When Israel’s government celebrates controversy
Ami Ayalon, Gilead Sher, Orni Petruschka
Published: 01.10.17, 23:34
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
9 Talkbacks for this article
1. Non-partisan my foot. More like Leftist Defeatist krap.
Steve Benassi ,   Minneapolis USA   (10.01.17)
2. I am geographically lost once I hear "West Bank/territories"
Delphi   (10.02.17)
since for the love of god I cannot find them on my mental map...
I'm afraid people writing these incredibly naive opinions are quite lost themselves, without realizing it.
3. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction
C   (10.02.17)
the supreme court does not have jurisdiction over national security
the supreme court cannot decide the legal status of the territories
referred to as the west bank.
the supreme court does not have the authority to resolve international
dispute or to negotiate with foreign actors.
the supreme court of israel tends to abuse its powers and to arrogate
authorities it does not have according to the basic laws of the land.
4. enough of doom and gloom
hy   (10.01.17)
generals have aright like other citizens to their points of view.however, most of them have not really asserted israeli national interests as per se, ben gurion and begin, 2 non civilian leaders.

rabin, an excellent military planner was wrong on the golan heights since they can never be given up period and anyone who thinks that is out of his mind.
sharon-gave away gaza unilaterally which was a mistake-don't give somehting for nothing
general brom-is living fairytales when he says the dispute between arabs and israel is territorial and not religious.
ehud barak-offered the store of concessions like olmert and got blood blood blood.
as for ayalon, he changes colors like his underwear and he is one of the most unreliable israelis period. one can hear his point of view like anyone else. that is as far as it goes.

5. Gush Etzion is controversy only for post-Zionist extremists
Jake   (10.02.17)
Gush Etzion was (re)established with the authority and approval of Mapai/Labor governments from 1967 onwards, and has remained within the Israeli consensus ever since.
Those on the anti-democratic leftist fringe occupying the nebulous between post- and anti-Zionism naturally have a problem with Jews living in Gush Etzion and are naturally frustrated that they have failed to convince the overwhelming majority of Israelis. But that is of no relevance or concern to the State of Israel, its democratically elected government, and the vast majority of its citizens.
6. To Peter Simson and Jake
Stan ,   Israel   (10.02.17)
Apparently you don't understand the English language.
Read again the first paragraph in the article. It says quite clearly that in any future agreement Gush Etzion will be part of Israel. On this matter there is consensus between all Israelis.
Back to article