This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Home Truth
Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking before Congress yesterday:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties"
thats pretty funny coming from the PM of a nation that was created with intent to displace those of another tribe.
"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone."
...and that is why we practice aprtheid and deny the right to vote, to utilize property, or to buy property in the vast majority of Greater Isreal to over 3 million Isreali citizens.
Regards,
Rich
buying property is just a dream to those who already owned the property they were driven from so that another tribe could settle there instead.
Apartheid, Rich?
Mark,
what else would you name a system that has 5 classifications for its "citizens", based largely on their ethnic backgrounds or religious affiliations. If you have a better name, I will use it.
Gino, good point. I stand corrected.
Rich
what else would you name a system that has 5 classifications for its "citizens", based largely on their ethnic backgrounds or religious affiliations. If you have a better name, I will use it.
Oh, I suppose that the propensity of any number of these "citizens" are likely to kill other fellow "citizens" based on their ethnic backgrounds or religious affiliations might have something to do with it.
Apartheid has a very specific meaning tied to a specific regime. Calling what Israel does "apartheid" devalues the meaning of the word in hugely important ways.
By the way, how is respect for human rights going in Gaza these days? Or in Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank? And honestly, if you were a Muslim, would you rather live in the West Bank or in Syria?
And the last question, for both you and Gino, since you are both Catholic boys like me -- where would you receive better treatment and respect for your religious beliefs -- Israel or any other place in the Arab world?
over the long haul, i'll take my chances on the west bank, where a large many of those displaced by the jews are of similar faith to me, and i would still be allowed to own property.
or jordan,syria, egypt where full benefits of citizenship are bestowed upon all religious minorities, including the 10-20% that is christian.
you might want to play that game of yours mark, but play it honestly: the jews HAVE to be tolerant of some of their christians or the USA will cut off their welfare check.
you can address the 'aparthied like' charges if you like, or throw up another dodge
We're always going to disagree on this Gino. It's not a dodge, either. I just take the notion of what apartheid was a little too seriously to call what Israel does apartheid.
The Jews have a completely legitimate claim to that land, as do the Arabs. As do Christians. A hell of a lot of different people have called that region home over the past 5000 years.
There were Objiwe who lived in the land where my house is located, and likely Cahuilla living where your house is located. Should you or I have to leave because of that?
I'd also say that less than full citizenship in Israel is a damned sight better than full citizenship in Syria, or Gaza, or Egypt these days. Or most any day. Full citizenship in a land ruled by despots isn't worth much of anything.
the aparthied word is a little strong, and i dont like it apllied here...
BUT...
israel likes to make claims of a democracy and equal rights and stuff like that, but it is not true, and nobody in this country calls them on it. instead, our policy makers just genuflect when the zionist comes calling and puts more $ into his hands.
if half this country ever spoke to a real palestian, one who was 'there' in 1948, took the time to know him and his family's struggles, the attitude of america-at-large would see some adjustment.
the dont hate america. they love the USA, more than the jews do, but they only wish america would understand that there are two sides to this story, and the side america takes has several criminals of their own as well.
if half this country ever spoke to a real palestian, one who was 'there' in 1948, took the time to know him and his family's struggles, the attitude of america-at-large would see some adjustment.
I suppose so. But this is a chicken/egg thing, too. If more of the "Real Palestinians" who were "there in 1948" would speak up against those who spend the miniscule resources of their people by launching rockets at the Jews, you might see progress.
We've covered this ground before -- it's an existential question for Jews, and you know precisely why that is the case. We have seen what anti-Semitism unchecked can do to the Jewish people. The people who purport to be the leaders of the Palestinians have been waging war against the Jews of Israel for over 60 years now, pretty much without interruption, and for the most part Israel has had to stay in ass-kicking mode the entire time. If you were a Jew, what would you do?
if i were a jew? that is about as material as me asking you:
"if you were a resident of Deir Yassin, provided you survived, or a from a neighboring village who had to flee in fear of your family's life, and after hostlities were over, was forbidden to return to your own farm to live in peace... what would you do?"
or do jews get a pass on ethnic cleansing, a pass that you wont extend to arabs.
"if you were a resident of Deir Yassin, provided you survived, or a from a neighboring village who had to flee in fear of your family's life, and after hostlities were over, was forbidden to return to your own farm to live in peace... what would you do?"
I'd fight. Which is what they've done. And they've lost, in 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. At some point, you then ask yourself -- are you going to keep fighting? Are you going to cling to a doctrine of tossing the Jews into the Mediterranean, or maybe forcing another diaspora? Or are you going to try to figure out another way to live?
or do jews get a pass on ethnic cleansing, a pass that you wont extend to arabs.
So now it's ethnic cleansing? It's the position of Hamas, which purports to represent the interests of the Palestinian people, that the Jews must be removed from the land.
In the end, either you accept the notion that the Jews have a legitimate claim for the land in which they've lived for 5000 years, or they don't. It would appear that you don't accept that notion. Which is fine. It's an intellectually defensible position for any number of reasons. What I'm suggesting is that the Israeli state has been fighting an existential war for its existence from the very beginning. And the Israeli government acts in the same manner that nearly every country at war tends to act. At the present time, their only alternative is to accept getting pushed into the Mediterranean. And they're not going to do that. And if you were a Jew in Israel, you'd fight, too.
now you can see why nobody but a jew or arab has any business taking a side in this affair.
but i do take exception to my taxes being used to prop up a regime that cannot stand on its own while it claims to be just like the USA in values, which is a bold lie.
maybe i'd feel differently if they paid for the title to the lands they keep, but they are using a form of 'eminent domain' that should make every american shudder.
btw: my good friend (not even an arab, but an ethnic minority with no dog in this fight) used to own land in golan, passed to him through his father. but the israelis refuse to recognise sryian land titles, or offer compensation. i know a (very) little about this, as well as those who have been robbed.
so much for fair treatement and civil rights of minorities by the the israelis.
but i do take exception to my taxes being used to prop up a regime that cannot stand on its own while it claims to be just like the USA in values, which is a bold lie.
maybe i'd feel differently if they paid for the title to the lands they keep, but they are using a form of 'eminent domain' that should make every american shudder.
Guess I don't see the distinction here. The USA took land from Native Americans, Mexicans and anyone else they could during the 19th Century westward expansion. Don't remember much compensation being offered, either, with the exceptions of the Oregon Purchase and the Gadsden Purchase. It's entirely possible that the land your house sits on was once controlled by Mexican land title, but I highly doubt the descendants of the hidalgo who lost out in 1846would be able to enforce a claim against you. There's no Aztlan courthouse where such a claim could be adjudicated, although the denizens of the faculty lounge at UC-Irvine would probably be happy to set something up.
Human history is filled with this sort of thing, Gino.
I'd be happy to cut the Israelis off from further financial support. I'd welcome doing the same to a lot of other countries we prop up as well. But that's a different discussion.
actually, the USA does recognize individual land title, and did so in the case of western expansions.
we have historical families that still sit upon their spanish land grants. but thats another story.
have a nice rest of your weekend.
Post a Comment