Israel confirms growth of illegal settlements

[Intifada]

The Israeli government has confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank.

Approximately 3,500 homes are planned for Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem.

The settlements at Ariel in the northern West Bank, and Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, are also expected to be expanded.

Israeli officials confirmed that Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has approved the construction of the new homes in Maale Adumim.

Defence Ministry spokeswoman Shiri Eden said the expansion of the settlement is part of an overall development plan for Maale Adumim approved by the government in 1999.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Israeli plan threatened hopes of restarting the Middle East peace process.

"[This] sabotages all efforts seeking to get the peace process back on track," he told the AFP news agency.

"The Israeli government wants to determine Jerusalem's fate by presenting the settlements and wall as a fait accompli.

"We ask the Quartet and American President George Bush: what happened to the two-state vision and how can we have peace while settlements and the wall continue to be built?" Mr Erekat said.

Under the peace plan known as the roadmap, Israel pledged to freeze the growth of settlements on land occupied since 1967. The plan is sponsored by the "quartet" of the US, Russia, European Union and United Nations.

The international community considers all settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

About 400,000 Jewish settlers live in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem - alongside more than four million Palestinians.

Focus on Gaza

The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Jerusalem says that most attention in the region over the last few months has been focused on Israel's plans to withdraw from settlements in the Gaza Strip and evacuate settlers from the area.

But now the government has made it clear that while it pulls out part of the Palestinian territories, it plans to step up its presence in another, he says.

The Israeli defence ministry confirmed to the BBC that 3,500 housing units would be constructed between the largest West Bank settlement, Maale Adumin, and Jerusalem.

An official from the prime minister's office is reported as saying that building would continue in two other large settlements, because these settlements would never be transferred to the Palestinian Authority.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Tel Aviv said that Washington expected Israel to keep the commitments it made under the roadmap, and for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to abide by the promises he made President Bush.

Earlier this month a damaging report commissioned by Mr Sharon found that Israeli ministries had methodically helped to build scores of unauthorised Jewish outposts in the West Bank.

Outposts are settlements that the Israeli government has not approved, considers illegal and has committed itself under the roadmap to dismantling.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4367787.stm)

[Redmau5]

Zionists are scum. The whole zionist movement is scum. Why should the Jews be given a national homeland ? Why not a catholic and protestant homeland as well ? The whole movement stinks of hypocrisy.

[LSD]

Zionists are scum. The whole zionist movement is scum.

Thank you for your constructive contribution to this issue.


Why not a catholic

What you mean like the Vatican?

Or do you mean other predeominantly Catholic states like Ireland or Spain?


and protestant homeland as well ?

What like England, where the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church?

Or more like the US where something like 75% are protestant.


The whole movement stinks of hypocrisy.

Religion "stinks of hypocrisy", as does nationalism in any form.

Zionism is no more "scum" than Irish nationalism or Eastern Orthodoxism.


Why should the Jews be given a national homeland ?

Well, "given" is a pejorative term.

The history of the formation of the modern State of Israel is a complex one, as I'm sure you know, but I suppose one justification could be that the UN said so.

But, more practically, the state of Israel has about as much justification for its existance as the United States. Far more in fact as there is a historical claim that such a country, with roughly similar borders, did exist there about 2500 years ago.

One certainly can't say that for any European state in the Americas!

And for all the dispicable acts that the Israeli government/army has committed against the palestinian people, none of them even remotely compare to the treatement that the indigenous population of North and, espciallly, South America recieved.

There still are Palestinians living today.

99.5% of the native population of the Americas was wiped out.

And how about the wars in Ireland or genocides in Africa and Asia.

Now, I'm in no way a fan of the Israeli government, but pretending that Zionism is any better or any worse than any other nationalistic movement is ludicrous.

That's hypocrisy, my friend.

[Redmau5]

Well i couldn't exactly start naming off every nationalist movement in the world. Im sorry if i didn't dress my post up in any fanciful way, but i just had to put it bluntly.

And would you care to elaborate on Irish "nationalism" ?

[LSD]

And would you care to elaborate on Irish "nationalism" ?

Sinn Fein (http://sinnfein.ie/)

[T_34]

Lysergic, Ireland does not discriminate against Jews or Protestants or Buddhists, Israel and the Zionists do it to any non-jew. I would like to see a regular person from Ireland get an Israeli passport. Israel is a fascist sectarian state, based on the ludacrous idea that the Jews should have a homeland, which again is based on good old 'spiritual booze' of the Jewish Old Testament. And who defended the USA? No-one, just making arguments for arguments sake, raisin points to use against Makaveli, that have no relevance to the issue at hand. For all you know Makaveli could feel the same way about the USA.

[LSD]

And who defended the USA? No-one, just making arguments for arguments sake, raisin points to use against Makaveli, that have no relevance to the issue at hand. For all you know Makaveli could feel the same way about the USA.

Never said he didn't!

I was just pointing out that his critisism of "zionism" is far to specific.


Lysergic, Ireland does not discriminate against Jews or Protestants or Buddhists

Absolutely, there have never been problems between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

Never, ever, ever...


I would like to see a regular person from Ireland get an Israeli passport.

Or a Japanese one for that matter.

Many coutnries have difficult processes for acquiring citizenship, so what?


based on the ludacrous idea that the Jews should have a homeland, which again is based on good old 'spiritual booze' of the Jewish Old Testament.

60 years.

Israel has been around for 60 years. That's three generations now.

Does it really matter what its original founders were smoking?

America's founders thought they were discovering India! It doesn't matter.


Israel is a fascist sectarian state

bzzz. Wrong.

Fascism is a word, it has a meaning. Look it up and try again.

Israel is a capitalist representative republic.

It certainly isn't democratic (no country in the world today is), but fascist? No.


Israel and the Zionists do it to any non-jew.

Yes an no.

Certainly Israel has disciminatory policies in comparison with Western Europe or North America, but... who's doing that?!?

In comparison with her neighbours, I would propose that Israel is one of the least disciminatory states.

I mean, you do realize that Syria is fascist, right?
And that Jordan is a fucking Monarchy?
And that Iran is an actual theocracy?

Here, let's do some Rawlsian veil of ignoranceing...

If you didn't know your race/religion/social standing/economic status, would you rather live in Republican Israel or Baathist Syria?

Israel may have its many problems, but Syria it ain't.

[novemba]

Are you Jewish?

Are you Palestinian?

Have you ever been to Syria?

Jordan?

Iran?

Israel?

[MKS]

Israel is a puppet state of the Western powers utilized to control a region that holds the majority of the worlds oil supply. Religion, nationalism, etc are only facades to cover the fact that if the Jews wanted a homeland in Africa or Southeast Asia not one Western country would aid them. Israels continued growth and treatment of the Arab population can be compared to Aparthied and even to American Manifest Destiny, a practice guided by racism and greed.

[MeTaLhEaD]

Damn zionists there are even protesting the desicion of the pullout of Israely forces from palestine.

[LSD]

Israel is a puppet state of the Western powers utilized to control a region that holds the majority of the worlds oil supply. Religion, nationalism, etc are only facades to cover the fact that if the Jews wanted a homeland in Africa or Southeast Asia not one Western country would aid them.

Absolutely.

Politics is politics.


Israels continued growth and treatment of the Arab population can be compared to Aparthied

I know everyone loves that analogy, but its not that historically valid.

While there are certainly disciminatory laws in effect, they are not nearly as bad nor prejudicial as those employed by South Africa.


and even to American Manifest Destiny, a practice guided by racism and greed.

I've already addressed this:


And for all the dispicable acts that the Israeli government/army has committed against the palestinian people, none of them even remotely compare to the treatement that the indigenous population of North and, espciallly, South America recieved.

There still are Palestinians living today.

99.5% of the native population of the Americas was wiped out.

And how about the wars in Ireland or genocides in Africa and Asia.


Are you Jewish?

No.


Are you Palestinian?

No.


Have you ever been to Syria?

No.


Jordan?

No.


Iran?

No.


Israel?

No.


Now, I've answered your questions, so you answer mine.

If you didn't know your race/religion/social standing/economic status, would you rather live in Republican Israel or Baathist Syria?

[MKS]

My comparisons were loose ones but there are similarities. Obviously Arparthied was directly brutal and racist, but so is the corralling of the Arab population of Palestine, much like the corralling of the Black native population of South Africa.

Israel in my humble opinion is a brutal state controlled by brutal people.

[T_34]

the Irish Government never discriminated against Protestants, and if they did, it was on an extemely small scale. Passports, yes it would be hard for an Irishman or a Japanese man anywhere, but if that Irishman was Jewish, it would be a totally different matter, they would be accepted as Israeli almost immediately. That's what I mean by sectarian.

And maybe Fascist was a bad choice of word, but they are right-wing suppressive assholes, even against their own citizens who disagree with them on the Palestinian situation (not to mention the nuclear one).

[Redmau5]

No, i think fascist was a particularly apt word. You say Fascism has a meaning and i know it does, but if you were to take it by it's essential meaning then it would be an extreme ITALIAN nationalist movement. Fascism was only designed for Italy at the time, the same way Nazism can only be described as a German movement.

If we were to take nazi and fascist by their meanings, then they would only apply to Germany and Italy. So how come we have anti-nazis and anti-fascists all over the world ? The answer is simple; no one takes fascist and nazi by its literal meaning. And anyway, i think T-34 was only using it as a political slur, i don't think he was actually implying they were running a fascist method of government.

That's getting a little off the point seeing we're here to debate Israel but i just thought i'd clear things up.

[LSD]

the Irish Government never discriminated against Protestants, and if they did, it was on an extemely small scale. Passports, yes it would be hard for an Irishman or a Japanese man anywhere, but if that Irishman was Jewish, it would be a totally different matter, they would be accepted as Israeli almost immediately. That's what I mean by sectarian.

And if you are ethnically Japanese, it is much easier to become a Japanese citizen then if you are a "geijin".

Ethnicism/Nationalism isn't a Jewish phenomenon.


And maybe Fascist was a bad choice of word, but they are right-wing suppressive assholes, even against their own citizens who disagree with them on the Palestinian situation (not to mention the nuclear one).

Ah, "right-wing suppressive assholes, even against their own citizens who disagree with them", you mean like the US, Britain, Japan, China, and, oh rightm half of the world?


If we were to take nazi and fascist by their meanings, then they would only apply to Germany and Italy. So how come we have anti-nazis and anti-fascists all over the world ? The answer is simple; no one takes fascist and nazi by its literal meaning.

No one takes them in their strictest sense, but facism, even in the loosest definition still has a specific meaning:

For one thing, it is not republican; it is not representative.

It is far more militarist than Israel has ever been. And, sorry, but for all the critisisms of Israel's civil rights record, compare them with any fascist state, and you'll see the difference.

Syria is fascist. Israel is a right-wing republic.


nd anyway, i think T-34 was only using it as a political slur, i don't think he was actually implying they were running a fascist method of government.

Maybe, maybe not.

But its a word that is definitely over-used in the left.

"political slurs" add nothing to the debate.


No, i think fascist was a particularly apt word.

Big fan of "slurs" are we?

[Intifada]

LSD, I agree with many of the points you have made, thus far.

This, however, is something that I find hard to agree with:

While there are certainly disciminatory laws in effect, they are not nearly as bad nor prejudicial as those employed by South Africa.


People like Desmond Tutu and Mandela himself, have compared Israeli apartheid to that which the South African people faced and struggled against.

[LSD]

People like Desmond Tutu and Mandela himself, have compared Israeli apartheid to that which the South African people faced and struggled against.

I didn't say that they aren't comparable, but I stick to my position that Israel's policies, while disciminatory and reprehensible, are not on the same levels as those of Apartheid South Africa.

It's a matter of severity, admittedly, but we must remeber that implementation is important.

The difference between the racial policies of Appartheid South Africa and those of National Socialist Germany is arguable only one of "degree". But to claim that South Africa is on the moral level of Nazi Germany is historically and morally dishonest.

Liksewise for Cambodia's and China's anti-intellectual campaigns, or Britain's and Spain's treatment of colonial natives.

I suppose that because both Israel and South Africas employed racial/ethnic standards, they are an obvious comparison, but we cannot forget that differences in degree matter.

I can tell you that I would rather be arabic in Israel than black in South Africa, but, of course, I'm glad that I'm neither.

[T_34]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2005, 03:53 PM


It is far more militarist than Israel has ever been. And, sorry, but for all the critisisms of Israel's civil rights record, compare them with any fascist state, and you'll see the difference.


Israeli's not as militaristic? With conscription (even for females) during times of relative peace, every citizen serving in the armed forces? That is quite militaristic to me, even when compared to Facist Italy and Germany. Their human rights abuses are clearly up there with Fascist states, Sharon should be considered a war criminal after his actions in Lebanon! Figures and numbers mean nothing, the slaughter of thousands of refugees says it all, yet the zionists still cry about the holocaust? That stinks of hypocrasy! Israel are Fascist in every way but yours.

[bolshevik butcher]

The land grabbing continues. This is a form of genocide.

[LSD]

Sharon should be considered a war criminal after his actions in Lebanon! Figures and numbers mean nothing, the slaughter of thousands of refugees says it all,

I actually agree with you on this one.

But how about the things we diagree on:

Israel are Fascist in every way but yours.

...and the meaning of the word!

Did you even read my post?

Israel = REPUBLIC.
Fascism = NOT REPUBLIC.

Comprehend???


Israeli's not as militaristic? With conscription (even for females) during times of relative peace, every citizen serving in the armed forces?

Like Switzerland or Greece?

Conscription in and of itself is not a sign of militarism per se.

And, besides, are you honestly surprised that a country with neighbours like Israel has would be paranoid about security?


That is quite militaristic to me, even when compared to Facist Italy and Germany.

No it isn't.

Israel has an army that could, easily occupy Jordan, Lebannon, probably Syria, probably Egypt, probably even Iran.

Italy invaded Ethipia, Albania, Greece, France, and Egypt.
Germany invaded Poland, Belgium, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Russia, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, England, Egypt, Italy, Greece...

Israel has given back occupied territories to Lebanon, to Egypt, to Jordan. Sure they're still occupying parts of official 1967 Jordan, but, Russia is still occupying Kaliningrad, England is still occupying Ireland, the US is still occupying part of Cuba ...and... Iraq ... and Afhanistan...and parts of Japan and Taiwan and Saudi Arabia and Germany...

And if you want to get technical every North and South American country has been occupying Native American soil for hundreds of years.

Now, I am not saying that military occupation is "good", but I am saying that military occupation is not a sign of "fascism".

If Israel were like "Facist Italy and Germany" as you claim, the IDF would be running half of the middle east, or at the very least it would be trying to.

It isn't.


Their human rights abuses are clearly up there with Fascist states,

:lol:!

You're going to compare the occupation of the West Bank with the occupation of Poland???

Good luck with that.... :D


yet the zionists still cry about the holocaust?

Yes.

11 million.

That's an eleven with six zeroes after it.

11, 000, 000

How many people died in the last Intifada? 2 maybe 3 thousand, right? (Israelis included)

The Government of Israel is right-wing and its nationalistic and its discriminatory and its racist.

Over the last 50 years, if you try hard enough, you could probably attribute something like 10,000 civilian deaths to the Israeli government.

Nazi Germany killed eleven million people.

Tell me again why we shouldn't "cry".

[Redmau5]

You seem to be implying we can't criticise Israel without criticising every other country which has committed a war crime. As far as i knew, this thread was about Israel confirming the growth of illegal settlements, not about the US, Britain or any other country. Although you can make comparisons, you can't keep basing every post on those comparisons.

As for Fascism being non-republican, what about the Salo Republic ??? :D lol.

As for Germany invading England, where the fuck did you pull that from ??

[T_34]

I did not say the occupation of the West Bank, I meant the massacre of reugee camps in gerneral, but mainly Lebanon, and I did not say the figures were even close to that of the Holocaust, but is the murder of around 20 000 refugees whilst still seeking sympathy because of the holocaust not hypocritical?

[T_34]

Here's a neutral definition for you: Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. from http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Pol...Structure3.htm) (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.html)

Jew = superior
Palestinian = Inferior (bad)

[LSD]

You seem to be implying we can't criticise Israel without criticising every other country which has committed a war crime. As far as i knew, this thread was about Israel confirming the growth of illegal settlements, not about the US, Britain or any other country. Although you can make comparisons, you can't keep basing every post on those comparisons.

Actually, you made the comparisons: "Zionists are scum. The whole zionist movement is scum. Why should the Jews be given a national homeland ? Why not a catholic and protestant homeland as well ? The whole movement stinks of hypocrisy."

I was merely responding to your claim that Zionism was somehow unique in its nationalistic character.


I did not say the occupation of the West Bank, I meant the massacre of reugee camps in gerneral, but mainly Lebanon, and I did not say the figures were even close to that of the Holocaust, but is the murder of around 20 000 refugees whilst still seeking sympathy because of the holocaust not hypocritical?

No.

Becaue the murder of those refugees was carried out by the Israeli government and the Israeli military.

You can condemn those individuals involved, and I encourage you to do so, but that in no ways negates the fact that the holocaust was the greatest single crim in human history and deserves our remembrance.


Here's a neutral definition for you: Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin.

No.

Fascism does not require racial or "origin" theories.

As to "creed", well every oppressive government condemns those who disagree with it so that is hardly a defining characteristic.

Italian fascism was based, basically, on militarism and obediance.

Ethnicism rarely entered into it.


The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

:lol:!

Precisely who "lived in a republic" in fasicst Italy or Germany or Spain?


(from http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Pol...Structure3.htm)

dead link.


Jew = superior
Palestinian = Inferior (bad)

There's a word for that:

Racist.

...but not fascist!!!


As for Fascism being non-republican, what about the Salo Republic ??? lol.

..or the People's Democratic Republic of Korea?

Israel is a functional republic, not merely one in name.

Despite its policies and its discriminations, Israel has an elected representative government.

Now, how much does that actually mean??

In the long run, probably not that much... but it does mean that Israel is not fascist and that I would rather live in Israel then Monarchist Jordan or Baathist Syria!


As for Germany invading England, where the fuck did you pull that from ??

Look up the history of the Channel Islands.

They were occupied in June of 1940, the only part of England to be conquered by Germany.

[T_34]

Look you're the one who keeps trying to give definitions, you got one, a neutral one, and it proved you wrong so face it.

[LSD]

Look you're the one who keeps trying to give definitions, you got one, a neutral one, and it proved you wrong so face it.

:lol: :lol:

..except it isn't true!

:D

"Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin." is not an accurate defintion of Fascism!

Just because you claim its a "netural definition" doesn't make it so!!

Here's Wikkipedia's take:
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that
1. exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
2. uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
4. engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
5. engages in corporatism,[1]
6. implements or is a totalitarian regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Unlike you, I provided a hot link and a (reasonably) credible source.

That's a "neutral defintion"!

[T_34]

are you blind? there is a clear link on my post - here it is again

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Pol.../Structure3.htm (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm)

[T_34]

The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. TOP

2. Disdain for
the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. TOP

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats
as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. TOP

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. TOP

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. TOP

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. TOP

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. TOP

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. TOP

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. TOP

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. TOP

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. TOP

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. TOP

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. TOP

________________________________

An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home.

[LSD]

I vehemently disagree with that "14 point" definition of fascism.

It is clearly an attempt to stir up controversy by crafting a defintion based on modern-day America.

From what I can tell, "Dr. Lawrence Britt", the author of these "14 points", is neither a Doctor, nor a political scientist but rather a retired oil executive!! Furthermore, it appears that he ripped off his "points" from This site (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html) of all places, but changed some of the entries to make them more mainstream..

The point is that this definitions is hardly authoritative and certainly not "neutral", its a political attempt to newspeak the word Fascism in order to attack American policy.

Now, I am no fan of the American government and will freely admit that it is one of the scariest in memory but it is not fascist.

Neither is Israel.

Again, I will direct you to the wikkipedia article which is far more concise and far less deceptive.

Honestly, the definition you provided is awful.

It's ludicrous that this Mr. Britt didn't include that fundamental feature of fascism: social repression. Instead lists entries such as "Religion and Government are Intertwined" which was not true in Germany, "Rampant Sexism" which was no more marked in Italy than the rest of Western Europe, and "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts" which is as common a feature of radical communist groups as it was fascis ones.

As a student of history and espcially of the 20s and 30s, I can tell you that Mr Britt, does not know of what he speaks.

In short, this is a BAD defintion, and I strongly reject it.

[T_34]

I reject you and everything you say, the only opinion you will accept is your own, you have made that quite clear.

And it is clear you treat wikipedia as a God, but let me remind you that anyone can edit that thing, so you are basing your opinions on those of a mystery man.

[LSD]

Oh come on!

:rolleyes:

Any rational discussion includes reasonable critisism of presented evidence. Did you really expect me to take the word of a retired oil executive on what fascism is?

I am not "basing my oppion" on Wikkipedia but on years of study. I was merely suggesting that as a good public reference source, there are many others.

You made the claim that Israel was a fascist state, in order to defend this claim you presented an article written by a fraudulant nobody. When I pointed out the problems with your source, you attack me for being ignorant, arrogant and "[rejected me] and everything [I] say".

So I ask you, which one of us is being unreasonable here?

[T_34]

:D YOU

[fernando]

The level of this discussion is seriously dropping :o :P

So far Im agreeing with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide on this.

[T_34]

No one cares who you support, if you want to contribute say something worthwhile, don't get your nose all brown. :P

[Redmau5]

You reject anything which doesn't suit you. The governments may not be fascist in the literal sense of the word but it would be quite hard for any government to act as directly fascist in modern times. As i said, Fascism is strictly an Italian political idea and you have chosen to loosen the word so that it can be used in more general terms. So why can't i choose to loosen it even more and apply the term fascist to Israel and the United States ? You seem to be advocating one rule for you and another for us. The US and Israel may not be fascist in the same way Italy or Germany were, but political movements change and evolve, and fascism may have manifested itself into a form which suits the US and Israel. And besides, i was calling them fascist as an insult. What did you want me to say, Israel is a right-wing country ? That's hardly very insulting is it ?

As for Germany not being intertwined with the church, what about the fact that Protestant churches were largely untouched even though religion is seen as an enemy in Nazi doctrine ? And what about the 1933 concordat signed with the
Catholic church ? Britt didn't say the Church and State have to like each other in fascist countries, he said the state corresponds to the people's feelings about the church. And in Germany the people were very devout towards their church, and the Nazis played to that devoutness, in order to keep "sweet" with the population.

[T_34]

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, an Israeli.

What is to be done to stop Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's suppression of freedom of expression and the individual liberty of those who oppose his Disengagement/Expulsion Plan? Consider how the ugly head of fascism has appeared in Israel.

On February 13, 2005, Sharon told his cabinet, "Anyone who speaks or writes against the Disengagement Plan is guilty of incitement." The prime minister of Israel thus went on record saying that the expression of even the slightest opposition to his highly controversial plan is a criminal offense.

The next day Likud Minister of Internal Security Gideon Ezra, in a live interview on Israel Radio, said that people who shout at ministers should be placed under administrative detention - which means imprisoned without trial. Yet, the same Ezra supports releasing Arab terrorists convicted of murdering Israelis.

Moreover, Knesset member Effie Eitam was expelled from the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by its Likud chairman, Yuval Shteinitz, when Eitam argued with Sharon for accusing parliamentarians of incitement because they opposed his disengagement/expulsion plan.

The same week, Likud Transportation Minister Meir Shetreet (a former justice minister) told Israel Radio that Likud party members are guilty of incitement when they write letters to Likud MKs informing them that future political support for these politicians is dependent on their voting against the withdrawal/expulsion plan.

The Jerusalem Post's star political analyst, Caroline Glick, remarked that in Shetreet's view, it is incitement for constituents to base their support for politicians on the extent to which those politicians advance their interests while in office.

Unfortunately, Ms. Glick failed to point out that, under Israel's parliamentary system, Knesset members - and that means cabinet ministers - are not individually elected by, nor accountable to, any constituency. They are candidates on a party slate and they do not owe their position to the voters in a constituency election. Which means that Israel, unlike almost all countries having democratic elections for the lower or only branch of the legislature, is not, and never has been, a truly representative democracy.

This "incitement craze", and all this talk about assassins, are simply intended to intimidate and silence the national-religious camp, as the Left did before and after the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin - about which the truth has been hidden from the public.

In any event, Sharon is so obsessed with his Disengagement Plan that he denied Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon a one-year extension of his appointment, contrary to precedent and to the utter surprise of the Knesset. Shin Bet (General Security Services) Director Avi Dichter is also being replaced. The reason? Both men testified before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Disengagement Plan would lead to an increase in terrorism.

Sharon's stifling of professional criticism of Disengagement cannot but undermine Israel's security. Sharon wants only yes-men, and that means men of mediocrity or moral cowards. That's why Sharon dismissed ministers from the cabinet who disagreed with him on Disengagement. This is unheard of, especially in a parliamentary form of government in which the prime minister is only first among equals.

Sharon is transforming Israel into a fascist state. The Gush Katif area will be declared a military zone on May 15, which means its 8,000 Jewish residents will be under martial law.

Listen to what Effie Eitam said in the Knesset a few weeks ago: "I must tell you, Mr. Prime Minister - and though you are not honoring us with your presence, the words will certainly reach you - that I have served the country for many years on the battlefield, and during difficult and tense moments, but I have never heard from government elements in the State of Israel such unrestrained incitement as that which was heard from your confidantes and coalition partners this week. 'Break their bones!' your confidantes whispered, and the headlines blared it. Whose bones precisely do you intend to break, Mr. Prime Minister? Those of little children? Pregnant women? Civilian protestors?"

Eitam also referred to an article by Labor MK and former minister Ephraim Sneh, a doctor bound by the Hippocratic Oath. Sneh wrote that "it won't be so bad if we have a little civil war and some blood will be spilt." Eitam accused Sharon of wanting a second Altalena.

So, what can be done to stop the fascist dictatorship descending on Israel?




So I suppose now he isn&#39;t a real professor? Or he can&#39;t be seen as reliable? <_<

[Redmau5]

That article says it all. Even Israeli&#39;s are waking up to Sharon&#39;s new breed of neo-fascism. :o

[LSD]

Firstly, T_34:


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, an Israeli.

(snip)

So I suppose now he isn&#39;t a real professor? Or he can&#39;t be seen as reliable?

1. I take offense at your attitude. You&#39;re the one who presented the word of an Ex-Exxon man as political science gospel, not me&#33; Don&#39;t attack me because I exposed that.

2. As much as it may piss you off, I do find Professor Eidelberg to be an unreliable source.

Firstly, I don&#39;t know if you actually read through the article, but his biggest complaint seems to be that Sharon is transforming Israel into a fascist state ....so he can sell it to the Palestinians&#33;

From reading his other articles, it is clear that he is a Jewish nationalist who primarily hates Sharon for a "betrayal of the millions of Jews". He promoted abrogation of Oslo, destruction of the PLO, reoccupation of all palestian authority lands, and forced emmigration of Arabs&#33;

He wants Israel to become more "Jewish" and feels that Israel is "far too leniant" with the Palestianians.

I do not, therefore, trust that his political assesment is accurate.

3. Even if I did accept Eidelberg as a credible source (which I don&#39;t), if you&#39;ll notice he doesn&#39;t actualy say that Israel is fascist&#33;

He says that "Sharon is transforming Israel into a fascist state.", but hasn&#39;t become one yet.

So even this utter wacko acknowledges that Israel isn&#39;t fascist.


Secondly, Makaveli_05:


You reject anything which doesn&#39;t suit you. The governments may not be fascist in the literal sense of the word but it would be quite hard for any government to act as directly fascist in modern times.

Not at all, Syria is a particularly relevent example.


As i said, Fascism is strictly an Italian political idea and you have chosen to loosen the word so that it can be used in more general terms. So why can&#39;t i choose to loosen it even more and apply the term fascist to Israel and the United States ?

um... then why can&#39;t I call the United States Communist?

Maybe...because...it isn&#39;t&#33;?&#33;?


The US and Israel may not be fascist in the same way Italy or Germany were, but political movements change and evolve, and fascism may have manifested itself into a form which suits the US and Israel.

No it hasn&#39;t.

Fascism still has a specific meaning.

Just as I can&#39;t claim that Mexio is actually anarchist because anarchy has "manifested itself into a form which suits" Mexico, you can&#39;t claim that Fascism has "evolved" to fit Israel&#33;

Words have meaning, even political ones.

If we start redefining words to fit the political climate we are no better than the very Fascists you fear.


And besides, i was calling them fascist as an insult.

How constructive of you.


What did you want me to say, Israel is a right-wing country ? That&#39;s hardly very insulting is it ?

I would think it is, but it also happens to be true&#33;


As for Germany not being intertwined with the church, what about the fact that Protestant churches were largely untouched even though religion is seen as an enemy in Nazi doctrine ? And what about the 1933 concordat signed with the
Catholic church ?

The Concordat was political not religious, and the churched were MOSTLY left alone because the Nazis didn&#39;t want a revolution. But the Nazis did not "use" Christianity as a " tool to manipulate public opinion" as Mr Exxon suggests.


Britt didn&#39;t say the Church and State have to like each other in fascist countries, he said the state corresponds to the people&#39;s feelings about the church. And in Germany the people were very devout towards their church, and the Nazis played to that devoutness, in order to keep "sweet" with the population.

Actually, the Nazis dissuaded Church membership and tried to replace Christianity with a sort of Pseudo-Nordic Teutonic Fuhrer-ism.

Read up on Himmler&#39;s theories on spirituality to see what I mean.


That article says it all. Even Israeli&#39;s are waking up to Sharon&#39;s new breed of neo-fascism.

Ah&#33; So you&#39;re a fan of Proffessor Eidelberg, then?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:15 PM
I did not say the occupation of the West Bank, I meant the massacre of reugee camps in gerneral, but mainly Lebanon, and I did not say the figures were even close to that of the Holocaust, but is the murder of around 20 000 refugees whilst still seeking sympathy because of the holocaust not hypocritical?
It seems to me that you are blaming the entire Jewish population for the wrongs of the Israeli military. Where do you get these numbers anyway? I do deplore the actions of the IDF, but the amount of destruction towards other human beings is not nearly as bad as Nazi Germany. Alright, we&#39;ll take into account that 20,000 refugees have been killed. But what about the thousands of Germans that were killed in Dresden? I believe those numbers exceded 30,000. I know you aren&#39;t trying to defend america, but the fact is there is too much obsession with this conflict.

[T_34]

Read up on the Reich Church Lysergic, that was no Teutonic pagan effort, it was a Protestant church, which Hitler planned to impose on Germany&#39;s population, so disuaded is entirely the wrong word, I don&#39;t want to go into boring definitions and technicalities like you, but you&#39;re still wrong. Yes they had a Pagan cult too, but it was never the main attempt to control Religion.

And I did not say i was a fan of Professor Eidelberg, but the fact he is a political scientist, regardless of his views, tells me he knows what he&#39;s takin about, or did he buy that Professor at the beginning of his name?

And what is khan babbling about Dresden for? All I was saying is that Zionists are hypocrits and he starts mouthin off about Dresden, I know about Dresden Khan, and I know the figures.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 25 2005, 06:06 AM
It seems to me that you are blaming the entire Jewish population for the wrongs of the Israeli military. Where do you get these numbers anyway? I do deplore the actions of the IDF, but the amount of destruction towards other human beings is not nearly as bad as Nazi Germany. Alright, we&#39;ll take into account that 20,000 refugees have been killed. But what about the thousands of Germans that were killed in Dresden? I believe those numbers exceded 30,000. I know you aren&#39;t trying to defend america, but the fact is there is too much obsession with this conflict.
Well i think it&#39;s fair to say most Jews around the world support the Israeli&#39;s. I know we can&#39;t stereotype all Jews, but sometimes generalisations are necessary. And i never specifically name Jews, i prefer to say Zionists, because there are many non-jewish zionists who are just as bad.

Ok, ok i see. Just because the numbers killed by the Israeli&#39;s come no where near to matching what happened in Nazi Germany, the murder of refugees and Palestinians is insignificant ? Because that&#39;s what you seem to be implying. Try telling the mother of a Palestinian who has just been shot by Israeli security forces not to get too worked up about it because "it&#39;s not as bad as what the Nazis did." I somehow doubt it will ease her grief.

You can&#39;t keep comparing every atrocity committed to the Holocaust.

[LSD]

Well i think it&#39;s fair to say most Jews around the world support the Israeli&#39;s

No it isn&#39;t.

At least no more fair than to say most muslims support Saudi Arabia, or most muslims support Hammas.

In fact, I would say that the number of Jewish groups that have oppenly ocondemned Israel is higher then the number of Muslim groups that have oppenly condemned Pro-Palestinian terrorism.


I know we can&#39;t stereotype all Jews, but sometimes generalisations are necessary.

No they aren&#39;t.


Read up on the Reich Church Lysergic, that was no Teutonic pagan effort, it was a Protestant church, which Hitler planned to impose on Germany&#39;s population, so disuaded is entirely the wrong word, I don&#39;t want to go into boring definitions and technicalities like you, but you&#39;re still wrong. Yes they had a Pagan cult too, but it was never the main attempt to control Religion.

My point was that Mr. Britt&#39;s theory that all fascist states use the current main religion as a tool to control the population is incorrect.

The National Socialists were attempting to make significant changes to the popular religion, far from taking it as is&#33;


And I did not say i was a fan of Professor Eidelberg, but the fact he is a political scientist, regardless of his views, tells me he knows what he&#39;s takin about, or did he buy that Professor at the beginning of his name?

:lol:

Sorry, but a professor in fron of your name does not mean youi "know what your talking about.

We have to look at his other writings to judge if he is reliable.

From those writings we can see that he isa racist, bigoted, nationalistic,warmongering radical. I certainly don&#39;t trust him, and I&#39;m shocked that you would.

[T_34]

lmao, Yes it Does&#33; Maybe a Professor of micro-biology doesn&#39;t know about politics, but a professor in Political Science does&#33;

[LSD]

*sigh*

Maybe when you&#39;ve met more professor&#39;s you&#39;ll realize that tenure and an office is no sign of reliability.

Sure, I wish that all professors were truly unbiased pinnacles of the fields, but the fact is that all of us, even PhDs, are ultimately human. This particular Professor has a clear agenda and his writings are obvouisly in service to that.

Does that mean that he is incompetend to teach a polisci course? I don&#39;t know. But it does mean that his writings (especially his nonacademic writings, which this article clearly is) cannot be taken as a "neutral".

Indeed, few researches would trust an uncited, unreferenced oppinion piece no matter who the author was. More so if the author was a radical demagogue who has a history of writing inflamatory and radical pieces (like [i]expel the Palestinians from Israel).

This article is not academic, it does not cite sources, and it does not back up its claims&#33; One of the first things you learn in research is that the paper must speak for itself. If a paper does not of itself prove its case or defend its claims, regardless of who wrote it, it is not trustworthy. The only time the author matters is if he is particularly unreliable.

Well, this paper has the worst of both. It is not academic, and its author is a radical.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:14 PM
Ok, ok i see. Just because the numbers killed by the Israeli&#39;s come no where near to matching what happened in Nazi Germany, the murder of refugees and Palestinians is insignificant ? Because that&#39;s what you seem to be implying. Try telling the mother of a Palestinian who has just been shot by Israeli security forces not to get too worked up about it because "it&#39;s not as bad as what the Nazis did." I somehow doubt it will ease her grief.

You can&#39;t keep comparing every atrocity committed to the Holocaust.
I never said that we should ignore the plight of the Palestinians because of the Holocaust. I just get sick of people trying to block out all conversation resembling the Holocaust. Yes, it would be no justification to tell a mother of a killed Palestinian to stop worrying, but was this Palestinian shooting unarmed civilians? I don&#39;t believe that the Jews ever had a fighting chance during the Holocaust. I don&#39;t believe that the Israelis gas entire families of Palestinians, or burn innocent Palestinians alive in ovens. Yes i can compare every atrocity to the Holocaust. The Holocaust should be a model that humankind should have learned from its history.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:14 PM
Well i think it&#39;s fair to say most Jews around the world support the Israeli&#39;s.
Yes it is. They might not support all the actions of the government, but no population ever does. But it is fair to say most jews don&#39;t sympathise with the Palestinians, even though they have been butchered of their land.

[LSD]

Yes it is. They might not support all the actions of the government, but no population ever does. But it is fair to say most jews don&#39;t sympathise with the Palestinians, even though they have been butchered of their land.

I&#39;ve already dealt with this claim:

Originally posted by me
No it isn&#39;t.

At least no more fair than to say most muslims support Saudi Arabia, or most muslims support Hammas.

In fact, I would say that the number of Jewish groups that have oppenly condemned Israel is higher then the number of Muslim groups that have oppenly condemned Pro-Palestinian terrorism.

*EDIT*
Oh and on the topic of an overfocus on this conflict, I&#39;d point out that there are now 4, count &#39;em 4, threads on "Israel" in this one forum alone&#33;

[T_34]

He&#39;s a professor, whether or not he is biased, he knows what he is talking about.

And just because for every definition of Fascism that proves Israel is Fascist, you find one on your god wikipedia, does not prove it isn&#39;t. Wkipedia is edited by just about anyone, so how can their accounts be trustworthy? They do their best, but it still isn&#39;t good enough.

And I suppose because Hitler was a maniac and a radical, he was wrong about Stalin being scum? Or at least unreliable.

And I suppose because Stalin was a maniac and a radical, he was wrong about the Nazi&#39;s?

And I suppose because Lenin was a radical, we can&#39;t trust him when he mouths of against capitalism?

[T_34]

You really do my loaf in with all your bold words, most of which don&#39;t need highlighted, gives me the impression you talk like Woody Allen.

[LSD]

He&#39;s a professor, whether or not he is biased, he knows what he is talking about.

:lol:

Yes, but the question is whether or not he knows what hs is talking about&#33;

IF he doesn&#39;t, then his judgement of Israel as becomming Fascist (remember he never said Israel was fascist) is useless.


And I suppose because Hitler was a maniac and a radical, he was wrong about Stalin being scum? Or at least unreliable.

Yes.

Hitler alone is an unreliable source. Which is why no one uses Hitler as proof that Stalin was "scum"&#33;

They use, oh, reliable sources.


And I suppose because Stalin was a maniac and a radical, he was wrong about the Nazi&#39;s?

Again, Stalin is not considered to be a reliable source regarding Nazi Germany, and you&#39;d be hard pressed to find any serious historians you use Stalin as evidence for anything.

I mean the guy allied with Nazi Germany, would you trust him?


And I suppose because Lenin was a radical, we can&#39;t trust him when he mouths of against capitalism?

That&#39;s right.

But don&#39;t worry&#33; There are many other reasons to "mouth off against capitalism" and most of them do not require that we "trust" bloodthirsty dictators.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 25 2005, 04:57 PM
I&#39;ve already dealt with this claim:

Oooooohh you have dealt with it have you ? I suppose because YOU have dealt with it, we&#39;ll all just shut up and listen to you. Because you&#39;re definitions are always right, and ours are alway wrong. Even Professors and Doctors who disagree with you are wrong.

I think we&#39;ll all just accept your are unquestionably right about everything. <_<

[T_34]

could you imagine joinin a socialist party and the firt person u meet is this guy? You&#39;d be out the door lookin for the nearest neo-nazi meeting if he carries on like this, &#39;&#39;When the revolution comes comrade, we&#39;ll bore the capitalists to death&#33;&#39;&#39;

[LSD]

Oooooohh you have dealt with it have you ? I suppose because YOU have dealt with it, we&#39;ll all just shut up and listen to you. Because you&#39;re definitions are always right,

Instead of pouting, how about you actually address my refutation of your ludicrous and racist claim?


Even Professors and Doctors who disagree with you are wrong.

Many "Professors and Doctors" are ardent supporters of capitalism, would you not say that they are wrong?

Sorry but a PhD is not a golden horn, "Professors and Doctors" are as human as the rest of us, sometimes they&#39;re right, sometimes they aren&#39;t.


I think we&#39;ll all just accept your are unquestionably right about everything.

I love you too :wub:&#33;

[LSD]

could you imagine joinin a socialist party and the firt person u meet is this guy? You&#39;d be out the door lookin for the nearest neo-nazi meeting if he carries on like this, &#39;&#39;When the revolution comes comrade, we&#39;ll bore the capitalists to death&#33;&#39;&#39;

Yes, I would imagine that a "neo-nazi meeting" would be the right place for you.

What do you want lights and noise? If adult discussion is too much for you go back to playing Playstation and come back in a few years. Don&#39;t worry, you really won&#39;t be missed.

It&#39;s good to know that after 2 days of being here, you&#39;re ready to run the place&#33; :lol:

[T_34]

Only because people like you believe they are infallible, and for once I&#39;ll take your advice and go and play a playstation, because this &#39;&#39;adult&#39;&#39; conversation is a serious head melter, sorry, you are a serious head melter, congratulations&#33; You&#39;re a member of an elite, with the likes of Tuaithan Mc Aughey and Alex Attwood. ^_^

[LSD]

*sigh*

...feel better now?

[T_34]

Much, thanks.

[bur372]

Palestine and israel should become 2 seperate states kind of like israel pre 1967 but IMO Israel should get half of jerusalem.

George Bush has a degree from yale (or was it harvard?) In economics - But to me he is still an idiot.

7-10 million people died in the ukraian man made famine Where are the memorials to it where are the days of remberance? Do you even know when it took place? http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/ . 20 million people died in the creation of the road of bones they froze to death in labour camps do you know where it is? The holocaust deserves to be remebered but in many ways it seems to overpower the other genicides and mass murders of the 20th century. I suppose this could be put down to the propoganda of western ideals (Democracy against facisim etc)

[LSD]

Palestine and israel should become 2 seperate states

Of course.

And it would have happened years ago if the US hadn&#39;t intervened to prevent it.


7-10 million people died in the ukraian man made famine Where are the memorials to it where are the days of remberance? Do you even know when it took place? http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/ . 20 million people died in the creation of the road of bones they froze to death in labour camps do you know where it is? The holocaust deserves to be remebered but in many ways it seems to overpower the other genicides and mass murders of the 20th century. I suppose this could be put down to the propoganda of western ideals (Democracy against facisim etc)

Yes, the Ukrainian famine was a tragedy. As was the Armenian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide, and the Sudanese genociden, and the Cambodian genocide...

I suppose the reason that the holocause "overpowers" these others, besides the obvious fact that it was the worst of them, is that it is particularly unique in its execution. I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any doubt that the holocaust was the best organized and most efficiently run mass murder in the history of the world. The sheer industrious efficacy alone is shocking.

No less is that, at least from a Western prespective, it happened in what is, arguable, one of the centers of Western culture. It&#39;s somehow psychologically disturbing that a genocide like this can happen in the most advances most technological and most cultures civilizations. It speaks to the fact that no matter how "evolved&#39; we consider ourselves, we are all ultimately human.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Mar 25 2005, 05:14 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Mar 25 2005, 05:14 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 25 2005, 04:57 PM
I&#39;ve already dealt with this claim:

Oooooohh you have dealt with it have you ? I suppose because YOU have dealt with it, we&#39;ll all just shut up and listen to you. Because you&#39;re definitions are always right, and ours are alway wrong. Even Professors and Doctors who disagree with you are wrong.

I think we&#39;ll all just accept your are unquestionably right about everything. <_< [/b]
Do you people have any arguments, or will you continue to stray away from the conversation? I would expect someone with an ounce of intelligence would actually address someone&#39;s side of the argument.

[iffiness]

Well about fasim i was researching it a little it is a very debatable topics and many professors have spoken over the definition and yet their still is not correct or incorrect decision but it is difficult to call either Israel and America a fasict state. I mean its a good insult cause you can point to certain things but id like to take you all the origins of fasim. It is an italian word (obviously) but its actually comes from the word that Italians called the pillars of rome or something like that (correct if i am worng not completly sure how to describe it) but you just cant call them a fasict state as they do not fit the entire criteria. Firstly both systems of government have a "democratically elected govt" i aint sure about Israel but America have a constition, two party system, and have insitutions that can revise bills and laws made by the president. They are not one party states and well if you compare it from where the word originates Mussolines Italy they just dont fit the criteria as far as i am concerned. Some may reject my personal view. And well i read something earlier about Sharon dissmissing his ministers for disagreeing with him. Well i mean that usual occurance like in Australia if the prime minister has disagreeing ministers then he cant pass legislation through that house so its quite a reasonable thing even if it means doing the wrong thing, to dismiss your ministers. You can of course manipulate the word and criteria to fit these nations but eventually when all the bullshit is uncovered their will be a word to describe what America and Israel are and any other imperialist country is and that word will specifically describe that state because they basically created the word. So i mean you can call them that cause some things fit but in general i aint too sure how politically correct it is. I dont thing this will sort anything out though

[Redmau5]

Under Israel&#39;s parliamentary system, Knesset members - and that means cabinet ministers - are not individually elected by, nor accountable to, any constituency. They are candidates on a party slate and they do not owe their position to the voters in a constituency election. Which means that Israel, unlike almost all countries having democratic elections for the lower or only branch of the legislature, is not, and never has been, a truly representative democracy.

Look i know Israel isn&#39;t a fascist state in the literal sense of the word, i was simply making comparisons. Can i not compare anything without it being brought down to minor technicalities ?

As i&#39;ve said, i was using it as a political slur on Israel. And what is wrong with that ? It might not be the hight of intellectual debating, but i was just expressing my personal opinion.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit out of hand. As many people have remarked, there is way too much emphasis on Israel. Why don&#39;t we start a few threads on some of the other world conflicts ???