![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gay marriages, Israel, Intelligence, Music and Ethical Eating?
| Marriage is love. | |||||
Also, you can sign a petition here: http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml
Have finished my response to Jared Israel's
claims that Israel is not an apartheid state. It's often a tiring debate, especially when confronted by those (not in this instance, I must admit) who place their religion above universal human rights.
On a strongly related issue, the problem of the US and cultural studies definition of "ethnicity" and "race" has led to a new whites-only scholarship:
. The concept follows through in other places as well. In Singapore, a Judge defends ban on oral sex on grounds that it is contrary to "Asian values".
In the "told you so" department:
Government 'warned' on intelligence. The politicisation of such bodies has
dire consquences. The following is particularly close to home: And a 1999 intelligence report predicted the result of the East Timor referendum and the probable Indonesian reaction, but then "senior policy-making officials refused to believe it because it so starkly contradicted their own opinions and desired policy outcomes".
On a amusing related note, a competition to
Huttonise history.
Two pleasant social occassions over the last few days: Last friday eve was spent with severina_242 at horngirl's birthday drinks at Polly's. Enjoyed seeing many people who I hadn't had the chance to chat in person to for pretty much two years, including lj entities adricongirl, blithespirit, damien_wise, drzero, frou_frou, insinceritylj, seedy_girl, thorfinn and usekh. It was a great night - thanks horngirl!!
Saturday eve was a nice picnic with caseopaya at the Sidney Myer Free Concert. Despite the heat and crowds it was a fairly good performance and a nice opportunity to wander through the gardens after the concert. This things should happen more often.
Whilst on topic of musical things, I'm still working away at the violin. I suspect however this this is just a lead to something that I'm reasonably sure that I'll be better at - composition. A musical instrument is a tool, and I've always been better as a generalist rather than a specialist in technical matters. It's the reason why I am, for example, a systems administrator rather than a C/C++ programmer.
Annoyance section: I was earmarked as a guest speaker - indeed, the guest speaker at the CERES/Timor Leste Permaculture fundraiser this weekend. However the person who left a message on my mobile spoke in a garbled tone and returned calls indicated a complete lack of knowledge of when and where I was supposed to turn up. Face it: Email is superior to voice communication
Once again, for the third time in my life, I'm considering vegetarianism or semi-vegetarianism on a ethical basis. The basis of my moral decisions is not from a book (legal or religious) but rather on intersubjective consensus. To be sure, this has an improbable ideal - the fully informed and complete communication - which also means that they are rational, capable of falsfication and improvement, rather than absolute. But does that mean, to the degree that other species can express their wishes - that moral behaviour means not eating/using animals? And if so, which animals? And does Eating oily fish lower hostility?
Re: Terminology
Claiming that they are (or aren't) based on race is tricky because 'race' does not exist on the human species. I have encountered many in the pro-Israel camp (Marxists no less!) who claim the existence of a "Jewish race" or an "Arab race", concepts which I (and geneticists) find ludicrous.
In any case the key component of apartheid is sepration (Afrikaans : Dutch apart, separate (from French à part, apart. See apart) + Dutch -heid, -hood.) of a ethnicity, religion or nationality. The notion of dhimmi, I think is similar in terms of formal law (i.e., religious discrimination/favouritism) but in practise what happens in Israeli territory is closest to (as I mentioned) 'hafrada' - or apartheid.
The following is an interesting comparison between the official UN definition of apartheid and Israel's practice.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article689.shtml
Particularly as Arab citizens of Israel can vote
But they can only be candidates if they accept that Israel must remain a Jewish state forever and they oppose resistance to the occupation. And of course, the millions of Arabs who have lived under Israeli occupation for longer than I've been alive find it next to impossible to become citizens, let alone vote.
Why pick on the democracy?
As I mentioned in the article;
1) To the extent that Israel is a religious exclusive state it the extent that it isn't a democracy. And that is quite an extent.
2) Through trade and the billions in foreign aid it is country that we westerns can influence, whereas the squalid dictatorships in the region are far removed from our potential influence.
3) The region desperately needs a secular democracy "a light unto the nations" where religious difference means no legal difference. Israel, for all my criticisms, remains one of the best possibilities to achieve that goal. The other, I think, may be Egypt.
Re: Terminology
People have this naive notion that to be democratic, you have to be a liberal democracy.
(Representative) Democracy just means rule by representatives elected by the citizens. Since all adults born in Israel are citizens, and all citizens have the vote, Israel is clearly a democracy.
It has significant illiberal elements, but that's another matter.
Through trade and the billions in foreign aid it is country that we westerns can influence, whereas the squalid dictatorships in the region are far removed from our potential influence.
Which is a long way from justifying concentrating criticism on one side. This is a conflict, with all the dynamics of a conflict. If you concentrate attempting to undermine one side only, you give benefit to the other. If the other are worse (which, in this case, they certainly are), then one is being morally retrograde.
This does not preclude criticism of course, just requires attention to context.
The region desperately needs a secular democracy "a light unto the nations" where religious difference means no legal difference. Israel, for all my criticisms, remains one of the best possibilities to achieve that goal. The other, I think, may be Egypt.
Not Israel's potential role in any sense. Israel is democratic because it is Jewish, in this context, due to the origins of Zionism. There is no way Israelis will agree to a joint state, because they are not suicidal. Nor will they agree not to be a Jewish refuge.
Egypt needs something approaching a revolution, alas (since the potential revolutionaries are not the democratic sort). Turkey doesn't really work as example because they are Turks (hence their allying with Israel). Jordan and Iraq are better bets, really.