The book makes an argument that really few can, I think, disagree with. The book has two parts really. The first argues why we need to promote democracy and the second part is how we can do that. Here's the summary:
Part 1:
Start with two observations: 1) Regimes that do not respect the rights of their own citizens won't respect the rights of those of other countries and 2) Dictatorial regimes require external enemies to maintain internal control. Therefore, supporting dictators doesn't bring peace but supporting democracy does.
Part 2:
Again start with two observations: 1) Many dictatorships (esp in Middle East) rely on the West. 2) Small freedoms make people want more and more. Therefore, do not offer aid to dictatorships unless they make measurable (even if small) improvements to freedom. Continue the process until the dictatorship collapses and is replaced with a democracy.
Sunday 5 June 2011
Monday 30 May 2011
Israel Debate Insanity
According to Google (Google "define:insane") a definition of insane is:
Yet the topic of Israel and its actions must be one of the most discussed topics in international affairs. No one can seriously claim that debate on the topic is being prevented. I think, therefore, that anyone who makes that claim must meet the definition of insane above. What else prevents the normal perception of this simple fact?
Is there a better word to describe such an inability to see reality?
In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interactionA relatively common claim is that pro-Israelis are preventing debate on the issue of Israel/Palestine. It was made recently on the Liberal Conspiracy blog and today the UCU passed a motion that relied on it (see here).
Yet the topic of Israel and its actions must be one of the most discussed topics in international affairs. No one can seriously claim that debate on the topic is being prevented. I think, therefore, that anyone who makes that claim must meet the definition of insane above. What else prevents the normal perception of this simple fact?
Is there a better word to describe such an inability to see reality?
Wednesday 25 May 2011
What Makes the West Bank "Palestinian Territory"?
This is the question asked by Elder of Ziyon. There follows a discussion about the legal status of the West Bank assuming that Jordan had officially annexed it after 1948. The post concludes:
The author might, of course, be idly speculating about the subject knowing that it is irrelevant. But if not it is truly worrying that he was a finalist in the "2011 pro-Israel blog-off". I maintain that more Israelis need to understand the need and the correctness of withdrawing from the West Bank. If the second most (because I assume he didn't win or else it would say winner not finalist) popular or important pro-Israel blog is encouraging the idea that the West Bank is not really Palestinian territory then that is surely making it harder for Israelis to reach that point.
I can't find anyone who talks about the legality or legal consequences of Jordan's actions in 1988. And I cannot find any possible legal justification for calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory."It doesn't seem to matter to the author that there are 2 million or so Palestinians living there and that that might make it worthy of being called "Palestinian territory". More importantly, the entire discussion is irrelevant really because who cares whether Jordan's annexation was legal and whether it could legitimately hand it over to the PLO. What bearing can that have on the current situation?
The author might, of course, be idly speculating about the subject knowing that it is irrelevant. But if not it is truly worrying that he was a finalist in the "2011 pro-Israel blog-off". I maintain that more Israelis need to understand the need and the correctness of withdrawing from the West Bank. If the second most (because I assume he didn't win or else it would say winner not finalist) popular or important pro-Israel blog is encouraging the idea that the West Bank is not really Palestinian territory then that is surely making it harder for Israelis to reach that point.
Boycotting (Some) Israeli Goods
Gene at Harry's Place highlights a post from a councillor for West Dunbartonshire Council which has decided to boycott Israeli products. The complaint made against him (and others) is that if he is boycotting Israeli goods that should apply to computers and other very useful and expensive things. Gene understood his response to be:
"We will boycott Israeli products except when it inconveniences us in any way."
That was pretty much my interpretation too (although instead of "in any way" put in "too much"). But the point is what's wrong with that position? It makes perfect sense to me. The boycotters believe that Israel is doing wrong and should be punished and that a boycott is that punishment. Does that mean they have to punish themselves? Sure their boycott is less effective if it doesn't include everything but it seems perfectly sensible to not boycott those things that you would suffer more for boycotting.
NOTE: I do not support the boycott. I think it is wrong for a number of reasons. But that is not the point here.
I've always found this particular anti-boycott argument to be rather rubbish. Haha, you can't boycott Jaffa oranges because then you have to boycott Microsoft Windows too! What kind of stupid argument is that? Of course the response is to point out that actually, no, someone is entirely able to not buy one product from Israel in protest and yet buy another because it's just too much to give up.
So what explains the reasoning behind the argument? The only thing that springs to mind at the moment is that those making it see the boycott in a different way to the boycotters. And if I'm right then it says a fair bit about the anti-boycotters. You see, I think the boycotters might believe that they want to punish Israel. Nothing more. Indeed, that is pretty much what the councillor said.
But anti-boycotters might believe that boycotters believe that it is immoral to have any benefit from Israel for whatever reason. If that is what boycotters believe then of course it is hypocritical to buy even one thing from Israel.
The difference is simple. One is based on the assumption that Israel is doing something wrong, the other on the assumption that Israel is wrong. Like I said, if the anti-boycotters believe that all boycotts are predicated on the belief that Israel is wrong then that tells us a bit about them. They see what they want to see, perhaps. And that cannot be good.
Of course, I could be wrong. If you think I am please use the comments to explain why the argument is valid or else why, even though invalid and nonsensical, apparently rational people make it. Cheers.
"We will boycott Israeli products except when it inconveniences us in any way."
That was pretty much my interpretation too (although instead of "in any way" put in "too much"). But the point is what's wrong with that position? It makes perfect sense to me. The boycotters believe that Israel is doing wrong and should be punished and that a boycott is that punishment. Does that mean they have to punish themselves? Sure their boycott is less effective if it doesn't include everything but it seems perfectly sensible to not boycott those things that you would suffer more for boycotting.
NOTE: I do not support the boycott. I think it is wrong for a number of reasons. But that is not the point here.
I've always found this particular anti-boycott argument to be rather rubbish. Haha, you can't boycott Jaffa oranges because then you have to boycott Microsoft Windows too! What kind of stupid argument is that? Of course the response is to point out that actually, no, someone is entirely able to not buy one product from Israel in protest and yet buy another because it's just too much to give up.
So what explains the reasoning behind the argument? The only thing that springs to mind at the moment is that those making it see the boycott in a different way to the boycotters. And if I'm right then it says a fair bit about the anti-boycotters. You see, I think the boycotters might believe that they want to punish Israel. Nothing more. Indeed, that is pretty much what the councillor said.
But anti-boycotters might believe that boycotters believe that it is immoral to have any benefit from Israel for whatever reason. If that is what boycotters believe then of course it is hypocritical to buy even one thing from Israel.
The difference is simple. One is based on the assumption that Israel is doing something wrong, the other on the assumption that Israel is wrong. Like I said, if the anti-boycotters believe that all boycotts are predicated on the belief that Israel is wrong then that tells us a bit about them. They see what they want to see, perhaps. And that cannot be good.
Of course, I could be wrong. If you think I am please use the comments to explain why the argument is valid or else why, even though invalid and nonsensical, apparently rational people make it. Cheers.
Expanding My Remit
Originally, I started this blog to explore and learn about Libertarian ideas. However, I have now decided to expand it to include another topic which is almost entirely unrelated - the Israel/Arab conflict. You see, I'm generally a supporter of Israel over its Arab enemies. It's a democracy with freedoms and they're not. They want to attack it most of the time.
I had always assumed, in my naivety I guess, that most pro-Israeli activists (for want of a better word) whole heartedly supported the need to withdraw from almost all of the West Bank as part of any peace deal. I had also assumed that most Israelis felt the same and further that they wanted this to happen as soon as Palestinians agreed to it.
However, it seems I was wrong. Opinion polls from Israel indicate that only 1 in 2 Israelis would want to withdraw from the West Bank in return for permanent peace, and that's even if they were allowed to keep the major settlement blocs. Moreover, a lot of Israel advocates in the UK also don't really support withdrawing from the West Bank.
So maybe, possibly, I can try and help change some people's opinions on that front. It's at least worth a try. Because the kind of pro-Israel advocacy that tries to defend the status quo is not going to do Israel any good in the long run. Plus, I suspect that there are more than a few delusions flying around.
Well, you'll read what I write and hopefully see what I mean.
I had always assumed, in my naivety I guess, that most pro-Israeli activists (for want of a better word) whole heartedly supported the need to withdraw from almost all of the West Bank as part of any peace deal. I had also assumed that most Israelis felt the same and further that they wanted this to happen as soon as Palestinians agreed to it.
However, it seems I was wrong. Opinion polls from Israel indicate that only 1 in 2 Israelis would want to withdraw from the West Bank in return for permanent peace, and that's even if they were allowed to keep the major settlement blocs. Moreover, a lot of Israel advocates in the UK also don't really support withdrawing from the West Bank.
So maybe, possibly, I can try and help change some people's opinions on that front. It's at least worth a try. Because the kind of pro-Israel advocacy that tries to defend the status quo is not going to do Israel any good in the long run. Plus, I suspect that there are more than a few delusions flying around.
Well, you'll read what I write and hopefully see what I mean.
Natural Disasters and Reasons
Please note that this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Via Harry's Place I read this opinion piece by Bill McKibben in the Washington Post. Basically, in a highly sarcastic and condescending fashion, he claims that all the natural disasters that have happened recently are the fault of humans causing global warming. What occurred to me (because I have an odd way of thinking) is that this is the same approach as religious crazies. Natural disaster happened? Aha - this is proof that we are sinning. Is there really that much difference between blaming a tornado on burning coal or on abortion?
Again - this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Via Harry's Place I read this opinion piece by Bill McKibben in the Washington Post. Basically, in a highly sarcastic and condescending fashion, he claims that all the natural disasters that have happened recently are the fault of humans causing global warming. What occurred to me (because I have an odd way of thinking) is that this is the same approach as religious crazies. Natural disaster happened? Aha - this is proof that we are sinning. Is there really that much difference between blaming a tornado on burning coal or on abortion?
Again - this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Ash and Regulation
No, I'm not talking about smoking. I saw this video on the BBC News website in which Willie Walsh for the airlines and Phillip Hammond for the regulator argue about whether or not planes should be grounded because of the volcano in Iceland. Basically the argument is as follows:
Walsh: The risk is too low to stop us flying
Hammond: The risk is too high for us to allow flying
What isn't being considered here is who is taking the risk. Clearly the airlines are taking a risk with their planes and employees but the risk that the regulator is protecting against is (one hopes) the risk to the passengers. In other words we have two groups treating us like children unable to decide for ourselves whether the risk is too big or not. And not really like children either but more like one single child because we are lumped together as one.
Of course, none of us are expert enough to decide what level of risk the ash really poses, but then nor are the regulators. Mr Hammond admits as much. And nor are the airlines because we can't really trust them to tell us the whole truth. Nevertheless, whether to take the risk ought to be up to the people who are being put at risk. Let the airlines advise us and let the "regulator" advise us and then leave it up to us to decide. Some people will choose not to take the risk and others will decide that the risk is worth taking. Shouldn't that be how it is?
Walsh: The risk is too low to stop us flying
Hammond: The risk is too high for us to allow flying
What isn't being considered here is who is taking the risk. Clearly the airlines are taking a risk with their planes and employees but the risk that the regulator is protecting against is (one hopes) the risk to the passengers. In other words we have two groups treating us like children unable to decide for ourselves whether the risk is too big or not. And not really like children either but more like one single child because we are lumped together as one.
Of course, none of us are expert enough to decide what level of risk the ash really poses, but then nor are the regulators. Mr Hammond admits as much. And nor are the airlines because we can't really trust them to tell us the whole truth. Nevertheless, whether to take the risk ought to be up to the people who are being put at risk. Let the airlines advise us and let the "regulator" advise us and then leave it up to us to decide. Some people will choose not to take the risk and others will decide that the risk is worth taking. Shouldn't that be how it is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)