Ehud Barak quits weakened Labor to form own party

[azurnoir]

Four Labor breakaways to join party chairman in new faction called Atzmaut (Independence), which Barak promises will be 'centrist, Zionist and democratic'.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced Monday his decision to step down from his position as Labor Party chairman, following months of turmoil within the weakened faction.

In the wake of waning support from his own party ministers, Barak will form a new faction of his own called Atzmaut (Independence). Four Labor colleagues - Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, and members of Knesset Shalom Simhon, Einat Wilf and Ori Noked – will join Barak.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/ehud-barak-quits-weakened-labor-to-form-own-party-1.337493

[sabbat hunter]

1. great

just what Israel needs, a even more fractured political landscape.

[Ken Burch]

2. Barak never gave a damn abtout the historic values of the Labor Party, anyway.

From what I've read, half the reason he's been so obsessed with hanging on to the Defense Ministry at all costs is that he's afraid of being prosecuted for something the moment he leaves the government.

[oberliner]

7. Where did you read that?

What source said that he was "obsessed with hanging on to the Defense Ministry at all costs"?

[LeftishBrit]

3. He and Nick Clegg should get together...

they could found a group called 'The Ramsay Macdonald Society'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. The man who killed the Israeli left.

This is probably good news, but it's far too little, far too late. At present all that is left of the left in Israel are the sadly-unelectable Meretz, the only-nominally-if-that-leftwing, founded-by-Ariel-Sharon Kadima, and the vestigial Labour.

I suppose it's possible that Kadima will pick up the pieces and in consequence be pulled left by them, but my bet is that Israel is going to move even further right before sanity returns, if it does.

[sabbat hunter]

5. what should happen

Is that Kadima, Meretz and what's left of Labor should combine in to one party, give them a lot more power than if they were to remain separate.

[oberliner]

6. That would actually probably give them even less power

Small parties have a lot more power than you would think.

Look at the most recent elections.

The party that won the most seats and got the most votes isn't even part of the government.

What does that tell you?

[sabbat hunter]

8. they aren't part of the government because

the president of Israel felt that Likud had a better shot at forming a stable coalition.

Israeli politics has become increasingly fractured the last few years, which is why the small parties hold such power. If you can form a united front against them, you break their power.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. It tells me several things.

Off the top of my head:


It tells me that Israel's far right is very large but very fragmented.

It tells me that Israel's electoral system does not convert pluralities into majorities in the way that e.g. the UK's or the US's do.

It tells me that the main nominally leftwing party was lead by a man who has now implicitly admitted that he is not, himself, a left winger.

[shira]

14. And what makes Barak "not a Leftwinger" in your view? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Well, his stated intent to form a centrist party is something of a clue.

As is his willingness to collaborate with the current government of Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Because he is rejecting the left of his party to collaborate with right-wingers

He is to the left of Netanyahu - just as Clegg is to the left of Cameron - but either both are fundamentally centre-right, or are prepared to sacrfice principle for power.

[shira]

18. But what are the issues in which he is not "Left" enough? n/t

[shira]

9. Your problem is apparently with all Liberal Zionists. Oz, Strenger, Grossman, Yehoshua, Burston...

Basically, all Israel's Liberal Left.

Because they subscribe to, in your words, an explicitly racist ideology.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x327212#340595

To which Bradley Burston says...

"There is a name for the hard leftist who rejects the right of Jews to have a state of their own – any state in any part of the Holy Land, no matter how democratic and respectful of minority rights - but who accepts the rights of Muslims to have formally Islamic nations:

Anti-Semite."

Burston's statement is, of course, based on the EU working definition of anti-semitism...

Denying the Jewish people their right to self determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

So no matter how authentically Liberal, Democratic, or respectful of human rights Israel is or could possibly be, even if more than any nation in the history of mankind, it wouldn't matter in the least to you. It has no right to exist. Israel's Liberals don't buy into such antisemitic thinking.

That's what hardliners from the 3rd world far Right believe, however.

I suggest the following reading...

Why Do Liberal Muslims See Eye-to-Eye with Israel?
http://ghadry.com/2010/06/13/why-do-liberal-muslims-see-eye-to-eye-with-israel/

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. You've misrepresented that quote before...

Here's what the document actually says:

http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include

*Denying the Jewish people their right to self determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."


So, in other words, the definition doesn't say that it's an antisemitic position (which it isn't), it says it's a position which could be a manifestation of antisemitism (which it is).

I know you know that, because I pointed it out to you last time you tried to pull exactly the same deception...

(On edit)

And I know you know that because you've just included the whole passage yourself in a different thread. Which really makes it hard to believe that this is a simple honest misunderstanding on your part.

[shira]

12. You've called Zionism evil and racist and regret Israel was ever created....

Here's where you recently called it evil...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=338130&mesg_id=338172

I'm not sure how you justify your position as being taken out of context.

Can you point to clearly antisemitic rhetoric stating Zionism is evil and racist (that the nation has no right to exist) that is distinguishable from your own POV, so I can understand how I'm misrepresenting you?

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Are you saying someone could consistently use ALL the language above, be informed about the EU definition, but still not be considered anti-semitic?

If so, how?

What would someone have to say, in addition to all the above, in order to be branded an antisemite?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I think that 3 and 5 are almost invariably antisemitic, and 2 and 4 often are and are always wrong

3 and 5 are antisemitic pretty much by definition.

2 and 4 are always wrong; not everyone who goes in for them is an antisemite (the vast majority of people who go in for 2 are Zionists and the double standard they apply is to excuse behaviour in Israel that they'd condemn anywhere else) but many of them are, and all of them are mistaken. Come to that, on a global scale many people who go in for 1 are antisemitic too, (although not many liberals who do are) but it's not antisemitic in itself.

If you want to see clearly anti-semitic rhetoric, look at e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=341772&mesg_id=341780, which you apparently assumed I would think was not antisemitism.




And you're quite right, I do think that zionism is evil and racist, and I do regret that Israel was every created. There's a word for people who think that; that word is "anti-zionist".

Antisemitism would be a) if I went from attacking zionism and zionists to attack non-zionist Jews, or b) if I was attacking zionism *because* of its associations with Judaism. I presume you'd admit that you have never seen any evidence that either of those is the case?

a) and b) together constitute a fairly simply and reliable test for antisemitism. If what someone says attacks non-zionist Jews, or they attack zionism because it is Jewish, that is antisemitism; if someone attacks zionism otherwise - even if theyir criticism is stupid, malicious, excessive etc - it's not antisemitism.

[Mosby]

13. the use of the word "could"

In the first paragraph lets the reader know that the examples that follow are not exhaustive. Same thing as saying "may include".

At least that's the way I read it.