Skip to main content

View Diary: The United Nation votes to accept Palestine as a non-member observer state by a margin of 138 - 9 (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your other right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doingbusinessas

    you're a bit off on Israeli religious/poltical factions.  The ultra-orthodox  are in theory against Zionism entirely and don't recognize the validity of a secular Jewish state although they live in it and benefit financially from it's government.  They don't believe in Israel as it currently exists and are not concerned with territory.  their political parties join coalitions on both sides and their major issues are welfare (keeping it) and staying out of the draft.  (also sex-segration on public transportation, but that's another comment)  The ideological settlers who believe in territorial 'greater Israel', and out of whose extreme's Rabin's assassinator came are referred to in English as Religious-Zionists and in terms of religious orthodoxy, are more equivalent to what is called modern-orthodox in the West.  

    •  Hmmm. That is not what I have seen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CN

      in reports over the years...

      I accept that I am wrong.... Thank you for straightening me out.

      "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

      by doingbusinessas on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:46:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm...I had thought the ultra-orthodox (0+ / 0-)

      made up a disproportionate portion of settlers.

      •  Don't feel bad. On this subject, preconception (0+ / 0-)

        is the rule and research is the exception.

        •  I think it was because I've read articles like (0+ / 0-)
          •  And yes, it mentions they're moving for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CN

            financial, not political / religious reasons, but I could easily have filtered that out.

          •  That's fine, but on this subject one often has (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            to address arguments starting from around the Old Testament. Some short-circuit that, and start around 1945. Depends on the passion and the point.

            the problem is, most here, in my estimation, study the history to validate their preexisting political views rather than to form them.

            When a foreign policy argument involving enough players boils down to "who shot first" and "who's most outraged", one ends up with a World War I eventually.

            Having participated in several in my career, I would like to see a computer war game among I/P representatives, including those on this site. They are different than just jacking one's mouth.

            •  YES! (0+ / 0-)

              This:

              I would like to see a computer war game among I/P representatives, including those on this site. They are different than just jacking one's mouth.
              That would be telling indeed.

              I participated in something like this once when I was in school in Jerusalem. It was fascinating and it was very, very instructive. I would be very interested in seeing how people would react here.

              "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

              by volleyboy1 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:49:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  i think (0+ / 0-)

              a lot of people would be offended by the idea of people who are not under threat playing computer war games based on a real conflict, no matter how educational.  

              http://peacenow.org/...

              •  What do you think comment threads like this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1

                one constitute? They are filled with the same point-counterpoint-counter-counterpoint progression as war games are, usually proffered by a proponent of one side or another. The only difference is they are unorganized, and many of the assumptions suck.

                I don't care if some are offended. It's a cottage industry.

      •  disproportionate (0+ / 0-)

        compared to the amount of secular/progressive Israelis living in settlements, yes, for sure.  The ideological settlers are literally religious about it and would live there even if it were more expensive, they believe they are doing the work of god and country by where they place their house.  A small number of secular Israelis live in settlements because of real estate costs and because many of the settlements within 15 minutes of Jerusalem are seen as suburbs and just not understood as controversial by Israelis anymore in the same way places like Ariel are.  but most secular &/or progressive Israelis who at least believe in theory in two states don't buy in settlements because they are busy voting for governments promising to hand them back.  The ultra-orthodox meanwhile don't really have a  political stake in who owns which piece of land.  I mean, of course they do, most of them aren't busy moving to Palestinian controlled areas, but they don't believe or acknowledge that stake, so when they buy houses it's for economics alone and the settlements are cheaper, so more of them end up there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site