Clinton encourages Israelis to carry on legacy of Rabin 20 years after assassination

[Jingthing]

Again, Zionists come in WIDE SPECTRUM of political ideologies but they all agree on the core values of Zionism. Political self determination for the Jewish people realized eventually in the creation of the state of Israel.

I realize the rabid obsessive Israel demonizers have brainwashed a lot of people that Zionism is a dirty word ... but it simply isn't true. It's an INSULT to the memory of Rabin, who I personally admired greatly, to suggest that he was NOT a Zionist. Of course he was.

I know their game. They say we don't hate Jews. We hate Zionists. We don't support Arab and Muslim "freedom fighters" to kill innocent Jewish civilians ... only Zionists. That's total BS and a cover. If you hate Zionists you hate the vast majority of all the Jewish people in the world who do support the core values of Zionism ... realized today in support for the existence of Israel, it's right to defend itself, and such core policies as right of return for global Jewry if they choose to participate.

http://www.thetower.org/article/i-am-a-british-liberal-zionist-deal-with-it/

Ariel Sharon put it in much starker terms. “It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state, at the same time to control all of eretz yisrael. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety,” he said, “we are liable to lose it all.” A Palestinian state, therefore, is not a sop to the Palestinian people or the international community. As Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion and Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, and Ehud Olmert have all concluded, it is the only way to save Jewish democracy and the Zionist project. I agree with this assessment, because I am a Zionist too.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Nice spin there Jingthing Rabin was not a Zionist and the fact you despoil his memory and aims is shameful.

Claiming that Rabin was not a Zionist is just plain ignorance.

[dexterm]

Again, Zionists come in WIDE SPECTRUM of political ideologies but they all agree on the core values of Zionism. Political self determination for the Jewish people realized eventually in the creation of the state of Israel.

I realize the rabid obsessive Israel demonizers have brainwashed a lot of people that Zionism is a dirty word ... but it simply isn't true. It's an INSULT to the memory of Rabin, who I personally admired greatly, to suggest that he was NOT a Zionist. Of course he was.

I know their game. They say we don't hate Jews. We hate Zionists. We don't support Arab and Muslim "freedom fighters" to kill innocent Jewish civilians ... only Zionists. That's total BS and a cover. If you hate Zionists you hate the vast majority of all the Jewish people in the world who do support the core values of Zionism ... realized today in support for the existence of Israel, it's right to defend itself, and such core policies as right of return for global Jewry if they choose to participate.

http://www.thetower.org/article/i-am-a-british-liberal-zionist-deal-with-it/

Ariel Sharon put it in much starker terms. “It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state, at the same time to control all of eretz yisrael. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety,” he said, “we are liable to lose it all.” A Palestinian state, therefore, is not a sop to the Palestinian people or the international community. As Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion and Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, and Ehud Olmert have all concluded, it is the only way to save Jewish democracy and the Zionist project. I agree with this assessment, because I am a Zionist too.

Yes, of course, Rabin was a Zionist, in that he believed in a Jewish State. But he was also prepared to accept a Palestinian state, something the rabid fanatical colonist type Zionist are not.

The part I object to in your very loose definition of Zionism.

Political self determination for the Jewish people realized eventually in the creation of the state of Israel.

...is that Jewish self determination has been at the expense of Palestinian self determination. The creation of a Jewish State of Israel was planned and executed right from the very inception of Theodor Herzl's Zionism in 1897 to be at the expense of the vast majority of non Jews who were already living in Palestine and have now mainly been removed.They realized then as did Rabin later that you can't have a Jewish State when you are not the majority. So the only way to achieve that is to get rid of the non Jews to make yourselves a majority.

At the moment many Zionists realize (as did Sharon et al in your link above) that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and cannot absorb 2.5 million Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and still be a democratic Jewish state. So their dream of a Jewish State will certainly have to be a serious compromise on territory currently occupied. Some Zionists..the ones in Netanyahu's current cabinet..still haven't worked out this logical conclusion. And it is a concern that the Israeli people elected them...albeit I understand with some horse trading coalitions.

Well, I for one don't hate Jews, but I hate Zionists, because it is racial/religionist supremacism. And I would even object to the name the Jewish State of Israel in a 2 state solution..it also smacks of entrenched discrimination.

But as a interim solution I wouldn't really care anyway, because ultimately due to the inevitable transmigration of peoples after several decades of peace, it will become a secular democracy again.

Edited November 4, 2015 by dexterm

[Thorgal]

Again, Zionists come in WIDE SPECTRUM of political ideologies but they all agree on the core values of Zionism. Political self determination for the Jewish people realized eventually in the creation of the state of Israel.

I realize the rabid obsessive Israel demonizers have brainwashed a lot of people that Zionism is a dirty word ... but it simply isn't true. It's an INSULT to the memory of Rabin, who I personally admired greatly, to suggest that he was NOT a Zionist. Of course he was.

I know their game. They say we don't hate Jews. We hate Zionists. We don't support Arab and Muslim "freedom fighters" to kill innocent Jewish civilians ... only Zionists. That's total BS and a cover. If you hate Zionists you hate the vast majority of all the Jewish people in the world who do support the core values of Zionism ... realized today in support for the existence of Israel, it's right to defend itself, and such core policies as right of return for global Jewry if they choose to participate.

http://www.thetower.org/article/i-am-a-british-liberal-zionist-deal-with-it/

Ariel Sharon put it in much starker terms. “It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state, at the same time to control all of eretz yisrael. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety,” he said, “we are liable to lose it all.” A Palestinian state, therefore, is not a sop to the Palestinian people or the international community. As Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion and Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, and Ehud Olmert have all concluded, it is the only way to save Jewish democracy and the Zionist project. I agree with this assessment, because I am a Zionist too.

It's obvious that both Clintons are pro Zionist supporters. They're financially linked to Zionist Haim Saban.

On the other hand, you won't see any memorial for Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw ghetto during WW2, because he was anti-Zionist...

Quote from link:

'Edelman was a lifelong anti-Zionist. In a 1985 interview, he said Zionism was a "lost cause" and he questioned Israel's viability. He remained firmly Polish, refusing to emigrate to Israel.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Edelman

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/zionism-boycotts-funeral-of-marek.html

Let's not forget that Rabin was killed by an extreme right Zionist...

Edited November 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[Morch]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

I suggest you study the history of Israel. Even to day the USA is granting Israel 3 Billion Dollars annually in addition to the military aid. The financial support Israel has been receiving (with good reason) from world Jewery amounts to hundreds of billions of Dollars. All these are undeniable facts, which neither you, nor anyone else can quarrel with!

If this is about support for Israel in its early days, not sure what facts you refer to.

The USA aid was not a meaningful factor until the late 1960's and early 1970's.

The 3 Billion Dollars IS the military aid. There is no economic (or "civilian") aid which since 2008. The USA occasionally provides additional grants and equipment on top of the budgeted military aid. The USA also provides 3 Billions Dollars worth of loan guarantees (not annually). There are smaller amounts and grants for civilian purposes, which fall under different budget allocations.

The financial support Israel gets from world Jewry is not the same thing as USA aid, and is not the product USA administration policy.

[Morch]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

France was the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. Until the French weapons embargo on Israel followed by the Cherbourg case/scandal.

Czechs and USSR provided smaller quantities.

From 1967, the US was main supplier till today.

Here again, you're wrong...

France was not the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. French arms sales to Israel began in 1955, whereas earlier there was an embargo imposed.

The Czech arms deals were crucial for Israel's victory at the 1948 war. That they were smaller scale compared to later deals with French had to do with financial capabilities, transport constraints and the USSR changing its policy toward Israel in the early 1950's.

[Morch]

Had this man not been murdered as a sacrifice to the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist politics the current situation in the area would be a lot different, people would by now living in unity and peace would have been the scenario,

But than again, if it weren't for the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist who

against all odds, took this barren, swampy, mosquitos infested swath of land, fighting the British and sea

of backward, menacing, well armed Arabs and made it to what it is today, what of the most advance country

in the world.... CAN ANY OTHER ARAB COUNTRY SAY THE SAME?

Ezra, you are mixing things . The Zionists who built the present Israel, pesonalities like Ben Gurion and Rabin, who established it, did make mistakes, but were democrats and were fighting for a democratic egalitarian society in Israel. The extreme right nationalistic neo fascist settlers, are leading Israel to its doom. The present Israeli government headed by Mr. Netanyahu, who at times contradicts himself two times a week, wants no peace and he himself admitted recently that Israel will live by its sword practically forever. No country, or society can live by its sword forever, and if Mr. Netanyahu had studied history, he would have learnt of great empires which disappeared because they thought they could live by their swords forever. Even the crusaders had to learn this lesson in the "Holy Land". If Israel continues its undemocratic, expansionist policies it will meet the same fate. It will be a disaster for the Jewish people worldwide!

I suspect the Iranian regime and its search for nuclear weapons is a far more serious threat to Israel than zealot settlers. Actually the threat posed by Iran to Arab regimes may make common cause between them and Israel. If this dynamic changes I do see as a side effect a glint of hope for the settlement of the Palestinian issue. The irony here is that pressure on the Palestinians by their peers may bring more results than pressure applied to Israel - we shall see.

Not sure that such threats could be that easily compared and ordered.

The ongoing occupation costs Israel dearly - it effects the economy, international relationship, security with regards to other threats (such as Iran), and that without counting the direct effect on Palestinian violence toward Israelis. But, perhaps, above all - it serves as a divisive element within Israeli society, and it does undermine the foundations on which Israel was created.

[Morch]

Money invested (yes Invested) comes back with interest. This is so in every area from medicine to agriculture, to high tech to military; which is all in marked contrast to money wasted in supporting a booming unproductive Palestinian population. Iron dome alone will sell for a small fortune and is about to be sold to the GCC states of all people.

Good post because it highlights the truth - profit and greed trump all else. If money spent kicking a dying people can turn a profit, then it is not money wasted.

If you are ever in need of life saving medical treatment please first contact BDS to make certain no medicines or treatments you receive were developed in Israel. BDS may supply you with the information, but when push comes to shove the hypocrites use Israeli products for their own personal benefit when it suits. P.S I wonder how much business the West carries out with repressive regimes because it is highly lucrative to do so?

What are you suggesting? That only those who approve of the Israeli government should be allowed to benefit from medical research carried out there? Maybe we should be presented with a pledge form on the operating table? What about those who contribute the tax that is given to the Israeli government, but object to its actions? Would they be allowed grudging assistance?

Here's a better idea - instead of bankrolling a morally bankrupt regime, funneling money into arms companies and propogating the status quo, why not channel the money into something that is positive and constructive for all peace-loving Jews, Muslims, Christians, whomever, in the region? I am willing to bet the the net return for ALL mankind would be far higher.

There is a certain disconnect between "here's a better idea" and "channel the money into something that is positive and constructive...". I am not implying that the notion is not commendable, just that it lacks clarity as to what this "something" might be.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

Moderate Israelis like the late Yitzhak Rabin are the only hope for the future.

Zionists will be the victims of their own success if the violence and the theft of Palestinian land continues.

A one-state solution will eventually be the death of Israel.

As was the case with apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union, no amount of weapons or a nuclear arsenal will protect them from the fury of the people they hold in bondage.

The differentiation between Zionists and Moderate Israelis simply highlights the confusion, or ignorance, some display when addressing the issue.

Not all Zionists are fanatics, not all share the goals of the illegal settles, and many would be quite alright with saying goodbye and good riddance to the West Bank.

A matter of degrees and interpretations, rather.than clear cut categories.

Implying that Rabin wasn't a Zionist is ridiculous,at best. Portraying him as a moderate? In his later years - yes, up to a point. Much of his earlier career was nothing of the sort.

[Jingthing]

Rabin is understandably remembered for his efforts at making peace, which did put him on the Israeli left, which tragically got him killed by the Israeli right. We can only wonder how things would be different now if he had lived.

Of course, politicians change over time. Reagan was a democrat in his youth. Hillary Clinton used to be a republican.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Nice spin there Jingthing Rabin was not a Zionist and the fact you despoil his memory and aims is shameful.

http://forward.com/opinion/323753/what-would-yitzhak-rabin-think-of-the-violence-in-israel-today

Very good article about Yitzhak Rabin.

It shows that there are Israelis who want a change of direction toward a just peace and secure 1967 borders.

That will never happen under the current radical leadership.

Likudniks will always be Likudniks.

About that....

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1995/pages/pm%20rabin%20in%20knesset-%20ratification%20of%20interim%20agree.aspx

More in the same vein and in greater detail can be found in the link itself.

Israel's peace agreement with Egypt, including handing back a fair chunk of territory and dismantling settlements was carried out by Begin, of the Likud.

Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, dismantled settlements included, was carried our by Sharon, at the time from the Kadima party, but essentially Likud as well.

[Jingthing]

That a common paradox. It is often right wingers in different nations that have the credibility to make progress towards peace with enemies. Such as Nixon opening up China. Left wingers trying similar things might just get themselves assassinated!

[Ulysses G.]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

I suggest you study the history of Israel. Even to day the USA is granting Israel 3 Billion Dollars annually in addition to the military aid. The financial support Israel has been receiving (with good reason) from world Jewery amounts to hundreds of billions of Dollars. All these are undeniable facts, which neither you, nor anyone else can quarrel with!

If this is about support for Israel in its early days, not sure what facts you refer to.

The USA aid was not a meaningful factor until the late 1960's and early 1970's.

The 3 Billion Dollars IS the military aid. There is no economic (or "civilian") aid which since 2008. The USA occasionally provides additional grants and equipment on top of the budgeted military aid. The USA also provides 3 Billions Dollars worth of loan guarantees (not annually). There are smaller amounts and grants for civilian purposes, which fall under different budget allocations.

The financial support Israel gets from world Jewry is not the same thing as USA aid, and is not the product USA administration policy.

Thanks for coming up with the FACTS. Why do so many of the Israel-haters post absolute LIES and pretend it is "history"? It is rampant on this website and although Morch usually corrects it, nothing is done to stop the perpetrators from doing it over and over again.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

double post

Edited November 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

You can't be liberal and pro-Zionist together...

Because you say so?

This statement is more indicative of an intentionally narrow interpretation of both Zionism and Liberalism.

Or rather, the adherence to absolute definitions, in the fact of pragmatic reality.

[Morch]

Jingthing.

Of course he was a Zionist. It's your problem if you are ignorant of the definition and don't understand that Zionists have vastly different opinions on policies.

Jingthing you of all people should know you should never judge others as you judge yourself.

The link is to an Israeli news source not a Pattay or Jomtien news source.

The link is not Israeli anything. It's the Forward. A liberal American Jewish newspaper of great historical importance that I happen to read regularly as I am a liberal American Jew.

Again you are simply ignorant of the definition of Zionism. People who support political self determination for the Jewish people realized in the creation of the state of Israel are all Zionists. Zionist is not a dirty word. You probably mean he wasn't a right wing pro settler movement type of Zionist. That's true. Left wing Zionists aren't like that of course.

Interestingly in the early history of the Forward it's founders were socialist anti-Zionist American Jews. That was long before Israel existed. The paper has evolved and my understanding is that the editorial policy of the Forward supports the existence of Israel and its right to defense. Two state solution. In other words liberal yes but still pro Zionism.

I am completely in favor of any Jew (or any other religion) who is genuinely persecuted because of his religion, being offered refuge in Israel or any other country in the world where he will be safe.

It is the religion supremacist nature of Zionism I object to. The fact that a Jew by right of his religion (or his grandmother's if he himself is not religious), can leave the safety of New York, retain his US passport, and be granted immediate citizenship in Israel, and even get to evict Palestinian families who have lived there for centuries. Whereas Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes in Israel whence they were displaced in 67 or 48, have no right of residence in their homeland. That IMO is discrimination and very unliberal.

As for a 2 state solution, it is the only chance Zionists have of a state with a mainly Jewish character. But even that hopefully will eventually die, as Palestinains outbreed Israeli Jews.I much prefer secular, multi cultural democracies.

"Rabin himself had not stated publicly that he supported the idea of a Palestinian state, though his closest aides said after his death that he knew it would be part of a final settlement."

Yes, a great pity that the peace he might have convinced the Israeli electorate to accept through his charisma, died with him. The right wing fanatics won, and they are still in charge 20 years later. What a wasted opportunity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34712057

....very interesting article on Rabin's legacy at this BBC link.

For all your words, what you wish for is Israel's destruction. That is, Israel not being Israel, but another multicultural experiment, preferably with Arab dominance. Without getting into nonsensical debates, the origins of Zionism were counter-religious, spin it as much as you like. The current religious trend in Zionism, which makes for the bulk of the illegal settlement effort in the West Bank, is a later development. An offshoot rather than the stem. While expressing such humanitarian sentiment, one may wonder as to why this is not reciprocated by similar notions regarding Jews who were displaced from Arab countries.

Different countries have different rules regulating citizenship and residence rights. Not all follow the current mode prevalent in the West. Little outrage, if ever, is expressed over similar restrictions applied in other countries. The notion of a global village, and no borders is not something most of the world actually abides by.

The notion that Rabin might have been able to convince the Israeli electorate to accept a Palestinian state and a full return to the 1967 lines, assumes that he was actually in favor of these himself. As far as I am aware, this is not so. Either way, neither Rabin, nor his party, and certainly not the fledgling Oslo Accords were very popular at the time of the murder. Quite the opposite. A wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks did not help things much. The Oslo Accords were barely passed in the parliament (and under dodgy circumstances), and the Labor party lost the following elections.

[Morch]

Had this man not been murdered as a sacrifice to the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist politics the current situation in the area would be a lot different, people would by now living in unity and peace would have been the scenario,

But than again, if it weren't for the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist who

against all odds, took this barren, swampy, mosquitos infested swath of land, fighting the British and sea

of backward, menacing, well armed Arabs and made it to what it is today, what of the most advance country

in the world.... CAN ANY OTHER ARAB COUNTRY SAY THE SAME?

Ezra, you are mixing things . The Zionists who built the present Israel, pesonalities like Ben Gurion and Rabin, who established it, did make mistakes, but were democrats and were fighting for a democratic egalitarian society in Israel. The extreme right nationalistic neo fascist settlers, are leading Israel to its doom. The present Israeli government headed by Mr. Netanyahu, who at times contradicts himself two times a week, wants no peace and he himself admitted recently that Israel will live by its sword practically forever. No country, or society can live by its sword forever, and if Mr. Netanyahu had studied history, he would have learnt of great empires which disappeared because they thought they could live by their swords forever. Even the crusaders had to learn this lesson in the "Holy Land". If Israel continues its undemocratic, expansionist policies it will meet the same fate. It will be a disaster for the Jewish people worldwide!

Rabin and Ben Gurion were not democrats. They were fervent Zionist instead. Israel was created as a Jewish state.

Moreover, in terms used to the Palestinian cause, they should also be named as 'terrorists'.

They've never aimed what you call : 'a democratic egalitarian society in Israel'...

Again, the above is supposedly based on the power of I-say-so...

If one holds a rigid view of what democracy is, rather than seeing it as a matter of degrees or accepting that different forms of democracy may exist - many inane conclusion might be achieved when applied to most countries. Some people insist on treating reality as if it is a neat political science textbook example, which may explain their decisive views on such matters..

[Thorgal]

You can't be liberal and pro-Zionist together...

Because you say so?

This statement is more indicative of an intentionally narrow interpretation of both Zionism and Liberalism.

Or rather, the adherence to absolute definitions, in the fact of pragmatic reality.

In fact, in-house assassination of Begin proves my point.

The countless assassinations of Hamas leadership is another example.

Is it so hard to admit the facts by constantly trying to drown your own fish ?

[Morch]

Yes, of course, Rabin was a Zionist, in that he believed in a Jewish State. But he was also prepared to accept a Palestinian state, something the rabid fanatical colonist type Zionist are not.

The part I object to in your very loose definition of Zionism.

Political self determination for the Jewish people realized eventually in the creation of the state of Israel.

...is that Jewish self determination has been at the expense of Palestinian self determination. The creation of a Jewish State of Israel was planned and executed right from the very inception of Theodor Herzl's Zionism in 1897 to be at the expense of the vast majority of non Jews who were already living in Palestine and have now mainly been removed.They realized then as did Rabin later that you can't have a Jewish State when you are not the majority. So the only way to achieve that is to get rid of the non Jews to make yourselves a majority.

At the moment many Zionists realize (as did Sharon et al in your link above) that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and cannot absorb 2.5 million Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and still be a democratic Jewish state. So their dream of a Jewish State will certainly have to be a serious compromise on territory currently occupied. Some Zionists..the ones in Netanyahu's current cabinet..still haven't worked out this logical conclusion. And it is a concern that the Israeli people elected them...albeit I understand with some horse trading coalitions.

Well, I for one don't hate Jews, but I hate Zionists, because it is racial/religionist supremacism. And I would even object to the name the Jewish State of Israel in a 2 state solution..it also smacks of entrenched discrimination.

But as a interim solution I wouldn't really care anyway, because ultimately due to the inevitable transmigration of peoples after several decades of peace, it will become a secular democracy again.

The ongoing attempts to enlist Rabin's positions as conforming wholly with your view is do not reflect reality:

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1995/pages/pm%20rabin%20in%20knesset-%20ratification%20of%20interim%20agree.aspx

Judging late 19th century or early 20th century Zionism by contemporary standards is disingenuous, portraying it as a religious oriented movement is misleading. Stating that "the vast majority of non Jews who were already living in Palestine and have now mainly been removed" would seem to suggest that in your view, the Palestinian claim holds for all of the land. If so, then in spite of all the pretty words, the rejection is of Israel's right to exist. An alternative, reading would ascribe the unclear nature of this statement to the usual inaccuracies plaguing these topics.

Can't recall you ever having much Issues with other countries being officially called The Islamic this-or-that. But good show expressing your objections to Israel being called the Jewish state. Wonder how that works out when referring to Hamas. But why go this far, can just have a look at the Palestinian constitution itself:

ARTICLE 4

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Palestine_%282003%29#ARTICLE_4

What you hate is Israel. Plain and simple. Most Israeli Jews hold Zionist views - and there are plenty of variations therein, the simplified view often presented here notwithstanding. Decreeing hatred to all formulations of Zionism, and describing them all as "racial/religionist supremacism" is essentially rejecting the existence of Israel. What you wish Israel to be is a not-Israel, but another country altogether - one that is proclaimed to fit with supposedly multicultural notions, but in fact aims at Palestinian dominance.

[Thorgal]

Had this man not been murdered as a sacrifice to the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist politics the current situation in the area would be a lot different, people would by now living in unity and peace would have been the scenario,

But than again, if it weren't for the xenophobic jingoistic warmonger of the extreme right of Zionist who

against all odds, took this barren, swampy, mosquitos infested swath of land, fighting the British and sea

of backward, menacing, well armed Arabs and made it to what it is today, what of the most advance country

in the world.... CAN ANY OTHER ARAB COUNTRY SAY THE SAME?

Ezra, you are mixing things . The Zionists who built the present Israel, pesonalities like Ben Gurion and Rabin, who established it, did make mistakes, but were democrats and were fighting for a democratic egalitarian society in Israel. The extreme right nationalistic neo fascist settlers, are leading Israel to its doom. The present Israeli government headed by Mr. Netanyahu, who at times contradicts himself two times a week, wants no peace and he himself admitted recently that Israel will live by its sword practically forever. No country, or society can live by its sword forever, and if Mr. Netanyahu had studied history, he would have learnt of great empires which disappeared because they thought they could live by their swords forever. Even the crusaders had to learn this lesson in the "Holy Land". If Israel continues its undemocratic, expansionist policies it will meet the same fate. It will be a disaster for the Jewish people worldwide!

Rabin and Ben Gurion were not democrats. They were fervent Zionist instead. Israel was created as a Jewish state.

Moreover, in terms used to the Palestinian cause, they should also be named as 'terrorists'.

They've never aimed what you call : 'a democratic egalitarian society in Israel'...

Again, the above is supposedly based on the power of I-say-so...

If one holds a rigid view of what democracy is, rather than seeing it as a matter of degrees or accepting that different forms of democracy may exist - many inane conclusion might be achieved when applied to most countries. Some people insist on treating reality as if it is a neat political science textbook example, which may explain their decisive views on such matters..

Bill Clinton provided his power of 'I-say-so' and rigid view of democracy in Israel to the crowd behind bullet-proof glass...

Says enough about any peace criticism of Zionism or any form of democracy you claim falsely.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Thorgal

[Thorgal]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

France was the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. Until the French weapons embargo on Israel followed by the Cherbourg case/scandal.

Czechs and USSR provided smaller quantities.

From 1967, the US was main supplier till today.

Here again, you're wrong...

France was not the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. French arms sales to Israel began in 1955, whereas earlier there was an embargo imposed.

The Czech arms deals were crucial for Israel's victory at the 1948 war. That they were smaller scale compared to later deals with French had to do with financial capabilities, transport constraints and the USSR changing its policy toward Israel in the early 1950's.

France made the construction of the nuclear plant of Dimona. This deal was made after France dragged Israel into the Suez-Canal conflict when Egyptian president Nasser wanted to nationalise the Suez-Canal back in '56.

You can't compare the Czech/USSR weapon deliveries of Messerschmitt replicas (Avia's) and small weaponry with the countless deliveries of France of warships (Cherbourg case), nuclear plant (Dimona) with nuclear weapons production capacities, state of the art fighter jets, etc...

http://zionism-israel.com/his/israel_first_air_battle.htm

Here again, you proved serial lack of knowledge in terms of quantities, details and historical data related to the conflicts.

Begin was IDF Staf Chief during '67 war. In that time they had already nuclear weapons.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Thorgal

[Thorgal]

Nice spin there Jingthing Rabin was not a Zionist and the fact you despoil his memory and aims is shameful.

http://forward.com/opinion/323753/what-would-yitzhak-rabin-think-of-the-violence-in-israel-today

Very good article about Yitzhak Rabin.

It shows that there are Israelis who want a change of direction toward a just peace and secure 1967 borders.

That will never happen under the current radical leadership.

Likudniks will always be Likudniks.

About that....

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1995/pages/pm%20rabin%20in%20knesset-%20ratification%20of%20interim%20agree.aspx

More in the same vein and in greater detail can be found in the link itself.

Israel's peace agreement with Egypt, including handing back a fair chunk of territory and dismantling settlements was carried out by Begin, of the Likud.

Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, dismantled settlements included, was carried our by Sharon, at the time from the Kadima party, but essentially Likud as well.

Israel-Egypt peace agreement were signed when Menachem Begin was under the Herut political party. Not Likud !

Gaza disengagement happened when Sharon was under Kadima. Not Likud !Kadima was splitting due to its disengagement policies.

Likud was in opposition to peace negotiations.

Likud was not the principal motivator for above peace agreements. Moreover, they've engaged peace agreements, but there are no historical records that they've respected or closed a single one of them...

Edited November 5, 2015 by Thorgal

[Morch]

You can't be liberal and pro-Zionist together...

Because you say so?

This statement is more indicative of an intentionally narrow interpretation of both Zionism and Liberalism.

Or rather, the adherence to absolute definitions, in the fact of pragmatic reality.

In fact, in-house assassination of Begin proves my point.

The countless assassinations of Hamas leadership is another example.

Is it so hard to admit the facts by constantly trying to drown your own fish ?

Rabin, not Begin. And no, it does not "prove" your point - not that there was much of one to begin with.

The murderer subscribed to a certain brand of Zionism, and obviously did not represent all Zionists. What would that make the crowd at the demonstration where the murder took place, then? The assassinations of Hamas leaders are not countless, and are not specifically tied with Zionist ideology. Any liberal country which is involved in a violent conflict faces moral dilemmas. Most countries engaged in such conflict commit actions which may be seen as being on the wrong side of moral.

Your "position" is attainable only with adherence to an absurdly limited interpretation of both Zionism and Liberalism, with the added assumption that they are both either/or concepts, and not a matter of degree. A somewhat shallow point of view considering everyday experience.

[Morch]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

France was the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. Until the French weapons embargo on Israel followed by the Cherbourg case/scandal.

Czechs and USSR provided smaller quantities.

From 1967, the US was main supplier till today.

Here again, you're wrong...

France was not the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning. French arms sales to Israel began in 1955, whereas earlier there was an embargo imposed.

The Czech arms deals were crucial for Israel's victory at the 1948 war. That they were smaller scale compared to later deals with French had to do with financial capabilities, transport constraints and the USSR changing its policy toward Israel in the early 1950's.

France made the construction of the nuclear plant of Dimona. This deal was made after France dragged Israel into the Suez-Canal conflict when Egyptian president Nasser wanted to nationalise the Suez-Canal back in '56.

You can't compare the Czech/USSR weapon deliveries of Messerschmitt replicas (Avia's) and small weaponry with the countless deliveries of France of warships (Cherbourg case), nuclear plant (Dimona) with nuclear weapons production capacities, state of the art fighter jets, etc...

http://zionism-israel.com/his/israel_first_air_battle.htm

Here again, you proved serial lack of knowledge in terms of quantities, details and historical data related to the conflicts.

Begin was IDF Staf Chief during '67 war. In that time they had already nuclear weapons.

Lets go back to your original statement, the one which I responded to - "France was the main weapon supplier to Israel since the beginning". Israel was founded in 1948. France lifted the arms embargo in 1953, with the first deal signed in 1955. You are referring to to events which took place after 1956 - 8 years after Israel came to be.

I did not compare between the French and the Czech arms deals, you did. I simply noted that the effect of the Czech arms deals was not insignificant at the time, as might have been implied by the use of "smaller quantities".

Again, Rabin, not begin.

[Morch]

Very good article about Yitzhak Rabin.

It shows that there are Israelis who want a change of direction toward a just peace and secure 1967 borders.

That will never happen under the current radical leadership.

Likudniks will always be Likudniks.

About that....

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1995/pages/pm%20rabin%20in%20knesset-%20ratification%20of%20interim%20agree.aspx

More in the same vein and in greater detail can be found in the link itself.

Israel's peace agreement with Egypt, including handing back a fair chunk of territory and dismantling settlements was carried out by Begin, of the Likud.

Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, dismantled settlements included, was carried our by Sharon, at the time from the Kadima party, but essentially Likud as well.

Israel-Egypt peace agreement were signed when Menachem Begin was under the Herut political party. Not Likud !

Gaza disengagement happened when Sharon was under Kadima. Not Likud !Kadima was splitting due to its disengagement policies.

Likud was in opposition to peace negotiations.

Likud was not the principal motivator for above peace agreements. Moreover, they've engaged peace agreements, but there are no historical records that they've respected or closed a single one of them...

The Likud was formed as an alliance between several political parties circa 1973, first and foremost among them the Herut Party. Begin served as head of both. In the 1977 elections the Likud presented a unified candidate list (the official merger to a single party was in 1988). The opposition to to the agreements was more to do with Herut (about a three-way split between support, against and abstain). More favorable figures as far as Likud as a whole is considered.

http://www.jta.org/1978/09/29/archive/momentous-step-toward-mideast-peace-knesset-approves-camp-david-accords-by-vote-of-84-19-and-17-abs

I did not claim Sharon was with the Likud at the time of the Gaza disengagement, read my post again. The Gaza disengagement plan was announced when the Likud headed the government, with Sharon as prime minister. There were several related votes prior to the Kadima split. This was actually aired quite a bit, due to another of Netanyahu's silly episodes (and yes, Netanyahu did vote for the disengagement on more than one occasion). The point made was the Kadima was forged from politicians belonging to both major parties. If Kadima was led by someone not formerly of the Likud and not possessing hard-line credentials, it would not have been able to garner the same public support. The reasons for the Kadima split are more complex than stated, but that would take us further off topic.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-gaffe-on-Gaza-disengagement-causes-uproar-393961

There was no wholesale opposition to the peace agreement with Egypt by the Likud. Voting was split.

There was no wholesale opposition to the Gaza disengagement plan by the Likud. Voting was split, and later on many moved to Kadima, which became the ruling party.

The last statement at the post above is somewhat unclear, considering the Prime ministers on both occasions were of the Likud.

[abrahamzvi]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

I suggest you study the history of Israel. Even to day the USA is granting Israel 3 Billion Dollars annually in addition to the military aid. The financial support Israel has been receiving (with good reason) from world Jewry amounts to hundreds of billions of Dollars. All these are undeniable facts, which neither you, nor anyone else can quarrel with!

Money invested (yes Invested) comes back with interest. This is so in every area from medicine to agriculture, to high tech to military; which is all in marked contrast to money wasted in supporting a booming unproductive Palestinian population. Iron dome alone will sell for a small fortune and is about to be sold to the GCC states of all people.

What you are saying is ungrateful cheap propaganda. Yes, Israel is a leading force in IT, medicine and it used to be in agriculture. However, the moneys received from the US taxpayers and from world Jewry have nothing to do with investments, where the investor reaps the fruit of the investment. Tell me, who profited from the fields that you mention, the USA or Israel? As far as the Iron Dome is concerned , can you tell us who financed and assisted in its development. I really admire the development of the Israeli economy, but all should realise that without the immense, yes overwhelming, assistance that Israel has been getting this would not have been possible.

[Ulysses G.]

Tell me, who profited from the fields that you mention, the USA or Israel?

Please, stop being silly. The US profits from being allies with Israel or it would not be happening.

In the hard security realm, Israel remains an important partner in dealing with evolving terrorist and military threats as well as preserving the competitiveness of the U.S. defense-industrial base through joint development efforts and cutting-edge technology. Just as important, Israel has facilitated U.S. efforts to deal with emerging soft security challenges related to economic competitiveness, the information technology revolution, resource sustainability, and public health.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/asset-test-how-the-united-states-benefits-from-its-alliance-with-israel

Edited November 6, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Please stop with the usual nonsense. Israel did not get a lot of material support when it first began and the USSR was lot more helpful than the USA. If you want to make up false history, please post it on one of the hater websites.

I suggest you study the history of Israel. Even to day the USA is granting Israel 3 Billion Dollars annually in addition to the military aid. The financial support Israel has been receiving (with good reason) from world Jewry amounts to hundreds of billions of Dollars. All these are undeniable facts, which neither you, nor anyone else can quarrel with!

Money invested (yes Invested) comes back with interest. This is so in every area from medicine to agriculture, to high tech to military; which is all in marked contrast to money wasted in supporting a booming unproductive Palestinian population. Iron dome alone will sell for a small fortune and is about to be sold to the GCC states of all people.

What you are saying is ungrateful cheap propaganda. Yes, Israel is a leading force in IT, medicine and it used to be in agriculture. However, the moneys received from the US taxpayers and from world Jewry have nothing to do with investments, where the investor reaps the fruit of the investment. Tell me, who profited from the fields that you mention, the USA or Israel? As far as the Iron Dome is concerned , can you tell us who financed and assisted in its development. I really admire the development of the Israeli economy, but all should realise that without the immense, yes overwhelming, assistance that Israel has been getting this would not have been possible.

If that's what you think you're going to love these facts.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/110036/defense-us-aid-israel-david-meir-levi

Incidentally the recent nuclear deal with Iran stands to benefit the Iranian regime with a windfall of approx $150 billion, which is about $27billion more than all the U.S aid to Israel since 1948. Money to Israel directly or indirectly benefits mankind, money to Iran supports terrorism and tyranny.

[RuamRudy]

Money to Israel directly or indirectly benefits mankind, money to Iran supports terrorism and tyranny.

Are the Palestinians not part of the larger mankind? I don't much in the way of evidence of them being beneficiaries of anything positive from Israel.

[dexterm]

Tell me, who profited from the fields that you mention, the USA or Israel?

Please, stop being silly. The US profits from being allies with Israel or it would not be happening.

In the hard security realm, Israel remains an important partner in dealing with evolving terrorist and military threats as well as preserving the competitiveness of the U.S. defense-industrial base through joint development efforts and cutting-edge technology. Just as important, Israel has facilitated U.S. efforts to deal with emerging soft security challenges related to economic competitiveness, the information technology revolution, resource sustainability, and public health.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/asset-test-how-the-united-states-benefits-from-its-alliance-with-israel

Israel is such a blessing to the world peace and prosperity with its technology that it offered nuclear weapons to South Africa at the height of apartheid,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

has armed both sides in Colombia's civil war, and has sold military expertise to such luminaries of freedom and democracy as Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Gabon and Chad among others.

Despite the USA halting sales to South Sudan during its civil war , Israel cashed in on the opportunity

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-arms-exports-under-scrutiny-amid-claims-they-are-helping-to-fuel-conflict-in-south-sudan-despite-eu-embargo-10452399.html

Rabin must be turning in his grave