Anti-zionism is anti-semitism?

[faded glory]

Ya, same with the catholics in northern ireland.

[Tom201]

Saying that the Jews, unlike any other ehtnic group, do not have the right to have a state is anti-semitism

So by that definition Israel has a racist policy, cose they dont allow a Palastinian state, yes?

[Sandman]

Ya, same with the catholics in northern ireland.

They got the vote in dribs and drabs at pretty much the same time as everyone else. Britains first female MP was a member of Sinn Fein, though naturally she refused to take her seat.

[Saint Marcus]

They believed you really had to have three independent branches, a constitution that protects essential rights, and a Supreme Court that keeps the other two branches in check and that can guarantee individual rights against even theacts and legislation of the other two.

As I recall, it was the frenchman Montesquieu with his Trias Politica who first came up with this, not the Americans. And this Trias Politica is the basis of many of the world's democracies, not just that of the USA.

When I say democracy, I really mean the kind where the power is in the hands of the largest party in the legislature. This our founding fathers thought was a tyranny of the majority. In such a democracy, the rights of the minority are not secure.

The "constitutional republic" you are describing, isn't only found in the USA.

So I guess I still don't understand what sets the US apart from other nations, in this instance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


As I recall, it was the frenchman Montesquieu with his Trias Politica who first came up with this, not the Americans. And this Trias Politica is the basis of many of the world's democracies, not just that of the USA.



The "constitutional republic" you are describing, isn't only found in the USA.

So I guess I still don't understand what sets the US apart from other nations, in this instance.

Saint Marcus, Montesquieu is to be applaud for advancing political theory. Nations that have adopted a constitution with three independent co-equal branches of government with a Supreme Court more powerful than the other two branches are to be applauded. (BTW, which countries do you consider to have this structure?)

But many, if not most democracies in the world (I would include communist governments in this camp) are of the UK variety. With no real constitution, no "Supreme" Court or independently elected president, the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities. This can happen even in a constitutional republic, but it is much more difficult due to the independent judiciary that presides over the other two branches. (When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court becuase they held some of the New Deal legislation unconstitutional, there was a virtual revolt in the U.S.)

Democracies can be just as tyrannical as dictatorships.

I have no idea whether the possibility of Palestine being formed into the single state based on the U.S. federal model was ever seriously discussed. Everone seems to assume that the government of a greater Palestine will be of the UK variety. I can fully understand why a minority Jewish population would never agree to live in such a "democracy." Ditto the Arabs if they are in the minority. Either could simply abolish the rights of the minority and there would be no recourse other than war.

A two state solution seems to be the only viable solution. Israel can continue to provide for a right of return of Jews to Israel; Palestine of their refugees to their territory.

A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation.

Ned

[Sandman]

With no real constitution, no "Supreme" Court or independently elected president, the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities.

That's complete nonsense, the UK is no more a tyranny of the majority than America.

Both the US and Britain have abused minorities in the past, and I cannot see what good your system does.

[Saint Marcus]

Nations that have adopted a constitution with three independent co-equal branches of government with a Supreme Court more powerful than the other two branches are to be applauded.

Well, Holland for one. A small neo-nazi party here wanted to hold a protest march, but the authorities didn't allow it. The supreme court stepped in and ruled that the march should go on.

With no real constitution, no "Supreme" Court or independently elected president, the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities.

The Dutch system is completely different from the American system, and I don't think Holland is always as "democratic" as it should be, but:

- we have a written constitution. Which, I believe, can only be changed if 2/3rd of the Parliament and Senate agree, and (though I'm not sure about this) new elections have been held.
- we have a supreme court which may (and does) overrule political decisions.
- no directly elected president, but I don't see the relevance of having one. Since American presidents are also members of a party, which they dependent on, I really don't see the big significance.
- No single party has ever(?) gotten the mayority of the votes, and a coalition governement always needs to make compromises (thus one group can't dominate another too much)
- Minorities cannot be oppressed, it's against Article 1 of the Constitution. That is why minorities here have so many rights, unlike in some countries (just compare gay (who are a minority) rights in Holland and the USA.)
- The Constitution also guarantees that anyone can form a political party. The only exception are parties which are instigating hatred towards minorities, or who are "undemocratic" in principle. This is the lesson we learned from WW2, when Hitler rose to power in the parliament and used democracy to form an autocracy.

Like I said, I don't think Holland is the pinacle of "democracy" (or constitutional republic as you put it), but I don't see the big difference between the US and Holland in this regard (despite having quite different political systems).

[Eli]

Originally posted by Tom201
So by that definition Israel has a racist policy, cose they dont allow a Palastinian state, yes?

Even that blood thirsty Sharon supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The question is why Jews/Pals shouldnt have a state in the present? Because they are what they are, or because they send people to explode in markets?

Israelis who oppose the Palestinian right to have a state(no matter what) and deny the existance of a Palestinian nationality are no better than Imran.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ned
A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation.

A Palestinian dictatorship is more likely to happen.

[Saint Marcus]

Israelis who oppose the Palestinian right to have a state(in principal) and deny the existance of a Palestinian nationality are no better than Imran.

like most of the Likud party, including Netanyahu.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
like most of the Likud party, including Netanyahu.

Care to remind me the reasons Netanyahu and the Likud center opposed the creation of a Pal state?
Because Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to be in Eretz Yisrael and should move to Syria, or because establishing a state now will be a clear threat to the Israeli security(from obvious reasons)?

If Netanyahu had truly opposed to a Palestinian state he would've burned the Oslo papers back in 1996.

[Saint Marcus]

Care to remind me the reasons Netanyahu and the Likud center opposed the creation of a Pal state?
Because Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to be in Eretz Yisrael and should move to Syria, or because establishing a state now will be a clear threat to the Israeli security(from obvious reasons)?

He claims "because of security reasons", but that doesn't make much sense since he said he'd "never" allow the existance of a Palestinian state, not even if there really is peace. Others who oppose a Pal state still think they should get one, when a real peace is established. But by saying "never" I find the security argument a bit misleading.

[Az]

Imran : yes that makes you anti-kurd as well. For a long time I am a big proponent of a country for kurds. They're people as well. They're persecuted everywhere else. They need a place to call home.

No **** sherlock

keep digging watson.

A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation

I suspect the obstacle to this reunion is a clan of warlords that took charge there and established a monarchial dynasty there.
Basically, in the 19th century , The main small clashes that were around what was called then Palestine, and now is called Israel, the West Bank , and Jordan , were between the phalahs , which are the farmers , that call themselves now "Palestinians" , and the Beduins , the semi-nomadic shepherds, the part of the population that is more loyal to the Monarchy, because the monarch is a former beduine himself, from a different place , of course. The maximum level of organization was an extended family, which would sometimes live in a village of it's own. This was the picture during the 19th century, with things begining to change only in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century , with Jews coming in, and then Britain occupying the land, and first factories created by jews. ( end of 19th century )

[Ned]

Saint Marcus, Can you provide me with an link to an English-language version of your constitution? Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


That's complete nonsense, the UK is no more a tyranny of the majority than America.

Both the US and Britain have abused minorities in the past, and I cannot see what good your system does.

I see you are from Scotland. Are you certain that all Scots agree with what you just said. Do the Irish? Do Catholics? I know America found Paliament to be a tyranny.

Ned