Category Archives: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Updated: 'Who Won In Israel's Elections?'

Democracy, Individual Rights, Iraq, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Natural Law

Writes Daniel Pipes: The real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who raised the specter of the country’s increasingly hostile Arab citizens:

“Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima party, can credibly claim victory in the elections on Tuesday because her party won the most seats. Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud party can also claim victory as the head of the largest party in the larger of the two coalitions, the national camp.

Both Livni and Netanyahu can plausibly claim ‘I won’ the elections this week – but neither did.

But the real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. A Moldovan immigrant who started his career in Likud and as then served as director-general of Netanyahu’s prime ministerial office, he founded Yisrael Beiteinu in 1999.

Lieberman has introduced a new issue into Israeli domestic politics – the place of the country’s Arab citizens. Noting their increasingly public disloyalty to the state, he has argued that they should lose their citizenship and their right to live in Israel unless they declare their loyalty to the Jewish state.

This topic has clearly struck a nerve among the Israeli Jewish electorate and prompted responsible Arab voices to acknowledge that Israeli Arabs have ‘managed to make the Jewish public hate us.’ As I wrote in 2006, Israel’s ‘final enemy’ may finally, be joining the battle. The consequences of this for the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole could well be profound.”

By Daniel Pipes, Wednesday 11, Feb 2009

Related: “When I Am The Stronger, I Take Away Your Freedom, Because That Is My Principle”

Update (Feb 12): In response to the always provocative Myron hereunder: As a classical liberal, I’m wary of conflating the vote, for what it’s worth, with natural rights. I agree with you that the latter must be inviolable. But the vote? That’s a political right. Neither is citizenship a natural right. Talk about taking away property or denying due process: those are unconscionable, and violate natural rights.

Preventing more hostile Arabs from migrating into Israel proper is perfectly legitimate in natural law. It’s non-aggressive self-defense.

Updated: ‘Who Won In Israel’s Elections?’

Democracy, Individual Rights, Iraq, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Natural Law

Writes Daniel Pipes: The real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who raised the specter of the country’s increasingly hostile Arab citizens:

“Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima party, can credibly claim victory in the elections on Tuesday because her party won the most seats. Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud party can also claim victory as the head of the largest party in the larger of the two coalitions, the national camp.

Both Livni and Netanyahu can plausibly claim ‘I won’ the elections this week – but neither did.

But the real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. A Moldovan immigrant who started his career in Likud and as then served as director-general of Netanyahu’s prime ministerial office, he founded Yisrael Beiteinu in 1999.

Lieberman has introduced a new issue into Israeli domestic politics – the place of the country’s Arab citizens. Noting their increasingly public disloyalty to the state, he has argued that they should lose their citizenship and their right to live in Israel unless they declare their loyalty to the Jewish state.

This topic has clearly struck a nerve among the Israeli Jewish electorate and prompted responsible Arab voices to acknowledge that Israeli Arabs have ‘managed to make the Jewish public hate us.’ As I wrote in 2006, Israel’s ‘final enemy’ may finally, be joining the battle. The consequences of this for the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole could well be profound.”

By Daniel Pipes, Wednesday 11, Feb 2009

Related: “When I Am The Stronger, I Take Away Your Freedom, Because That Is My Principle”

Update (Feb 12): In response to the always provocative Myron hereunder: As a classical liberal, I’m wary of conflating the vote, for what it’s worth, with natural rights. I agree with you that the latter must be inviolable. But the vote? That’s a political right. Neither is citizenship a natural right. Talk about taking away property or denying due process: those are unconscionable, and violate natural rights.

Preventing more hostile Arabs from migrating into Israel proper is perfectly legitimate in natural law. It’s non-aggressive self-defense.

'A' For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)

‘A’ For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)