HOME | ABOUT | AUTHOR |HOLOCAUST GENOCIDES | THE GHOUSE DIARY | RELATED SITE
S | FACE BOOK | PHOTO GALLERY | VIDEO GALLERY |

WARNING : This site is not for you if you cannot see the otherness of other and sufferings of both sides of the party in the conflict. Security for Israel and Justice for the Palestinians are interdependent, one will not happen without the other. My view focuses on building cohesive societies where no one has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. I hope and pray a sense of justice to prevail. Amen. Website www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com | Also Check Israel Palestine Confederation a pragmatic solution

Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts

Saturday, October 24, 2015

We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel

This seems to be the consensus of the world, Ben Netanyahu is alienating Israel from the community of Nations. The Jewish people need to stand up against his policies. 
Mike Ghouse

We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-zionist-case-for-boycotting-israel/2015/10/23/ac4dab80-735c-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

An Israeli soldier detains a Palestinian boy during a protest in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh in August. (Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)
 
Steven Levitsky is a professor of government at Harvard University. Glen Weyl is an assistant professor of economics and law at the University of Chicago.
We are lifelong Zionists. Like other progressive Jews, our support for Israel has been founded on two convictions: first, that a state was necessary to protect our people from future disaster; and second, that any Jewish state would be democratic, embracing the values of universal human rights that many took as a lesson of the Holocaust. Undemocratic measures undertaken in pursuit of Israel’s survival, such as the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the denial of basic rights to Palestinians living there, were understood to be temporary.
But we must face reality: The occupation has become permanent. Nearly half a century after the Six-Day War, Israel is settling into the apartheid-like regime against which many of its former leaders warned. The settler population in the West Bank has grown 30-fold, from about 12,000 in 1980 to389,000 today. The West Bank is increasingly treated as part of Israel, with the green line demarcating the occupied territories erased from many maps. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin declared recently that control over the West Bank is “not a matter of political debate. It is a basic fact of modern Zionism.”
This “basic fact” poses an ethical dilemma for American Jews: Can we continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people? Yet it also poses a problem from a Zionist perspective: Israel has embarked on a path that threatens its very existence.
As happened in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa, Israel’s permanent subjugation of Palestinians will inevitably isolate it from Western democracies. Not only is European support for Israel waning, but also U.S. public opinion — once seemingly rock solid — has begun to shift as well, especially among millennials. International pariah status is hardly a recipe for Israel’s survival.
At home, the occupation is exacerbating demographic pressures that threaten to tear Israeli society apart. The growth of the settler and ultra-orthodox populations has stoked Jewish chauvinism and further alienated the growing Arab population. Divided into increasingly irreconcilable communities, Israel risks losing the minimum of mutual tolerance that is necessary for any democratic society. In such a context, violence like the recent wave of attacksin Jerusalem and the West Bank is virtually bound to become normal.
Finally, occupation threatens the security it was meant to ensure. Israel’s security situation has changed dramatically since the 1967 and 1973 wars. Peace with Egypt and Jordan, the weakening of Iraq and Syria, and Israel’s now-overwhelming military superiority — including its (undeclared) nuclear deterrent — have ended any existential threat posed by its Arab neighbors. Even a Hamas-led Palestinian state could not destroy Israel. As six former directors of Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, argued in the 2012 documentary “The Gatekeepers,” it is the occupation itself that truly threatens Israel’s long-term security: Occupation forces Israel into asymmetric warfare that erodes its international standing, limits its ability to forge regional alliances against sectarian extremists and, crucially, remains the principal motive behind Palestinian violence.
In making the occupation permanent, Israel’s leaders are undermining their state’s viability. Unfortunately, domestic movements to avert that fate have withered. Thanks to an economic boom and the temporary security provided by the West Bank barrier and the Iron Dome missile defense system, much of Israel’s secular Zionist majority feels no need to take the difficult steps required for a durable peace, such as evicting their countrymen from West Bank settlements and acknowledging the moral stain of the suffering Israel has caused to so many Palestinians.
We are at a critical juncture. Settlement growth and demographic trends will soon overwhelm Israel’s ability to change course. For years, we have supported Israeli governments — even those we strongly disagreed with — in the belief that a secure Israel would act to defend its own long-term interests. That strategy has failed. Israel’s supporters have, tragically, become its enablers. Today, there is no realistic prospect of Israel making the hard choices necessary to ensure its survival as a democratic state in the absence of outside pressure.
For supporters of Israel like us, all viable forms of pressure are painful. The only tools that could plausibly shape Israeli strategic calculations are a withdrawal of U.S. aid and diplomatic support, and boycotts of and divestitures from the Israeli economy. Boycotting only goods produced in settlements would not have sufficient impact to induce Israelis to rethink the status quo.
It is thus, reluctantly but resolutely, that we are refusing to travel to Israel, boycotting products produced there and calling on our universities to divest and our elected representatives to withdraw aid to Israel. Until Israel seriously engages with a peace process that either establishes a sovereign Palestinian state or grants full democratic citizenship to Palestinians living in a single state, we cannot continue to subsidize governments whose actions threaten Israel’s long-term survival.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

How Netanyahu could win even if he loses the Israeli election - Washington post


Instead, Israel uses a party list system of proportional representation. This means that voters go to the polls and vote for a party, and then these parties are assigned seats in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) based upon the percentage of the vote they receive. As of March 2014, any party that receives more than 3.25 percent of the vote can receive a place in the 120-seat chamber.

In fact, no single political party has ever won a majority of seats in the Knesset. The closest anyone has ever come was in 1969, when the Alignment Party won 56 seats. Instead, Israeli political leaders have to form coalitions of at least two parties in order to functionally govern. This time will likely be no different – polls released in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot gave Netanyahu's Likud party a paltry 22 seats, while the Zionist Union (which Herzog's Labor is a part of) was predicted to win just 26. Both would need a coalition to govern.
............
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/03/17/how-netanyahu-could-win-even-if-he-loses-the-israeli-election/

How Netanyahu could win even if he loses the Israeli election
 March 17 at 11:47 AM  
Netanyahu votes in Israeli election(0:49)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cast his vote in Tuesday’s election. Netanyahu is facing a stiff challenge from Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog. (AP)
It's election day in Israel. All across the country, a fierce battle for voters is underway, with the main protagonists being Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party, and his challenger from the Labor Party, Isaac Herzog.
Polls will stay open until 10 p.m. local time (4 p.m. EDT) and officials results should come out not long after. But if you're hoping for a quick answer to the who-will-be-the-next Israeli prime minister question, don't hold your breath. It could be weeks, perhaps even months, before a new Israeli government is formed – and when it is finally formed, the ultimate winner may not be the party with the most votes.
It sounds strange to American ears (where the drawn out, protracted part of elections happens long before the voting actually starts), but this is an established quirk of the Israeli election system. Israel doesn't have a presidential system like the United States, nor a first-past-the-post parliamentary system like Britain – both of which lend themselves to relatively stable two-party systems.
Instead, Israel uses a party list system of proportional representation. This means that voters go to the polls and vote for a party, and then these parties are assigned seats in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) based upon the percentage of the vote they receive. As of March 2014, any party that receives more than 3.25 percent of the vote can receive a place in the 120-seat chamber.
Israelis head to the polls(1:53)
Millions of Israelis vote in a tightly fought election, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing a strong campaign by the center-left opposition to deny him a fourth term in office. (Reuters)
Proportional representation isn't a system that encourages large parties. Instead, a more fractured political landscapes is the norm, with a greater number of smaller parties. This is pronounced in Israel, where the threshold for gaining a seat is notably lower than many other countries that use a party list system. There are typically at least 10 or so parties operating in the Knesset. At the time of writing, there are 13.
In fact, no single political party has ever won a majority of seats in the Knesset. The closest anyone has ever come was in 1969, when the Alignment Party won 56 seats. Instead, Israeli political leaders have to form coalitions of at least two parties in order to functionally govern. This time will likely be no different – polls released in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot gave Netanyahu's Likud party a paltry 22 seats, while the Zionist Union (which Herzog's Labor is a part of) was predicted to win just 26. Both would need a coalition to govern.
After today's vote, Israel's president will meet with party leaders and try to work out who has the best chance of forming a government. Usually, the president will ask the party with the most votes to see if they can form a government. The leader of that party will then have around six weeks to form a government. If they fail, the president might ask another party to try, or request that the two largest parties form a unity government.
This can result long periods of uncertainty after elections – and it can also produce some unexpected results. Consider, for example. the case of Tzipi Livni, who became leader of the Kadima party, a centrist off-shoot of Netanyahu's Likud party in 2008. Livni came to lead the party after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned after a number of corruption probes, yet she was unable to form a working coalition. Livni, a leading advocate for a two-state solution in attempts to settle the conflict with Palestinians, was then compelled to hold an election in 2009. In theory, she won it – Kadima had the most votes of any party and won 28 seats.
But outside of Kadima, the Knesset swung to the right, making it near impossible for Livni to form a government coalition. Ten days after the election, President Shimon Peres eventually asked Netanyahu, whose Likud Party had won 27 seats, to form a government. Livni refused to join a unity government with Likud, and instead opted to enter the opposition. As a testament to the shifting alliances in Israeli politics, Livni later joined Netanyahu's coalition government after the 2013 elections and was then fired by the prime minister in December 2014. She is currently running with Herzog as part of the Zionist Alliance.
The system of political deal-making adds an unpredictable edge to the Israeli elections. Polls may suggest that much of the Israeli public is sick of Netanyahu, but there's no clear successor in place. Instead, it's likely that around a dozen parties will be elected to the Knesset – and smaller parties may end up being unlikely kingmakers. Again, Netanyahu could still win the premiership, even if he loses the election. For now, analysts are divided on what the outcome will be – and whether the resulting government will have any staying power.
Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.