In article . com,
z wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:12 pm, Billy Rose wrote:
A tomato (Israel's Lyc-O-Mato) was the entry point for this thread.
Since the original post, I have give two reasons for shunning this
particular tomato (1) political (I don't support fascists)
Well, just to pick on this point; that's the same kind of broadbrush
tarring of some group of people for the actions of a few that has kept
mankind up to its collective neck in blood for ten thousand years. Do
you have any reason to believe that the individuals who would profit
from your buying this tomato are in any way responsible for the plight
of the average Palestinian? How do you know the tomato was not in fact
developed and marketed by Israelis of Arabic descent? In fact, you
have no knowledge of the individuals associated with this tomato, but
since they can be denoted as "Israeli", that's enough to render them
subject to collective punishment. Wouldn't you question the strategy
of boycotting Microsoft products, solely on the grounds of the Iraqi
War?
For a nonhypothetical example, take the recent decision by British
academics to boycott Israeli university academics. Just who do they
think is the liberal wing of Israeli society? Hebrew University, for
example, extends college courses and degrees to Palestinian prisoners
in Israeli prisons. It's particularly ironic, since Israeli
universities are some of the few places on earth where a Palestinian
woman can not only receive a university degree, but can do so while
wearing a niqab (veil) if she wishes; while at the same time in
Britain:
" A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that
she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear
her. A teacher wearing a niqab was dismissed from her school. A
student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the
courts, and lost. In reaction, the British educational authorities are
proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether."
Muslims' Veils Test Limits of Britain's Tolerance, New York Times,
June 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/wo...pe/22veil.html
Several good points. It is group punishment, albeit less sever than the
Palestinians receive at the hands of the Israelis but still similar to
the sanctions placed against South Africa. Most of the world is against
what the Israelis are doing (as they are against what our government is
doing), even if their governments find economic advantage in maintaining
ties with Israel (more a nod, in my opinion to the economic consequences
imposed by the United States).
But, please. Read what I write. Don't beat up a straw man. There are
many good, decent Israelis. Even peace activists who don't care if their
neighbors are Palestinians or a Martians, for that matter. What they are
concerned about is how their neighbors treat them.
I just don't see the need for an Israel. An ethnically pure country?
Just has a bad sounding taste to it and Jews should be the first to
recognize that. Of course Zionism pre-date Nazism. After WWI, maybe an
ethnically pure state sounded reasonable. After WWII, I don't think so.
Zionism, in my opinion, is the problem. It is Zionism, and now
territorial aggrandizement, through ethnic cleansing that is the
problem. All property in Israel is owned by the state. Once a
Palestinian loses their land, they cannot get it back. Home destruction
by the state, and refusal to grant building permits are the weapons. How
about, I'm OK. Your OK. If you want to buy it, you pay for it?
The international community should be able to guarantee Jewish safety
(a legitimate concern, considering the past). At present it is just the
United States and Guam (and maybe the Marshall Islands) that guarantees
Israel's survival. But are they safe? Billions of dollars of American
foreign aid is squandered in Israel every year. What kind of country
would it be, if that money was spent on social needs instead for Moslems
and Jews?
Yes the niqab in Britain and the foulard in France are contentious
issues. Group pressure to conform or individual freedom? Personally, I
have no problem with either (niqab or foulard), if it isn't coercion.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/