I really do not understand the attacks on NDP MP Libby Davies. She stated that the Israeli occupation of Palestine began in 1948. This is clearly supported by history.
The slogan used by Zionists at the time to encourage European Jews to immigrate was "A land with no people is for a people with no land". Except that it was not a land with no people. Israel was built on an existing, populated, country. As early as 1918 David Ben-Gurion said "Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."1 We all know how well that worked out.
This is 2010. Israel now exists, and Davies was not calling for it to be eliminated. We need to deal with the situation as it stands today, and give the Palestinians as well as the Israelis peace, freedom, and enough to eat.
However, anyone who denies that Palestine was occupied in 1948 is ignoring reality. Israel was built on someone else's land, after throwing out the people who were already there. For some reason it is considered at best impolite, and at worst anti-Semitic, to mention this.
Libby Davies should not lose her job for stating a fact, no matter how much Stephen Harper dislikes it.
1 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
America: Walk a mile in my shoes
Hillary Clinton has been in Canada for a few days. So far she has told us that we should include abortion in health care we provide for women in poor countries, we should keep our armed forces in Afghanistan past our official 2011 pull-out date, and we didn’t invite the right people to a conference on the Arctic.
I tend to agree with the first opinion, disagree with the second, and don’t have any strong feelings on the third. That isn’t the point. The point is that I happen to dislike a foreigner coming into my country and telling me, unasked, what to do.
If this was a one-time thing, or even rare, I would let it go, but what is it with Americans? They seem to have a national inability to understand how other people feel. I can only assume it is massive egotism that makes them incapable of walking in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel if a foreign politician came to their country and told them that they needed to improve their education system, or their health care, or to get out of Iraq?
And that is far from the worst of it. Americans complain about “having” to be the world’s policemen, without bothering to ask whether that is what the world wants.
What would their response be, I wonder, if a foreign country decided (either now or during the previous presidency, take your pick) that the United States needed a “regime change”, and went in with guns blazing to provide it, murdering their president and thousands of innocent civilians. Would they be greeted with open arms? You decide.
Americans seem to truly not understand (many of them, not all) that other people are, indeed, people, with the same hopes, dreams, and patriotic feelings that they have. People who get defensive when they and their country are attacked, verbally or otherwise.
So the next time, Mrs. Clinton, before you use your visit to my country to tell me what is wrong with it, ask yourself one question: “How would I feel if someone said this to me?”
I tend to agree with the first opinion, disagree with the second, and don’t have any strong feelings on the third. That isn’t the point. The point is that I happen to dislike a foreigner coming into my country and telling me, unasked, what to do.
If this was a one-time thing, or even rare, I would let it go, but what is it with Americans? They seem to have a national inability to understand how other people feel. I can only assume it is massive egotism that makes them incapable of walking in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel if a foreign politician came to their country and told them that they needed to improve their education system, or their health care, or to get out of Iraq?
And that is far from the worst of it. Americans complain about “having” to be the world’s policemen, without bothering to ask whether that is what the world wants.
What would their response be, I wonder, if a foreign country decided (either now or during the previous presidency, take your pick) that the United States needed a “regime change”, and went in with guns blazing to provide it, murdering their president and thousands of innocent civilians. Would they be greeted with open arms? You decide.
Americans seem to truly not understand (many of them, not all) that other people are, indeed, people, with the same hopes, dreams, and patriotic feelings that they have. People who get defensive when they and their country are attacked, verbally or otherwise.
So the next time, Mrs. Clinton, before you use your visit to my country to tell me what is wrong with it, ask yourself one question: “How would I feel if someone said this to me?”
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Why I won't be going to the U.S.
I have an invitation to visit friends in the United States this February. It sounds very tempting: trading in the cold and snow of Toronto for the sun and warmth of southern California. I have declined, however. The reason is U.S. “security”.
No, I do not fear a terrorist attack. According to this report I am 225,409 times more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport, and I am not afraid of that, either.
I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to be treated like a criminal.
I had accepted – reluctantly – taking miniature liquids in a plastic bag, taking my shoes off, walking through a metal detector and having my luggage screened and sometimes searched. The price of flying in the modern world, we tell ourselves.
Now, however, I could not bring my computer, because we are not allowed carry-on bags, and I certainly won’t trust it to the baggage handlers. And I would have to pray they don’t lose my luggage, because I would be left without so much as toothpaste and clean underwear.
If they decide I look suspicious, I get a choice: a virtual strip search or a very invasive pat-down.
Once I am on the plane, I cannot have a blanket if I am cold, and I cannot go to the bathroom if I have a full bladder or an upset stomach in the last hour of the flight.
I am not a terrorist, or a criminal being moved from one prison to another. I am a vacationer paying for this trip.
I have a choice, and I choose not to accept this treatment. If this is what is required to travel to the United States, they will have one less tourist. Maybe they won’t care. Or maybe, if they lose enough of us, they will return to treating travellers like human beings again.
No, I do not fear a terrorist attack. According to this report I am 225,409 times more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport, and I am not afraid of that, either.
I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to be treated like a criminal.
I had accepted – reluctantly – taking miniature liquids in a plastic bag, taking my shoes off, walking through a metal detector and having my luggage screened and sometimes searched. The price of flying in the modern world, we tell ourselves.
Now, however, I could not bring my computer, because we are not allowed carry-on bags, and I certainly won’t trust it to the baggage handlers. And I would have to pray they don’t lose my luggage, because I would be left without so much as toothpaste and clean underwear.
If they decide I look suspicious, I get a choice: a virtual strip search or a very invasive pat-down.
Once I am on the plane, I cannot have a blanket if I am cold, and I cannot go to the bathroom if I have a full bladder or an upset stomach in the last hour of the flight.
I am not a terrorist, or a criminal being moved from one prison to another. I am a vacationer paying for this trip.
I have a choice, and I choose not to accept this treatment. If this is what is required to travel to the United States, they will have one less tourist. Maybe they won’t care. Or maybe, if they lose enough of us, they will return to treating travellers like human beings again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
