Comments on: One rightist group’s creeping state influence, on both sides of Green Line

By: Judith

Judith — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:05:43 +0000

Did I miss something in your article? I thought that the Bedowin in Israel were Israeli citizens and consequently subject to the laws of Israel, not Palestinians. I also know for a fact that those Bedowin in established and legal cities i.e. Hora and Rahat receive education, health care, etc. from the Israeli government as do all Israeli citizens. I do not understand the purpose of your article

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:50:12 +0000

Piotr, the purpose of this article is to focus on Regavim and the complaint/point is that ‘Regavim urges the state rather than the public to manifest its neo-Zionist vision in practice’. Other than the difference in goals I fail to see how this is tactically different from how the left-wing organizations attempt to impose their agenda on the state and the public, but most certainly the tactics employed are the primary issues that the authors have an issue with.

By: Golan

Golan — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:52:48 +0000

So much bulshit and hate. Zionism has never wanted to “expell” the arabs from Israel. It’s the arab who keep fighting the Israelis, altough the Israelis gave up on so many Things: Sinai, Gaza strip, Maybe East Jerusalem, Area A+B.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 02:00:45 +0000

K9, the legal history of the US and apartheid South Africa show clearly that the law may be used for repressive ends. If you stress a social economy sufficiently, you can also lose deliniated rights. But rights tend to act as a rachet; once articulated, the resist complete erasure.

You will not see many on the Israeli left pushing for a constitutional convention as mandated by your Declaration of Independence. Partly it is seen as a waste of time–it ain’t ganna happen. But there is another reason: fear or uneasiness over what it might produce. Although I am insulated from any outcome, I may have more faith in what such a convention would produce than most Israeli leftists. But it does entail risk, for the outcome is beyond the control of all. In my view, only by taking such risks can you begin a new path. So the law need not just be a tactic–fighting under it can be assumed risk.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:18:29 +0000

Strawman, dear Kolumn9. There is no complaint here about the tools that Regavim use, lawsuits and lobbying. There is criticism here concerning their objectives — making that lives of all Arabs under the control of Israel, citizens, legal residents and the occupied ones, as miserable as the state can achieve it. And criticism of their objective, which is to remake Israel into a perfect racist and non-democratic state.

While Im Tirtzu seems preoccupied with “enemy within” like this magazine or insufficiently patriotic profesors, Ragavim tries to improve mechanisms of discrimination. As it is, courts are very sympathetic to the “special needs” of the Jewish citizens and to the special needs of security forces, but not to the extend that would make Ragavim truly happy.

Similarly, the government does occasional token gestures to the benefit of Arab citizens (much less so to benefit of the residents of Jerusalem), and the discriminatory regime is far from the perfection that Regavim want. However, the ministers would not be as supportive as they are if Ragavim were not very close ideologically.

On the happier news, Israeli teens are number 3 in the world in a happiness indicator. Does it mean that the recent attacks were an expression of exuberance rather than frustration?

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:33:32 +0000

So, lawfare is only good for exploiting legal loopholes in the pursuit of a Palestinian struggle against the Jewish state? Goose, meet gander.

Legal activism isn’t based on liberal ideology. It is the exploitation of a legal system in pursuit of political objectives. It is just a tactic. The presumption that legal activism can only be carried out in pursuit of a liberal ideology is hopelessly naive.

By: shaun

shaun — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:56:48 +0000

No clue.
I would suggest you ask a good old fashion Christian about redemption and salvation of souls. I figure its one of those new age Jew things that has been borrowed from Christian theology. Kind of like the “heal the world” Brotherly love, turn the other cheek stuff that has suddenly become the core of Liberal Judaism. (funny cause that is the core of Liberal Christian doctrine too)
With regards to redeeming the land… I thought that those religious folk would agree that an omnipresent God wouldn’t care much where you pray?

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:30:28 +0000

Can someone translate for me what does it mean “redemption” and “salvation”? One meaning that I know is that one can redeem a beverage container and get the deposit, while used furniture can be purchased cheaply from salvage. The second meaning has concerns saving souls from damnation and redeeming sins which can move toward that goal.

Shaun, perhaps you can explain what this redemption and salvation means?

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:20:19 +0000

The issue, Shaun, is not whether Israel is a democracy via the defintion of an elected soverign Knesset, but rather whether it can be a constitutional democracy (or democratic republic) uphold individual rights over the Knesset; that is, under a constitutional democracy, the Knesset is NOT soverign. Israel has yet to decide this, although it is leaning against a limited Knesset. Only the High Court can change this; or, miracle in a land of miracles told, a constitutional convention actually created a written constitution, with rights clauses conforming to those of the Declaration of Independence.

By: shaun

shaun — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:21:54 +0000

Democracy can be a bitch when you don’t get what you want.
Regavim could have written then same article about the evil work of the NIF and how it is undermining the government and the democratic process.