Green for Danger?

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006 by FrontPageMagazine.com
The Islamization of The Green Party
By Phyllis Chesler

On November 21, 2005, The Green Party of the United States resolved to "divest from Israel." Resolution 190 calls for a "boycott of Israel" and urges all governments, Green Parties around the world, and campus Greens to help implement an international boycott.

The resolution describes Israel as "comparable" to the South African apartheid state and calls for the "serious consideration of a single, secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians."

>> Read More

 

Well so long as Israel refuses to recognize Palestinian Territories as an independent state, what we have is a democratically-elected Hamas local government in the Palestinian Territories, but on a national level, if I understand correctly, Israel is not democratic because Israeli Palestinians are denied the opportunity to vote. Nothing really new here. People have been calling the Israeli government "Apartheid-like" for years and years. But just because the Israeli government is Apartheid-like, it doesn't mean the Palestinian government is any better overall--both sides are pretty scummy, or at least have been in the past.

But I like to try stay optimistic that these two circus sideshows will work out their differences before they leave a collective radioactive dust cloud circling the globe in teh wake of their self-destruction, or draw the world's superpowers into a World War III. And personally I think the election of Hamas, despite their terrorist history, is a hopeful sign. They were elected, not because of the terrorist philosophies, but because the Palestinians were tired of corruption and of ineffectual leadership. And once elected to public office, people quickly learn that they have to make a lot of compromises if they want to stay in power. And after all, Hamas can't do any worse at controling Hamas, than the PLO was at controling Hamas.

But I think real peace is still be many years away. And as for "a single, secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians," that sounds really nice, but I think we are talking maybe a few hundred years at best....

 

Yes. It will be interesting to see where Hamas goes with this. Back in the year two when elections were held in Pakistan the wildly conservative groups won something like 25% of the vote whereas in the past they had won about 2%. Once elected though, they changed their language quite a bit. There's nothing like actually having to do something to make people careful choose their words and actions.

 

PLO corruption is often cited as a reason for the Hamas win, and I don't doubt it played a part. But there are other differences. In addition to taking a more hard-line political stance. Hamas also is a fundamentalist Islamic party, unlike the secular PLO.

Israeli arabs have had voting rights at all levels since Israeli statehood, despite lesser obligations of citizenship since they do not have to serve in the military. Arabs from the occupied territories dating from the 1967 war do not have voting rights at the national level, but do at a local level, and now a regional level.

 

"direct-action environmental groups" huh? My that's a warm cozy way to describe them. They wouldn't be talking about arsonists like the Earth Liberation Front, would they?

 

Any Israeli citizen is allowed to vote. That means Arab, kurd, Christian, Palestinian, Jew Athiest, it doesn't matter. If you are a citizen you can vote. Just like the US. Period, end of statement.