshe sent a condolence letter to President Bashar al-Assad and listed his return address as "Nazareth, Palestine." Another Knesset member, Azmi Bashara, flew to Damascus and appeared on Syrian television, urging Arab steadfastness against Israel.

Arab Knesset Member Abdel Malik Dahamshe... In July 1998, he 'courageously' remarked, "Any Arab that serves the Israeli army is a disgusting criminal. We reject all forms of national service on behalf of Israel, because we are part of the 'Palestinian' people."

_(Nevermind that the Druze Arabs willingly volunteer in the IDF Army, and the Bedouin, who are loyal to Israel.)

_ Arab Knesset Member Azmi Bishara ... Bashara is a neonazi who praises suicide bombers, supports the Hizbollah, calls for Israel's destruction, and supports the enemies of Israel in a time of war. After the killing of three Israeli soldiers, he called Hizbullah (Lebanon-based terror group that attacks civilians in Israel's northern cities) "a brave organization that has taught Israel a lesson." On June 8, 2000, at a "victory convention" in the Israeli-Arab town of Um el Fahm, he announced to a crowd of Arab listeners that "The Hizbullah has won, and for the first time since 1967 we have tasted the sweet taste of victory. The Hizbullah should be proud of their achievement and of humiliating Israel."

Ahmed Tibi is an Arafat Collaborator who proudly calls himself a "Palestinian Patriot!"__The Israeli-Arab Knesset member has for decades been Arafat's official pimp. And what does this Israeli-Arab advisor to Arafat say about Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz? "He's is a "fascist" who is responsible for murder." [2001]_ Tibi, 41, a physician, served as Arafat's advisor for more than six years and played an important role as an intermediary between Israel and the Palestinians after the signing of the Oslo peace accords in 1993. An obvious question to ask is was this Israeli Knesset member looking out for Israel's best interests?

Tell me, Robert/Macvillage, what other society but a free and democratic one would permit such people to be elected? Certainly not one engaged in persecuting Arabs. Additionally, those members are the worst, in the Balad party. The ones in Meretz and Avodah are much better, although Avodah party is pretty much socialist.

Not many societies (other than America) have ever limited a group from obtaining power through law. It's not necessary.

As long as there is a voting majority, who will keep the voting minority at bay. There is no need.

And how many non-Jewish PM's has Israel had? Think one could possibly achieve such a status? I highly doubt it. Not even close.

Absolutely one could, but it would require the votes. America hasn't had an Arab President, woman president, Jewish president, or black president. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, unless of course you're suggesting that the whole voting public is highly bigoted. I don't believe that.

And remember, we do have a woman Arab Knesset member, in Meretz party.

The goal of these bodies (such as a Judicial Branch) is to interpret the rules, and apply them to cases tha don't always fit perfectly ("I didn't kill him, I made him bleed"). And to create new laws that mimic the policies, ethics of the laws before.

Halakha covered Hacking and, creating viruses right? Clear enough for a court of law.... oh wait. No court is needed. No wait, how do we know... damn.

Once again, your reading comprehension fails you.

I said that no legislative body would be needed if Israel were using Halakha, but only a Judicial one.

Halakha absolutely covers hacking. Malicious hacking is nothing more than vandalism, intrusion, and trespassing, with occasional theft, and occasional fraud, depending on the hack. All of these are well addressed by Halakha.

Not possible If there was really a set of rules that covered it all, everyone would adopt them. They just don't exist. It's not possible, as society, technology, and idiology change to much.

Ideology has only one 'i' in it.

The best laws are ones that can be easily and accurately applied without needing specifics for rapidly changing technologies. For example, we have rules regarding eavesdropping and using it in court. Then the American legal system added rules on using telephone taps. Now they need to write a new law for email and instant message taps. Had they written a good law to begin with, it would be much simpler.

But the difference is, they aren't trying to apply an overall principle that can be applied to all situations, they're writing specifics that ignore principle. A principled government is a much better approach.

*If* Israel really had such diversity in it's government. This whole situation would have been resolved long ago.

Incorrect. Israel has such diversity in it's government. The situation won't be resolved soon because (a) The Arab League countries are using Palestinians as pawns, (b) Arafat enjoys the spotlight too much, and (c) folks are hoodwinked into believing that they're actually helping their cause by blowing themselves up, leaving their families behind to become homeless and destitute, because Arafat pockets most of the martyr money and the IDF follows through on it's warnings.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...
Tell me, Robert/Macvillage,...

What is it with you that you pull people's nicks apart when they oppose your point of view? (user_calling_himself_logic ring a bell?) I mean, can't you find other ways of expressing your frustration, such as direct, or at least more intelligent insults?

BTW, relating to experience in Israel: I worked in Elat in 1988 on a building site when I got sick and spent all my money on a doctor and had to get money to get back. It was an eye opening experience, seeing Israel from the same view point as Falashas, Arabs and other out of luck drifters and tourists.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is it with you that you pull people's nicks apart when they oppose your point of view? (user_calling_himself_logic ring a bell?) I mean, can't you find other ways of expressing your frustration, such as direct, or at least more intelligent insults?

BTW, relating to experience in Israel: I worked in Elat in 1988 on a building site when I got sick and spent all my money on a doctor and had to get money to get back. It was an eye opening experience, seeing Israel from the same view point as Falashas, Arabs and other out of luck drifters and tourists.

No frustration here. His name is Robert.
We all know it. No big deal. Course, it would be nice if he had his history and spelling down, but I don't really pick on that, I just state the facts that are in opposition to his assertions.

Migrant workers get a hard lot in life regardless of background. Being down on your luck without money can happen anywhere in the world.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is it with you that you pull people's nicks apart when they oppose your point of view? (user_calling_himself_logic ring a bell?)

What is with you pointing out petty things to complain about?

I mean, can't you find other ways of expressing your frustration, such as direct, or at least more intelligent insults?

theolein, I am going to say this nicely. You are not one to talk when it comes to "intelligent insults" Your idea of a insult is taking someone's nick and changing it some juvenile way. So you better get back to insult school before you try to teach those not even trying.

BTW, relating to experience in Israel: I worked in Elat in 1988 on a building site when I got sick and spent all my money on a doctor and had to get money to get back. It was an eye opening experience, seeing Israel from the same view point as Falashas, Arabs and other out of luck drifters and tourists.

Good thing you weren't on any Israeli busses.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No frustration here. His name is Robert.
We all know it. No big deal. Course, it would be nice if he had his history and spelling down, but I don't really pick on that, I just state the facts that are in opposition to his assertions.

Migrant workers get a hard lot in life regardless of background. Being down on your luck without money can happen anywhere in the world.

Well, if you say so (the user_called_robert obsession thing). Just thought you were on a binge there.

As for migrant labour, I've done similar jobs in Germany, Turkey, Spain and Holland and all of them weren't as bad as the one in Israel. For the record, I didn't like Israel as a country. I found the people to be less than friendly and generally more interested in my money than anything else. That said, I didn't understand a word of Hebrew and wasn't there long enough to pick up any (and I'm usually quite good with languages). Since then I've taught myself to read at least a little Hebrew and would like to go there some day for a longer period of time.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by theolein:
Well, if you say so (the user_called_robert obsession thing). Just thought you were on a binge there.

Only ever addressed logic as such. But if you want to see agression where there is none, that's up to you.

As for migrant labour, I've done similar jobs in Germany, Turkey, Spain and Holland and all of them weren't as bad as the one in Israel. For the record, I didn't like Israel as a country. I found the people to be less than friendly and generally more interested in my money than anything else. That said, I didn't understand a word of Hebrew and wasn't there long enough to pick up any (and I'm usually quite good with languages). Since then I've taught myself to read at least a little Hebrew and would like to go there some day for a longer period of time.

You might agree that knowing the language makes a large difference, even if it's just the beginnings of the language. I actually found it easier than Spanish. My only difficulty was focusing on Hebrew and not getting confused because at the time I was living with Russian and Ukranian immigrants in a Mercaz Klita.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Only ever addressed logic as such. But if you want to see agression where there is none, that's up to you.

Oh come on vmarks, you know you were being aggressive.

[christ]

Originally posted by theolein:
...user_calling_himself_logic ring a bell?...

Sorry theo - I think that you may have missed a thread or two where people thought that somebody was operating under more than one nick (eklipse & Lerk if I remember), and vmarks took to calling folk 'user_calling_himself_user' to avoid confusion. I didn't understand that this was supposed to be derogatory.

Sorry if you already knew this, but it may explain a perceived insult if you didn't.