On December 26, 2012, a new Facebook page was created, called “Real Democracy.” The basic idea behind it is that Israelis “give up” their vote in the upcoming elections to any of the millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule who have no right to vote. It’s all done on Facebook. The Israeli posts a status saying he/she’s willing to do it, the Palestinian tells him/her who to vote for.
The group behind the page consists of Israeli, Palestinian and international activists. Some of them took part in a similar campaign called “Give your vote” in the 2010 elections in England. In that campaign, thousands of Englishmen gave their votes to people in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Ghana “who are directly affected by UK policies.” According to one activist from the group, the idea is to show the “lack of democracy” not only on the local level in Israel/Palestine, but also on the international level, particularly the UN, which “allows the United States to enable the occupation.”
Though the Israeli bourgeois elections reflect over white-supremacy and racial dominance—it’s quite interesting to note that are there several changes taken in the 2013 elections:
1) The Israeli-Arab parties are officially recognized and are allowed to participate in the upcoming elections. On Al-Arabiya, Israelis court overturned the previous ban on Haneen Zoabi, a Palestinian Arab politician—representative of Arab leftist party, Bal’ad. [x]
2) To see that majority Israelis oppose the current right-wing imperialist government is a successful act towards a defeat of imperialism and a step forward to form a leftist coalition. Our goal is to see a Jewish-Arab working class union to defeat the Israeli chauvinist regime and the capitalists—who have further oppressed the working class with neoliberal policies.
However, it’s important to note the demographics of the Israeli elections. The majority representatives of the Knesset are right-wing nationalists. The leftist coalition, who stands for Arab equality and Palestinian rights consist less than 10%, according to +972.mag.
As of now, the Likud-Beiteinu has faced an opposition—who are also right-wing chauvinists who take no interest for Palestinian equality or for the non-Jewish Arab/Jewish working class. If the leftist parties form a united front to represent the Knesset, it might create a change within the Israeli government and further alleviate the right-wingers and imperialists. It’s important for a Jewish-Arab working class unity to defeat the capitalist pigs and the elections might reflect such acts.
The suggestion given here is to form an entryist organization—but not a popular front, which will disturb the fundamental issue of the conflict.
To read more about the Israeli elections, click here.
To read my previous post on Wordpress about the Israeli elections, click here.
Courtesy to +972.mag
This is precisely for the same reason that non-military means have limited efficacy: an attack can only target physical installations; it cannot erase the knowledge accumulated by Iranian experts, which is the most critical and difficult-to-achieve element of a nuclear weapons’ program (that is probably the reason these experts have been targeted for assassination in recent years). Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has argued that at best, an Israel strike could delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few years.
Proponents of the attack, like Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, are not really disputing this point. Instead, they argue that the delay will buy enough time to allow the toppling of the regime. This is quite a dubious claim. There is no reason to believe the Iranian regime is closer to collapse today than it has been at any point since 1979. An attack might actually strengthen it, by prompting Iranians to rally around the flag against a perceived foreign aggressor. Even if the regime falls, it is unclear whether its successor would be any less interested in a program, which was initiated under the Shah, or any less dangerous than the Islamic Republic.
The price will be paid mostly by ordinary Israelis, who could be the target of Iranian retaliation through missile attacks and Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Hundreds could die, thousands might be injured, and the country’s economy could suffer a devastating blow. If neighboring countries under Iranian influence, such as Syria and Lebanon, are drawn into this conflict, it could end up enflaming a regional escalation, with unpredictable consequences for the stability of many fragile regimes. Furthermore, an attack could cause an international backlash, undermining support for the sanctions, and strengthening the regime’s hand (and its ability to pursue the nuclear weapons program) both internally and externally
The reason I really don’t like +972mag is because first, it’s too liberal and very pro-Israel, however I do enjoy their support for Palestine. Also, I don’t like how the majority of the writers are Israeli/Ashkenazi and there only probably one or two Palestinian or even Arab/Mizrahi writers.
I want you guys to think again who is the dangerous one here.
4. Iran’s formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran’s announcement of a planned underground (to avoid being bombed) enrichment facility. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran’s notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel’s claims to “know” that Iran is a nuclear threat.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel’s bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as “Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.
11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!
BBC Poll: Israel ranks among states perceived to have most negative influence on world
We’ve written many times about the Apartheid state that is Israel HERE; I wish it wasn’t so…but it is. America is alone in the world in it’s support of Israel and her policies…her illegal occupation and intentional gentrification of the Palestinian people. Israel is regarded in the same likes as North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan; in other words – humans around the world reject the Israeli state but not because it’s a “Jewish state” but because it has not embraced peace with the Palestinian people. And yes – Israel is now wholly to blame for this failure to reach peace.
You can find BBC’s annual poll in it’s entirety HERE - an excerpt:
The most negatively rated countries were, as in previous years, Iran (55% negative), Pakistan (51% negative), and Israel and North Korea (both 50% negative).
For those who held negative views of Israel influence in the world, the foreign policy of the Israeli State is by some distance the main reason explaining their negative rating (45%). The way Israel treats its own people stands out as the second most important reason (27%). Of those holding positive views, Jewish traditions and culture are cited by 29 per cent globally, closely followed by foreign policy (26%).
And Israel is in violation of international law by turning away political refugees because they’re not Jewish. We have written about this before HERE:
But I think Elie Wiesel – famous writer, political activist and survivor of the Holocaust – rebuts the hard line of the Netanyahu administration best in his article “Strangers in a Strange Land”: The Ethical Debate of African Refugees in Israel where he wrote:
As Jews we say “never again,” but a genocide happened again and instead of treating others in an ethical manner, Netanyahu is proposing inhumane policies that are an embarrassment to the State of Israel. It seems almost hypocritical for a country built by refugees to turn away refugees. Rather than jumping to conclusions, the Israeli government must set up a better process to determine the status of those crossing the borders.
Israeli news source YNET writes about the focus Israel is putting into changing this view through PR (but I submit very little in terms of actual deeds) – article HERE:
Just before going through passport control at Ben-Gurion airport, one sees a stand with small brochures packed with some basic, catchy information about Israel. These booklets are meant to equip Israelis traveling abroad with some flattering anecdotes and fundamental facts to help them improve Israel’s image overseas.
However, the people who drafted this booklet know well what our problem is. Our problem is not about a shortage of inventions, or historical sites, or irrigation technologies, or bold rescue operations. The problem is that we are increasingly deteriorating to the pariah status once reserve to South Africa at the end of the apartheid era.
The brochure does not say that we are being accused of “apartheid,” but those who wrote it know that this is the issue.