Israel

[GMantis]

You know of another reason for the sympathy of the Palestinians, other than the massive civilian casualties, especially in comparison with Israel, they have suffered in this and other wars?

They've suffered more civilian casualties because the terrorists deliberately insert themselves in densely populated areas.  Israel has done so much to minimize civilian casualties among the Palestinians; but you don't care, you'll just continue blaming Israel no matter what they do.

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

[GMantis]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

Any evidence to back up these claims?

[Хahar 🤔]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

Any evidence to back up these claims?

Avigdor Lieberman said so.

[dead0man]

Life improving in the West Bank.link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we at least all agree that this is a good thing?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Why not make the good thing better and kick the settlers out?

[CarolinaHusky]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Actually, there are a lot.

[danny]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

bono, stark

[they don't love you like i love you]

DWTL was the first who came to mind for me.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

DWTL was the first who came to mind for me.

Same.  I don't consider Stark a conservative, though.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

http://www.france24.com/en/20091102-religious-zionist-ranks-army-israel-critics

[Scam of God]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

I'm an anti-Zionist libertarian, though not of the right-libertarian stripe.

[Јas]

Two-state solution, R.I.P. - Foreign Policy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

[Thomas216]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

[Хahar 🤔]

Parliamentary supremacy is an astoundingly bad idea.

[Јas]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

The quote from the article above states that a two-thirds supermajority would be required to overrule the law - is it incorrect?

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

The quote from the article above states that a two-thirds supermajority would be required to overrule the law - is it incorrect?

As long as the law is in place you would need a supermajority to give away territory without a referendum. However, nothing prevents a normal plurality from getting rid of the law itself.

[GMantis]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

The author probably thinks that the people would be less malleable to foreign pressure than the government, which is surprising considering that this is the Israeli government he's talking about.
And no doubt the law could be easily removed, but can there be an Israeli government which could survive such an action?

[Thomas216]

The current government could and pretty much any Likud government could because of the Left (left's? lefts?) automatic support for such a move. We can't tell what the situation will be like years from now when the need for it will arise but most chances are that there will be no referendum if the government reach an agreement. You should also remember how forgiving the Israeli electorate is, just look at Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Rabin and many others. It's safe to say the government will not suffer much by avoiding a referendum.

[danny]

A poll taken on sunday, second number is the change from the 2009 election:

Likud: 32  +5
Kadima: -2
Yisrael Beiteinu (Lieberman): 18 +3
Arab parties: 10 -1
Shas: 9 -2
Avoda: 8 -5
UTJ: 5 0
Ichud Leumi: 4 0
Jewish home: 3 0
Centrist party headed by Yair Lapid: 3 new
Meretz: 2 -1

right: 71 +6
left-centre-Arabs: 49 -6

current governing coalition: 75 +1

link: http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/2687/1764270/892325/5/@@/media

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't understand why Labor continues to attempt to be a right-wing party. It's not working.

[danny]

I don't understand why Labor continues to attempt to be a right-wing party. It's not working.

They're not trying to be a right wing party they're in the coalition because Barak cares more about being defence minister than how many votes his party get next election, and the union wants to influence the government on stuff it cares about (and doesn't care about the peace process and the Palestinians).