Comments on: Israel’s major parties support a non-democratic one-state solution

By: Zephon

Zephon — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:48:30 +0000

Prove it.

By: Laurent Weppe

Laurent Weppe — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:09:34 +0000

As a matter of fact, Hitler never won the majority of the vote: his rise to power happened because the german upper-class caved in and decided that they’d rather support the nazi bullies rather than accept a deal with the left: once this was done, Hitler could pretty much go into “anyone who contradicts me dies” mode.

By: Rauna

Rauna — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:43:24 +0000

A democratic state is free to do whatever it’s majority pleases.

This’s probably what happened in Germany in 1940s. Looks like you finally learned something from Hitler and put into practice in OPT.

By: JKNoReally

JKNoReally — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:07:08 +0000

This analysis doesn’t work because the first hypo doesn’t accurately describe what would happen if Israel left most settlements. If the Palestinians began a war of attrition against central Israel, firing rockets on Gush Dan from mountainous Samaria, the international community would not give Israel the leeway to crush the perpetrators. Whatever military resources would become available as a result of ending the occupation would be irrelevant. Every intelligent person who is informed about this conflict sees the flimniness of pieces that make these rosy assumptions about Palestinians or international opinion, or frame government decisions merely as necessary geared at finding a “solution” to be implemented in the near future. All the major parties agree that Israel can’t make take any big risks now. They’re buying time. That is all that can be said. If you want to write something interesting, break down your first hypo more and address the security issues in more detail. Enough conclusory nonsense.

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:35:03 +0000

>For the Israeli Hard Right, the one-state solution includes massive deportation of Palestinians.

Nonsense.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 03:57:10 +0000

I cannot read the piece, but have read the abstract. Yes, I can see further expulsion in an actual ground war, and Iran can be used as reason to maintain IDF border control. But, absent an actual ground war, I suspect the processes presently in play will just continue unabridged. Although I am privy to little on the Iran/Israel front, I see no evidence or reason for a proxy fight coming from the Bank. Of course, arming militants therein is always an option, and it would be one more reason to expell. But a massive expulsion absent a ground war seems unlikely, simply because Israel is owning the Bank, unlike Gaza, and so international reaction will be much more pronounced; Israel’s Gaza strategy works because it has succeeded in defining Gaza as an independent actor against it.

By: rsgengland

rsgengland — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:38:12 +0000

This seems like the age old attempt to seperate Jews and Zion.
The vast majority of Jews are Zionist,as are the vast majority of Jews in Israel.
Without Jews there would be no Zionists.
Israel is a democratic country with a Jewish majority.
Jewish minorities in the Middle East/North Africa, when they existed prior to 1948, required those Jews to be Dihmis, subject to the the whims and vagaries of the Muslim majority.
Over a million Jews fled the Arab/Muslim countries because of their low status, and the lack of certainty and security in those lands.
I find it highly unlikely that those Jews would look kindly on being forced to return to that type of existance.
The Christians in the Middle East/North Africa are in danger of disappearing for the very same reason.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:15:09 +0000

Roi chooses to ignore the obvious: For the Israeli Hard Right, the one-state solution includes massive deportation of Palestinians.

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:42:08 +0000

Sorry, but I can’t define “democracy” as I please.

Being a somewhat educated man, knowing exactly where from the word came (ancient greece; demos – people, kratos – power) and also understanding why democracy is dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” leaves me very limited space for interpretations.

By: directrob

directrob — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:12:21 +0000

You can define democracy whatever way you want.

The UN’s view is:
“… democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”