I think it important that many Ministers are calling for no Palestinian state now and such demands are making headlines. Little by little we will change the discourse. Ted Belman
Housing Minister Uri Ariel reacted to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Thursday speech at the United Nations’ General Assembly by saying, “Israel will continue to build anywhere in the state of Israel. In the Galilee, the Negev, Judea, Samaria (Shomron) and Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas is not the one to dictate to us how to behave in our capital city.”
Responding to Abbas’s call on the world to stop Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, Ariel added, “”Whoever thinks that you can change the reality on the ground is hallucinating. We will continue and strengthen Jewish settlement. West of the Jordan there will be only one country, the state of Israel.”
@ bernard ross:
Have to scan archives it might take awhile
Bill Narvey Said:
Is that the best you can do? Its a poor substitute for reasoned arguments and facts
Bill Narvey Said:
Nothing, you are wasting time and have nothing to add.
Bernard, thx for letting me know that you get all your ideas and opinions from Yamit. Yamit you must be delighted to have an infinite source of adulation from your sycophantic loyal lap dog.
yamit82 Said:
Yes!
Bill Narvey Said:
No message, just generic rubbish. You didnt add anything to my comment to ted, you just wasted time. Its not worth discussing “nothing”. Yamit warned me and I can see he was correct.
CA, I agree in the main, if not in toto with Yamit82 on his facts cited which have been often reported in various contexts. I do not however, believe it fair to accuse you of lying as Yamit does. Rather, it appears your opinions err because they flow from mis-information.
Some friendly advice – If you have some opinion you want to express, especially where you can anticipate an adverse reaction, you should first do a key word search to make sure your information is correct before venturing your opinion. If so and someone challenges you, you would then have at your fingertips, the source links for the facts your opinion is based on.
@ Bill Narvey:
Classical Narvey response. You never change. I told Bernard to ignore you. You are a waste of time and energy.
Should I supply Bernard what your friends in Canada who know you have to say about you?
CuriousAmerican Said:
You are full of shit. Where do you get your information from? When you make such definitive statements provide sources with links and if you can’t don’t make them. I say it is a lie and you are a liar.
Israel demolishes housing without permits to everybody but mostly demolish Jewish homes. As the Arabs are building thousands of illegal
structures , the few Israel demolish can be seen as more symbolic than effective. Jews as opposed to Arabs respect the law and authority so their are fewer homes to demolish than the Arabs as well.
Here you inference is exactly the opposite of what actually goes down in Area C. All civil judicial cases are handled in local courts equally for Arabs and Jews and as to criminal issues Arabs have the right to petition the Israeli courts and do so. Again you are a liar in fact and in inferences.
I wish it were true. The IDF allows itself to freely enter and detain any Arab when he is a threat to Israelis in the territories or Israel proper.
We have networks of Arab snitches including the hierarchy of the PA who inform our security services about planned terrorist threats and are paid well for their services. When the PA security services do their jobs it reduces the involvement of our security infringements. Up to them.
News to me. Provide sources for such slander. Arabs are not Israeli citizens so why should they be treated as such? That said, any employee by and Israel citizens in or out of the territories must conform to min. standards of laws relating to workers by Israelis, and are protected under Israeli labor laws. Any violations can be adjudicated in local magistrate courts and are.
It’s criticism but based on misinformation and outright lies. That’s my observation. When there seems to be two versions of a story re; Israel you always choose to believe and accept the one that is negative and slanderous to Israel.
I wonder why, you shithead.
Bernard #12- Now you are projecting your failings to me, but really Bernard, these are your failings, not mine. Nice trick if you are good enough to pull it off, but too bad, so sad you are not that good.
Why are you so obsessed with calling me down? Does it make you feel like a tough guy? Does it make you feel superior to and better than me in some way?
If you can get off your high horse and down to earth you will see that you have been missing the obvious message of my words.
If you want to lay out your specific position on some issue and challenge me to respond, lets say the matter of should Israel stick with or withdraw from the current talks with Palestinians and make your case for whatever your position is, I will respond specifically.
I cannot manage even a generic response to what you have been calling me down for because you are so all over the map and what you have to say so confusing, I don’t have a clue as to what you want me to specifically respond to.
Ted Belman Said:
The Likud rank and file are not ideological right wing, sectoral interests are what holds their interest. Most in the development towns coun’t care less about Y&S as they believe they have been short changed over the years in favor of budgets for settlements in Y&S. They are concerned with party nepotism Jobs in government corporations and the like and budgets for their own communities. Traditionally since Begin their loyalty to the Likud is because they aren’t Labor who they still blame for the ill treatment they received in the 50’s when they first arrived in Israel. These feelings and beliefs have been handed down from fathers to sons and mothers to daughters. They are not ideological.
In truth the younger generations have no loyalty to any party. Many abandoned the Likud to vote for Bennett and Lapid in the last elections seeing little difference between them. With out Lieberman the Likud has 19-20 MK’s…. That does not speak of wide ideological support for a so called right wing nationalist party. Most in the Likud would be happy to replace BB if someone else would step up and credibly challenge him. Can’t be Danon and I suspect Lieberman still has his sights on the job. His trial is holding up any moves by him in that direction.
He knows BB has orchestrated his relegation to political Limbo and I’m sure he is waiting for the right moment for payback.
Ted Belman Said:
I question your political map. It mostly depends on which way Lieberman goes and how many Likud MK’s stay in the Likud. It’s doubtful BB can remain PM leading a minority party in a coalition. If he is he will be outvoted every-time the partners don’t get what they want or agree with.
@ bernard ross:
Its happening. There is constant pressure on all MK in the government to join the Land of Israel Caucus. Danon is going to call a meeting of the Likud Central Committee to try to set limits on Netanyahu.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, I see you have sent out an email re the Land of israel to pressure the govt. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to pressure the likud representatives in govt on an individual basis. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to enlist the likud party members who voted likud to avoid TSS and activate them to pressure their leaders. If there are likud voters, party members, in a majority against TSS, they should be out pressuring their representatives. this narrows the “pressure” field from the general to the specific and targets those who should have the most influence on liked representatives: those who voted likud and those who belong to their party.
CuriousAmerican Said:
LOL, the usual predictable conclusion. Any news today on your Christian brothers persecutions from the muslims,or are you too busy with the Jews to pay them any mind or energy?
Israel de facto controls Judea and Samaria. Certainly, Area C. But Israel intrudes into Areas B & A, as the need arises.
Israel issues permits (or not) in Area C, and demolishes Arab housing.
While Judea and Samaria are not under Israeli Law (for either Palestinians or Jews), a Jew who is arrested in Judea and Samaria is charged and tried with a set of civil rights not available to Palestinian Arabs. IDF troops can arrest Arabs, but not Jews in Hebron. They have to call for police (which they rarely do).
Israel maintains a legal fiction of non-annexation; while having de facto jurisdiction.
Israel does this to avoid the thorny issue of enfranchisement of the Palestinans, but it produces a tiered system of (in)justice, not only for Arabs but Jews. For ex: Jewish women are not given as much maternal care rights in factories in Judea and Samaria. Arabs are in an even nastier predicament overall.
This is not criticism, but observation.
Overall, I think paying the Arabs to leave is the solution.
@ Ted Belman:
He speaks as a min. of govt with the obvious insider knowledge, otherwise he has no right to make such a misleading statement. If his prediction is true then there is no need to change discourse because he is predicting that the govt will secure one state. However, if his prediction is not true then he is misleading the public for political opportunity. If he is powerless, as you say, he can only state his insider knowledge that one state will ensue. In any case it is not an attempt to “change discourse” or a “call to action”.
Ted Belman Said:
Who’s discourse are they trying to change: is it the public, the coalition, or likud? The public who elected them are already against the TSS according to most posts here in the past,. so is the majority of the coalition. some say that the majority of likud is also against the TSS. Therefore, if true, the discourse does not need changing. the term “changing the discourse” usually refers to introducing new ideas or concepts. In this case the ideas and concepts are not new but rather the executive of likud is apparently not executing the majority ideas. My understanding of the parliamentary system is that a party gets elected and the party chooses a leader and the party can change its leader during the term and appoint a new leader and pm. It appears to me that the problem is within Likud and not about changing discourse but about effecting political action within likud. As I originally stated, in my view,if a Minister is stating views in public which do not go along with the leader it is either to separate himself politically from the fallout of his leaders positions or it accompanies political action. In neither case do I see that the issue is at an idea stage. If the minister is only interested in changing discourse then I consider the goal to be self-serving. Other than the leader there is no one in a position of greater power than a cabinet minister. Therefore, it is from that minister that I expect to see political action and not public chat. The question is what is Ariel doing which is more than public chat.
Ted Belman Said:
this is action. However, the question is in what way are they able to shackle BB other than voting him out as leader?
Ted Belman Said:
If only BB has the power then “changing the discourse”(of whoever)does not change BB.
Ariels statement was that there will not be a pal state. As a min of govt his statements should be reliable. If it is just talk then I reiterate that it is political opportunism. If he has no power then stating “that there will be no pal state” is misleading because he cannot change that outcome and gives the impression that he knows what will happen(a prediction of govt action). Ariel did not call on anyone in public or in govt for a “change in discourse” or a “call to action” against a discourse, he stated a “fact” that will unfold. The question is: was his “fact” true or just convenient for the stating.
Bill Narvey Said:
Narvey, your behavior is bordering on pathetic. For you to claim Ted as your supporting argument when from the beginning I disagreed with Ted’s thesis is beyond the pale. Ted’s thesis is not your thesis. I will carry that discussion forward with Ted. However, what you have done is worse: as you have no basis for your “running it up the flag pole” concept you are now retroactively attempting to change your statement. Is that the lawyer speaking? Here is Ted’s statement:
Ted Belman Said:
Here is your statement:
Bill Narvey Said:
running an idea up a flagpole, just like a flag, is to see which “way the wind blows”. You appear to be attempting to change the common meaning of the phrase you used in a frantic attempt to be right at any cost. The reason you make generic arguments rather than relate it to the specific situation is that they are vague enough to be flexible.
Bill Narvey Said:
I know, because you can’t. You do however, waste time by making generic comments which apply to any situation merely for the purpose of exhibiting how clever you are. For a person disinterested in supporting his own comments you appear to write a lot.
Bill Narvey Said:
I have no interest, unlike you,in what all can see. It is not the motivation for my comments.
Bill Narvey Said:
I restate, as at the begiinning: the “idea” of a one jewish state solution as opposed to a TSS has long ago been floated and many MK’s in likud and the coalition were elected to execute that idea. The minister is not raising a new idea for him or the public.
Bernard, you are hell bent on spoiling for an argument, calling me down for disagreeing with you and demanding I provide you with a cogent fact based argument to counter yours. I made a very simple statement of the obvious, which obviously escapes you.
I am not about to waste time humoring your demand that I prove the obvious to you when you are blind to the obvious.
Ted’s comment augments mine in the sense that before the anti-TSS idea can be implemented by the Netanyahu, – ie. action, that idea has to be accepted by him. So far Netanyahu is not accepting the idea being pushed on him and thus no action in furtherance of that idea is being carried out.
You are the one who began this by saying I was 100% wrong and when I disagreed, you got personal in a mean spirited way by calling me down and again demanding I provide a fact based counter argument.
Bernard, all can see it is you who has pissed your own pants on this one. Accusing me that it was I who pissed on you, will convince no one.
At the moment, those in the government who are against a Palestinian state aren’t running the government, Bibi is. Before Bibi left for the UN an open letter was given to him arguing against a Pali state. Likud Central Committee chaired by Danon will be holding a meeting soon in which an attempt will be made to shackle Bibi. They are doing what they can. It is not at all certain that should they go so far as to break up the government,that Bibi couldn’t form another government using Labour, Shas and UTJ. Or if new elections were held on the issue of a Palestinian state, that they would win.
Talking about the issue is not about seeing how the wind blows but about changing the discourse to strengthen their numbers.
@ Bill Narvey:
please read about Uri Ariel and rethink whether it is likely that he was running the idea of no Palestinian state up a flagpole to test public reaction to that idea in his recent comments. Honesty is a good policy.
Bill Narvey Said:
Any argument for this statement that relates to the specific subject? As usual, you give no factual evidence or argument to support your opinion based upon the specific situation and in this latest statement you offer nothing but your divine opinion. It appears to me that so far all your arguments are generic. One can, generically, argue the opposite of anything as long as evidence or support are unnecessary. Such arguments are a waste of time. Having an opinion is one thing but denigrating the opinion of others and offering no argument of support other than generic is just arrogance and vanity. Making the assumption that the minister is clueless is the only way to accept your generic argument of “ideas precede action” or he was “running it up the flagpole”. You gave no reason, generic or otherwise for this most recent statement that I am wrong. How about an argument based on Israel and the minister in question to support your statement that I am wrong in holding my opinion. I was told you were a lawyer and lawyers usually take a basic logic course in college. Its not enough “to say “it is so” or “it is not”, those are the arguments of 6 year olds.
Bernard, to use a pun, we are poles apart on this issue. You however, said it yourself in your first post, “…I could be wrong, but….”
I am calling you on that. There is no “but” about it. You are wrong!
@ Bill Narvey:
bernard ross Said:
my error Bill, I meant “polls” (I doubt they bring “poles”) Must have been all that talk about “flagpoles” 🙂
Bill Narvey Said:
I expect that you are 100% wrong. it would be odd for a minister of govt to be so uninformed of his political community as to be unaware of prevailing views towards a pal state. A politician who has run for office on the basis of those views. It is not a new idea that needs running up a flagpole. Everyday they commission poles to assess the current percentages. He is long past showcasing the new idea of “being against a pal state”, that idea was run up the flagpole ages ago. The idea state has passed. He is in the govt at the seat of power. The idea which was past run up the flagpole by him and others is long overdue for execution. I think it makes more commonsense to assume that he is not an ignorant dolt and rather that his latest “running the idea up the flagpole” is to make a show that although he “appears” to be ineffective at influencing his own govt to take action towards a single jewish state, everyone should see that he is “against the pals state”. Bill, I think you should stop popping back with unrelated generic ideas and deal with the specific instance.
CA, do you mean Israel should give building permits to Palestinians in the West Bank? If so, am I to understand that you take the position that Israel not only controls, but owns the West Bank and the Palestinians are under Israeli law?
I am not sure what you mean, so I am asking you to elaborate.
I have no problem with Israel building anywhere in the land. I was never in favor the TSS.
I just think the Arabs should be given permits to build as well … that is all.
Bernard, ideas precede action. I expect those Ministers who are speaking out against a Palestinian state are running the idea up the flagpole to see who salutes. If their ideas gain traction in the political and public realm, they will then have greater confidence to more forcefully articulate their views and prevail on Israeli leaders to join them in standing against Netanyahu’s avowed support for the TSS.
I would expect that Ministers of govt are supposed to be at or nearest to the seat of power and therefore acting rather than changing the discourse is supposed to be their job. I don’t expect ministers of govt to be out trying to change discourse but rather to be actively executing the changed discourse into govt policy and action. If it is only about discourse then I would consider it to be cheap opportunistic drivel. I could be wrong, but from ministers I expect action, execution, not discourse. Discourse is for the citizen, the opposition politician, even the elected govt MK, but a minister is supposed to be beyond discourse. Perhaps everybody has been lulled into a false sense of powerlessness and the habit of expecting nothing from their ministers of govt..