Tweet
[QUOTE=C0ckney;5947280]ok zevico.
these were the liberman quotes that geremous posted in the other thread.
this is one of the guys at the highest level of government in israel, i think they're pretty outrageous myself and the fact he occupies an important position in the israeli government is a disgrace. you did describe his roles as symbolic, i can quote that too if you like. also, those statements are not 20 years+ old as you try to claim.
Well no, he doesn't receive the pleasure of making policy on any issue in which the PM disagrees with him. If the FM disagrees enough he can leave the coalition. The PM prevails on all questions. That's how English parliamentary systems work, you know [absent the proportional system for elections and a President instead of a Queen, the Israeli parliamentary system is equivalent to the English].
Certainly the FM has legal powers vested in him by law--appointing ambassadors, for example--there was a recent disagreement between the PM and the FM on this issue. But that's not equivalent to deciding policy. But policymakers understand that this particular FM does not make the final decisions.
1. You cannot dismiss the past. The past informs the present. Plainly groups change but in analysing whether they have we must account for how and why they changed--if indeed they changed at all. The MB has not changed.
2. Socialism spells economic failure for the Egyptians. It also spells a concentration of power in the hands of the government--the MB (or it would like it). That means tyranny. Basic stuff. But yes, poverty and corruption--who doesn't love it?
1. Preaching hatred is recent. Words are actions, and they deserve to be analysed as any other action might.
2. Opposition to freedom of speech is recent.
3. Opposition to women in politics is recent.
4. Praise for the Iranian system of government is recent.
5. The MB's statements in English are intended for the English speaking world, not their Egyptian MB members.
6. More in future.
these were the liberman quotes that geremous posted in the other thread.
this is one of the guys at the highest level of government in israel, i think they're pretty outrageous myself and the fact he occupies an important position in the israeli government is a disgrace. you did describe his roles as symbolic, i can quote that too if you like. also, those statements are not 20 years+ old as you try to claim.
1. As to the 2006 statement. Punishment for any activity in the absence of a crime is a contradiction in terms in a country where the rule of law prevails. Lieberman does not call for the abrogation of the rule of law; he decries those who meet with Hamas as enemies. Ideologically speaking, he is probably correct in respect of Arab Mks who meet with Hamas. Legally speaking, I cannot say--plainly the mere fact of a meeting is not enough evidence to establish a charge of collaboration. There is a difference between a political denunciation and a call for murder. The Israeli polity has long tolerated pro-Hamas politicians in Israel and I have no reason to think that Lieberman would do any differently in office. I doubt he would win office,
it's good that you've explained your position further now, but i'm afraid it still doesn't convince. you've got a guy who says a lot of outrageous things, and has a lot views that would be considered outrageous in any civilised country involved at the highest level of government. what is the FM receiving for this? nothing, no say on policy, maybe just a warm fuzzy feeling, you would have us believe. however, it's completely obvious that his party is receiving something for being part of the coalition i.e. ministerial positions and an influence on policy.
it's good that you've explained your position further now, but i'm afraid it still doesn't convince. you've got a guy who says a lot of outrageous things, and has a lot views that would be considered outrageous in any civilised country involved at the highest level of government. what is the FM receiving for this? nothing, no say on policy, maybe just a warm fuzzy feeling, you would have us believe. however, it's completely obvious that his party is receiving something for being part of the coalition i.e. ministerial positions and an influence on policy.
Certainly the FM has legal powers vested in him by law--appointing ambassadors, for example--there was a recent disagreement between the PM and the FM on this issue. But that's not equivalent to deciding policy. But policymakers understand that this particular FM does not make the final decisions.
the muslim brotherhood have no official power as of yet. the charges you lay against them fall into the following categories, things in the far distant past (they assassinated people sixty years+ ago, so what?), the ridiculous (they're socialists, ooohh noes!), the unsubstantiated or the irrelevant.
2. Socialism spells economic failure for the Egyptians. It also spells a concentration of power in the hands of the government--the MB (or it would like it). That means tyranny. Basic stuff. But yes, poverty and corruption--who doesn't love it?
lets looks at some of things that the brotherhood have been saying and doing recently, and how they see things going forward. this is what is important and relevant, which makes me wonder to you don't want to discuss it and instead prefer to talk about events so far in the past that everyone involved has long since died.
2. Opposition to freedom of speech is recent.
3. Opposition to women in politics is recent.
4. Praise for the Iranian system of government is recent.
5. The MB's statements in English are intended for the English speaking world, not their Egyptian MB members.
6. More in future.
Comment