Israeli Tennis StarTarget Of Anti-Israel Protests

There has always been controversy over whether culture, academia, and sports should ever be included in boycott and protest campaigns, this one against Israel's occupation, its ongoing colonization all the Palestinian territories, and the Apartheid situation that has resulted. The inhumane (Jimmy Carter) siege of Gaza also continues just one year after Israel's brutal attack on Gaza in which 1,400 mostly civilian residents, including over 300 children, died.

In this case, the protest/boycott is against the participation of a former female Israeli soldier and military employee, Shahar Peer, in the Australian Open.

"(Shahar Peer) who did mandatory military service when she was 19 and has worked as a secretary for the Israeli military, has been targeted for protests aimed at Israel and its military for human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Last year it was hardly shocking when the United Arab Emirates, in the wake of conflict in Gaza, denied Peer a visa to play in a major tournament in Dubai. (Peer says she already has a visa for this year's Dubai event.) It is a little strange, however, to see raucous peace protesters heckle her at every match during a recent tournament in New Zealand.

While anti-Israel protesters showed up at the same tournament in Auckland last year, this time they escalated their rhetoric as well as the demands made on the young Israeli player. They demanded that she withdraw from the event as a public demonstration of her "commitment to peace." And they called for an international sports boycott aimed at Israel."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/shahar-peer-tennis-star-t_n_433238.html

You judge.

 

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Gaza, boycott, Divestment, sanctions, BDS Movement (all tags)

Comments

48 Comments

Wrong target

Athletes and academics should not be the target of political groups. Israeli, Iranian, Chinese or whatever athletes, students and academics should be free of harassment at sporting events and universities.

by hankg 2010-01-24 11:22AM | 4 recs
RE: Wrong target

From a recent article by Stephen Lendeman:

"Cultural and Academic Boycott

On April 6, 2002, UK professors Steven and Hilary Rose first presented the idea in an open letter to the London Guardian, saying:

"Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of violent repression against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders. (For its part, America) seems reluctant to act. However, there are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe....many national and European cultural and research institutions....regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. Would it not therefore be timely (for a pan-European moratorium of all further support) unless and until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians (along the lines of proposed) peace plans."

By July, 700 signatures were registered, including from 10 Israeli academics. Other initiatives followed despite start-and-stop efforts and enormous opposition. They remain viable and have spread globally.

On February 1, 2009 in Occupied Palestine, the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds University said it no longer would cooperate with Israeli academic institutions to:

"pressur(e) Israel to abide by a solution that ends the occupation, a solution that has been needed for far too long and that the international community has stopped demanding."

It followed Israel's Gaza attack and addressed decades of occupation and continued efforts to subvert peace and negotiations to achieve Palestinian self-determination.

Earlier in October 2003, Palestinian academics and intellectuals called on their colleagues in the international community to resist repression and injustice by boycotting Israeli academic institutions. In April 2004, the campaign was consolidated by PACBI's founding (the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).

Palestinian academics and intellectuals launched it by "buil(ding) on the Palestinian call for a comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel issued in August 2002 (followed by further calls) in October 2003."

Its statement of principles read:

-- "to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions until Israel withdraws from all lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem;

-- removes all its colonies in those lands;

-- agrees to United Nations resolutions relevant to the restitution of Palestinian refugee rights; and

-- dismantles its system of apartheid."

PACBI's call got wide support from Palestinian academia and civil society."

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15702

Sports I would gather falls under this heading. See the entire article for the full scope of BDS activity.

by MainStreet 2010-01-24 11:38AM | 0 recs
RE: Wrong target

PS: You also have to understand that there is another side to this story.

Israeli professor Ilan Pappes, who published an historical study called, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, was harassed to such an extent at his university, that he had to leave the country, and went to another university in England, I believe.

Recently, Israeli Professor E. Gordon wrote an article which promoted an international boycott against Israel as a solution that he was publically threatened with expulsion from his university. I don't know the outcome of that situation.

So it is only academics who promote Apartheid who become the subject of protests and boycotts.

by MainStreet 2010-01-24 11:55AM | 1 recs
RE: Wrong target

In spite of being a terrible historian -- Benny Morris, himself the most prominent "new historian" in Israel has said, "Unfortunately much of what Pappé tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication" -- Morris was never kicked out of his position at the University of Haifa.  After Pappé called for an international boycott of Israeli universities, the President of the university did suggest that he voluntarily resign, saying that "it is fitting for someone who calls for a boycott of his university to apply the boycott himself."  But he left on his own accord.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9

 

 

by markjay 2010-01-25 02:33PM | 0 recs
RE: Wrong target

Unfortunately, there are those who even today persist in lying about the Nakba, the Nakba deniers, who like to claim that 800,000 Palestinians (not 700,000) left their homes and villages voluntarily or by urgings of the surrounding Arab countries ready to attack (including the inveterate liar, Mr. Indifference, Elie Weisel).

Wikipedia was infiltrated by Zionist bloggers who attempted to rewrite the history before they were caught in the act. I wouldn't pay too much attention to this site.

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 06:37PM | 0 recs
RE: Wrong target

Here is what I mentioned from the Wikipedia article:

(1) A quote from Benny Morris

(2) A quote from the President of the University of Haifa

(3) The fact that Morris was not kicked out of his faculty job at the University of Haifa, but left of his own accord

Which of those three things do you dispute?

by markjay 2010-01-26 10:50AM | 0 recs
RE: Wrong target

Irrelevancies.

The charge that Pappes provided "fabrications" in his history would be enough for Morris to resign. Morris was a supporter of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of 1948, and in the past has defended his position by citing the plight of the American Indian in the 19th century and before.

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Agree

this is inappropriate.  She just wants to play tennis.

by JJE 2010-01-25 12:04PM | 1 recs
Anyone interested in the BDS Movement to free Palestinians, check out this site.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/

by MainStreet 2010-01-24 11:04PM | 0 recs
Are you on the Fox News payroll?

This business of posting pages of someone else's rhetoric and hiding behind "You judge" is awfully reminiscent of Fox's "We report, you decide."

by NJ Liberal 2010-01-25 10:35AM | 0 recs
Pages of rhetoric

What on earth are you talking about?  This is a straight news story.

by JJE 2010-01-25 12:01PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you on the Fox News payroll?

You will never read this paragraph on a Fox News site, which should have clued you into the liberal/human rights nature of the diary. People can disagree about BDS, but this is true:

"There has always been controversy over whether culture, academia, and sports should ever be included in boycott and protest campaigns, this one against Israel's occupation, its ongoing colonization all the Palestinian territories, and the Apartheid situation that has resulted. The inhumane (Jimmy Carter) siege of Gaza also continues just one year after Israel's brutal attack on Gaza in which 1,400 mostly civilian residents, including over 300 children, died."

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 01:39PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you on the Fox News payroll?

By the way, I wrote that paragraph. Until the site completes its revamp, it may be hard to tell the difference between diarist's text and quote text. Sorry. I did used quotation marks, however.

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 01:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you on the Fox News payroll?

My comment was not meant to suggest that THIS story would appear on Fox. Rather, it was meant to point out that you, once again, have used this forum to state you blatantly anti-Israel propaganda under the guise of reporting a news story.

 

by NJ Liberal 2010-01-25 01:52PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you on the Fox News payroll?

Propaganda typically consists of some form of lies, i.e., falsehood, omission, decontextualization, etc. If you could point them out, I would be pleased to respond.

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 06:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Israeli Tennis StarTarget Of Anti-Israel Protests

OK, I'll judge.  This is anti-semitism, pure and simple.

While allegedly targeted at Zionism, not at Jews, the Jewish citizens of Israel are clearly held to a different and more hateful standard than other people around the world.  Are Chinese atheletes targeted in New Zealand (treatment of Tibet)?  How about Russian athletes (treatment of Chechnya)?  How about Saudi athletes (treatment of non-Muslims, women, gays)?  And the list goes on.  Indeed, perhaps the people of New Zealand should be harrassing the country's own athletes, due to New Zealand's historical oppression of the Maori people.

Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, using a wide variety of creative excuses.  Now here's another excuse.

by markjay 2010-01-25 02:24PM | 1 recs
RE: Israeli Tennis StarTarget Of Anti-Israel Protests

What you seem to be saying is that Israelis (conflated by you to Jews) are not more guilty of human rights abuses than the Chinese, the Russians, Muslims, and even New Zealanders. Because none of these other groups are protested at the Australian Open, it must be an anti-Semitic protest.

I don't know the roster for this Open. Are there Chinese, Russians, Muslims, and even New Zealanders competing? And if so, are any of these countries or peoples engaging in a military occupation and colonization of another people's lands? Hey, why not add America. We still do not protect gays and lesbians under our equal rights laws.

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 06:51PM | 0 recs
3 Russians and 2 Chinese Made Quarterfinals

Both Chinese women made the semis. Not that it matters. And there have been hundreds of pro-Tibet protests over the years including calls for sports boycotts. And that doesn't matter either.

Comparative guilt is not the issue. The question is whether some Biblical covenant gives you the right to indiscriminately kill children. And  defense of in effect "I am not as bad as Charles Manson" isn't a defense at all.

I think some Jews need to take their eyes off the Torah and read the Sixth book of the Old Testament-Joshua and consider its lesson. Under the purported direct guidance and assistance of God the Israeli's led by Joshua systematically exterminated all the peoples then inhabiting the Promised Land excepting the one city whose inhabitants they kept as 'hewers of wood, drawers of water'. I believe the early generations of Zionists took that lesson to heart and tried as best they could to create a Jewish State that was still inclusive and democratic and the US and the world largely rallied behind Israel.

But some in Israel have simply lost their way and led by fanatics mostly from the U.S. and Russia (and not as such Holocaust survivors) have sought to replicate Joshua and recreate Greater Israel. I don't care what happened in Hebron in 1948, nothing in history or the Book justifies a second Shoah this time at the hands of Jews.

Meir Kahane was an evil man. Dr. Goldberg a cowardly mass murderer. And Yigal Amir a vile assassin. Yet millions have failed to come to acceptance of those basic facts. The Israeli Right and their American supporters are in some deep state of denial. Most of your non-co-religionists do not believe you are a Chosen People or that Y-h w-h gave you a right to Greater Israel and the few of us that do believe that only do so because they believe it is a necessary step on the path to an Armageddon that will leave all non-converted Jews dead. It is time for Israel to wake up and re-enter the modern world in the way it apparently had done from the fifties to the eighties with religion in its proper sphere which is to say subordinate to democracy and freedom.

The Book of Joshua should be a cautionary tale about the dangers of unbridled faith leading whole peoples into unspeakable acts of terror and mass murder. Instead some people are taking it as a guide book.

Its awfully hard to keep up any faith about the essential goodness of humanity when you see child murder justified under any circumstances.

 

by Bruce Webb 2010-01-27 12:01PM | 0 recs
They aren't more guilty.

Less so even compared to China.

by Rooktoven 2010-01-25 07:38PM | 0 recs
RE: They aren't more guilty.

I'd say equally so, compared to China.

On the other hand, I haven't heard of China, at least recently, killing 1,400 mostly civilian people they were starving under a siege (UN reports), including over 300 children. I don't know the history of China's takeover of Tibet very well. Did the Chinese kill that many Tibetans, or even 8,000 civilians, the number of Palestinians killed since 2000, including over 1,000 children? Did China demolish over 18,000 homes since 1967, the number experienced by Palestinians during the Israeli colonization (that continues before our eyes)?

Boy, I could go on. But here we are just talking about human rights abuses, so I would say that Israel is equally guilty to China, the claims to democracy notwithstanding. Democracy is never an excuse of human rights abuses. How many linchings of Black southerners occurred before the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

 

 

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 07:55PM | 0 recs
RE: They aren't more guilty.

I'd say equally so, compared to China.

On the other hand, I haven't heard of China, at least recently, killing 1,400 mostly civilian people they were starving under a siege (UN reports), including over 300 children. I don't know the history of China's takeover of Tibet very well. Did the Chinese kill that many Tibetans, or even 8,000 civilians, the number of Palestinians killed since 2000, including over 1,000 children? Did China demolish over 18,000 homes since 1967, the number experienced by Palestinians during the Israeli colonization (that continues before our eyes)?

Boy, I could go on. But here we are just talking about human rights abuses, so I would say that Israel is equally guilty to China, the claims to democracy notwithstanding. Democracy is never an excuse of human rights abuses. How many linchings of Black southerners occurred before the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

 

 

by MainStreet 2010-01-25 07:55PM | 0 recs
Not anti-semitism

"Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, using a wide variety of creative excuses.  Now here's another excuse."

A lot of groups have been persecuted.  I agree that athletics should be separate from politics, but this is not anti-semitism.  They didn't boycott a French-Jew or American-Jew.  They boycotted an Israeli.  Israel is currently administering some of the most severe violations of the Geneva conventions, the Nuremberg Laws and other international law standards.  Basic human rights are contingent upon meeting ethnic criteria, which puts it on a par with Apartheid South Africa, if we accept universal values.  The current claim, when removing the colorful language, by defenders of Israel(by Israel I mean its moral denigration into a racist and colonial human rights violator), is that the horrors of the past(the holocaust, pogroms, among many others) gives the Jewish people the right to establish an anti-democratic state in a foreign land(Jews owned about 3% of the land of Palestine in 1945) given to them by a foreign power(US-Britain), to build an extremely disproportionately large military machine, and then use that to exercise their "get away with genocide(and other human rights violations) free card".  If expressed in honest terms like that, the claim collapses the most elementary moral tests.  It is also the greatest hypocrisy maybe in history.  

It would be ridiculous to call a supporter of the PRC's activities in Tibet "Pro-China" and an opponent "Anti-China".  You would laugh if I said that, as you should laugh if someone says a supporter of Israel's occupation of Palestine "Pro-Israel" and an opponent "Anti-Israel".  

You also couldn't get away with saying "The Chinese have suffered under all these brutal empires, under the Century of Humiliations" so it therefore justifies the silencing of criticism of China's policies in Tibet.  

The phrase anti-Israel comes from the Bible.  It was used by King Ahab against Elijah, a hero to many Christians.  

The idea of a Jewish state itself is so anti-democratic that it is amazing people accept it as a democracy.  What if there was a Christian state?  Or a Muslim state?  That alone would make a state not a undemocratic.  Central to democracy is complete separation of church and state, that means all religion, not just theology.  

by The Weekly Glass 2010-01-25 08:21PM | 1 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

There are, of course, many Muslim states, not to mention Christian states, and the idea that you can't have democracy without separation of church and state is nothing more than your own political preference.

by Steve M 2010-01-26 01:39PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Muslim and Christian states are not democratic.  We don't refer to these places as "havens of democracy in regions that have none".  Nobody refers to Iran as a democracy even though they have elections and a parliament.  My personal political preference is not relevant here.  Separation of all religion including religion, systemic ideology, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., even most forms of nationalism from politics is a requisite for democracy.  Though of course you don't have to be in favor of democracy, but then the question is why would someone not in favor of democracy join a blog called "My Direct Democracy".

by The Weekly Glass 2010-01-26 02:20PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Right, of course, no one at all claims that Iraq is currently a democracy.  And of course every Christian democracy in the world is now a non-democracy because you say so.

What you're basically saying is that you don't consider any of the democracies in the world to be a real democracy, which is fine, but kind of a definitional game.  Certainly the USA doesn't qualify because we have plenty of institutionalized homophobia et al. in our politics.

by Steve M 2010-01-26 03:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

That's hardly the only reason the U.S. is not a democracy.

But I guess its just my opinion that a democracy should have to be a democracy to be called a democracy.  

1.  Separation of Church and State is a requisite for democracy.

2.  Having elections, or even free and fair elections assuming that elections are perfectly run, and some parliamentary/constitutional system, does not necessarily make a country a democracy.  

3.  I'm not making up these definitions.  According to a minimalist definition of democracy, there has to be meaningful participation on the part of an informed pubic in policy formation and full recognition of human rights, which includes civil liberties, which includes separation of church and state.  

4.  I don't think this is an unreasonable view.  Democracy is not an absolute issue.  States can't be perfectly democratic.  The idea of linking a state to a religion, such as Zionism and Judaism, makes it less democratic, and I think, a state specifically for one religion/ethnicity is undemocratic enough to be referred to as undemocratic.  

by The Weekly Glass 2010-01-26 11:26PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Some examples would be helpful here. Iran is a theocracy which is implicitly nondemocratic in spite of entertaining elections. As an example of its nondemocratic nature, the Iran state just nullified the candicacy of about 500 applicants.

 

 

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 04:18PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Let's be clear about this.  You are also arguing that a country without separation of church and state cannot possibly be a democracy?

by Steve M 2010-01-26 04:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Examples please!

As for Israel, it is probably best to accept Uri Avnery's conception of Israel as an ethnocracy which in some way is conflated with the notion of a theocracy, given the many right wing religious parties that influence Israeli policies. Apart fromt that, we previously discussed the Jim Crow nature of many Israeli laws which result in inequalities for its nonJewish citizens.

But that is the point, isn't it. For Israel to be a democratic and Jewish state, it must necessarily exclude its nonJewish citizens, who constitute 20% of the population. It is therefore a nondemocracy for a portion of its citizens.

Perhaps we are talking here about true democracies. Still, examples please.

 

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 05:47PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Just to give a couple of examples, Costa Rica is officially a Roman Catholic country, Denmark is officially a Lutheran county, and Greece is officially Eastern Orthodox.

by markjay 2010-01-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Yup

the more interesting issue is if the idea of a state religion is a desirable one.  I'm not a fan as it doesn't ever seem to lead to anything good and often to things that are bad.

by JJE 2010-01-26 07:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is,

Costa Rica is officially a democratic and Catholic state, Demark is officially a democratic and Lutheran state, and Greece is officially a democratic and Eastern Orthodox state. Is that correct?

Without even researching the issue, I would have to say you are likely wrong on all accounts. However, if you can support this rediculous notion, I would be happy to apologize.

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 07:12PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

Costa Rica is a free and independent democratic Republic.

Greece does quote that fact that the "prevailing religion" in Greece is the Greek Orthodox religion, but then Article 5 states,


1. All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality and to participate in the social, economic and political life of the country, insofar as they do not infringe the rights of others or violate the Constitution and the good usages.
2. All persons living within the Greek territory shall enjoy full protection of their life, honour and liberty irrespective of nationality, race or language and of religious or political beliefs. Exceptions shall be permitted only in cases provided by international law.

Demnark: Section 4 of the Constitution, which is a constitutional monarchy something like England, I gather, states: The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State. However, although the the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark is the official state religion, pockets of virtually all faiths can be found among the population. The second largest faith is Islam, due to mass immigration in the 1980 and 90s. No where is it stated that Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and Lutheran state.

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 08:03PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

If you had answered my question, I would answer yours.  But I disagree that a Jewish state, or a Christian state or a Muslim one, is necessarily a "nondemocracy" for all of its citizens who fail to follow the state religion.

by Steve M 2010-01-26 06:29PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

State religion? That would be Iran or Saudi Arabia and a few others. Israel is actually a secular state and its focus on being a "Jewish state" actually refers to ethnicity. But that would be enough to condemn it as nondemocratic. Israel's Palestinian citizens are not ethnically Jewish. Goes without saying.

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 07:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

You can call something nondemocratic if you like, but it's clear at this point that you're just making up definitions to suit yourself.  Fine, any country with Christianity as a state religion is nondemocratic, whatever.

by Steve M 2010-01-26 07:38PM | 0 recs
RE: Not anti-semitism

The only country that indicates it has a state religion is Denmark, Christianity, but it is a constitutional monarchy. Besides, Islam in the next most popular religion, but I don't think Muslims are excluded from participation in the monarchy.

Whatever. You are mistaken in considering Israel a theocracy when its laws then to indicate it is an ethnocracy. About 20 laws, upheld by the Israeli High Court, support the separation of Jews and nonJews, mostly Muslim Arabs, better known as Palestinians, but Christian Arabs too. Hence the problem with ethnocracies or theocracies, whichever you prefer.

by MainStreet 2010-01-26 10:04PM | 0 recs
Lord knows, ethnocracies have never been viable states.

I mean, what if all the Frenchmen gathered in France, all the Spaniards gathered in Spain, and all the Russians gathered in Russia? 

I believe we'd have to sanction those ethnocentric bastards out of existence!

by Rooktoven 2010-01-27 12:51AM | 0 recs
RE: Lord knows, ethnocracies have never been viable states.

Would never work. Look at what just happened to Serbia in the 90s when it wanted to be a democratic and Serbian state sans Muslims. Worse than that. It wanted to be a democratic and Eastern Orthodox state. They were bombed as the Korsovan Muslims poured out of Korsova, Serbian territory before the Ottoman invasion. We watched it on TV, remember?

Ethnocentrism is not what it is cracked up to be. And if the French, Spanish, and state of other predominant ethnicities want to become pure democratic and ethnic states by suborinating or ethnically cleansing other ethnicities, I suspect the same thing would happen.

 

by MainStreet 2010-01-27 01:23AM | 0 recs
Indeed.

Political organization based on "ethnic" lines and ideas of "peoples" and "nations" never leads to trouble.  Ethno-national identity is fixed, immutable, and timeless, and it's really the natural order of things.  Just look how peaceful Europe has been over the past millenium!

by JJE 2010-01-27 09:49AM | 0 recs
RE: Indeed.

So the only fair thing is to have everyone in the world draw lots to find out their new state.  That way there can't be any associating with people of like Beliefs or heritage.

Uncle Joe was onto something...

by Rooktoven 2010-01-27 10:03AM | 0 recs
RE: Indeed.

Ethnic nationalism was a 19th century idea when states like Italy and Germany were created out of city and small region states run by aristocratic families. When practiced in the 20th century, it has frequently led to disasters, especially when such states opted to purify their realms, such as Turkey, Germany, Italy, and more recently Serbia. Few countries today limit citizenship on the basis of ethnicity, e.g., Israel. Even Denmark, a Lutheran constitutional monarchy, has citizens who are Middle Eastern Muslims.

You idea is just antiquated and derived from outmoded thinking in a shrinking world. Even America has long dropped its preferences for northern European caucasian emigrees.

by MainStreet 2010-01-27 11:11AM | 0 recs
My idea is pointing out the obvious.

Like minded people will always congregate together.  The only alternative is a world government.  Until that Utopia comes along, singling out individual countries for having birds of a feather flocking together is a losing battle.  If you condemn Israel for it, condemn ALL countries for it.  If you want to eliminate Israel, be consistent and call for the dissolution of all countries based on ethnic groups.

It is human nature for like minds and blood to form unions.  It always will be.

by Rooktoven 2010-01-27 11:27AM | 0 recs
Blood and soil!

The only method of political organization, truly.  Keep the bloodlines pure!

by JJE 2010-01-27 12:04PM | 0 recs
RE: My idea is pointing out the obvious.

I don't know of any country today that is in the process of purifying itself, the last being the Serbs, and the atrocities they committed are no less henious than those committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories. For that matter, Israel still has 20 laws on the books, upheld by the Israeli High Court, that permit segregation of Arabs from Jews within Israel, a latter day Jim Crow era. During that era we saw how people of a like mind sought to maintain their likeness by separating themselves and exploiting the undesirables. And that too is happening in Israel and the Palestinian territories where cheap and/or lower wages are paid to the lesser ones.

I don't think you are really appreciating the effects of ethnocentrism gone awry.

by MainStreet 2010-01-27 12:54PM | 0 recs
RE: Indeed.

Ethnic nationalism was a 19th century idea when states like Italy and Germany were created out of city and small region states run by aristocratic families. When practiced in the 20th century, it has frequently led to disasters, especially when such states opted to purify their realms, such as Turkey, Germany, Italy, and more recently Serbia. Few countries today limit citizenship on the basis of ethnicity, e.g., Israel. Even Denmark, a Lutheran constitutional monarchy, has citizens who are Middle Eastern Muslims.

You idea is just antiquated and derived from outmoded thinking in a shrinking world. Even America has long dropped its preferences for northern European caucasian emigrees.

by MainStreet 2010-01-27 11:11AM | 0 recs
RE: A much more important factor!

Israeli or Jewish nationalism was undertaken at the expense of another people, the Arabic people of Palestine, the Palestinians, who resided in this land for over a thousand years, and who rights to it reside in UN Resolution 194, the right of return.

That right of return was issued subsequent to the ethnic cleansing of 1948, when Zionist militias under the control of Ben Gurion took your viewpoint and decided to purify Palestine of its Arabic residents. Another ethnic cleansing occurred in 1967 when even refugees from their homes inside Israel were further ethnically cleansed. And slow ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians has been occurring ever since, I shall not count the ways.

It is these kinds of injustices that occur when people, especially using military means, decide to purify their society of unwanted, different kinds of people. It happened to German Jews in the 1930s, which then led to the Holocaust, which is being commemorated today, I believe. "Never again" should be practiced world wide including inside Israel and the Palestinian territories. It is not.

by MainStreet 2010-01-27 11:31AM | 0 recs
Federal Arrangements

The idea of self-determination for ethnic groups within existing political boundaries is a good idea, even if its unitary.  Different cultures have different concerns and it helps to avoid ethnic conflict.   They have their disadvantages, but I think the advantages out way them.  As long as everyone recognizes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ethnic nationalism can't be a problem.  

As for models of democracy, no state fully recognizes human rights, all though it is largely accepted by Western Governments.  Some of the countries in Latin America-Bolivia, Venezuala and some others, have meaningful popular participation in public policy and good general education on major issues.  In the West, Switzerland is the clear model for democracy, regardless of whether or not they happen to be a gun haven.  

But I may also note that even if parliamentary/constitutional democracies are perfect and perfectly functioning, they are still flawed for several reasons, among them they concentrate power in the hands of the state, and the only social system they are involved in is the political system.  

by The Weekly Glass 2010-01-27 10:45PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads