Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas

[pelsar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/23/gaza-christians-hamas-cancelled-christmas

there hasn't been a Christmas tree in Gaza City's main square since Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in 2007 and Christmas is no longer a public holiday.
____

ok, this should hardly be a surprise to anyone, but that is not the point of posting the article. What i am trying to get my head wrapped around is what i understand the progressive concept that, self-determination/independence for a select group is a good thing, and should be promoted irreguardless if the results of their government is anti western civil rights, establishes a dictatorship (i.e. no elections), has no educational foundation in those same civil rights and removes some basic rights from its minorities....

granted on cannot predict the future, but we all try (note the posts on iran/israeli attacks, seems everyone has a pretty good idea of the future there) and it can be based on some basic history and present political maneuvering.

so can i get an explanation of how Syrias minority govt, how Saudis minority govt, Iraqs (past) minority govt the Iranian, Hamas are not considered occupiers?

was there self determination in syria before their uprising and now there isn't? Was there not self determination in iran before 1979, then after with khommeni there was, then again last year in their failed uprising there wasn't, and now that its quiet there is once again 'self-determination?... how does that work?

can i get a serious definition of self determination and when its applied and when not and is western civil rights related to it at all?

because i seriously do not understand how one can use the concept of western rights values to promote and support a society that is in fact anti western civil rights

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Optimism.

That we all really believe in the same sort of things comes into play. But as far as the support for the protests, when the protesters are say, more Sharia oriented than the governments replaced, its a tough choice: On one hand you have the idea that we should stand against the people's choice, that we should subvert functional democracy (majority rule) in the name of "spreading democracy", on the other hand you have the idea of people using democracy to choose values way different from our own, even those that suppress our concept of democracy. (which includes women, etc) So there is no pretty answer.

[pelsar]

4. why is it a tough choice?

But as far as the support for the protests, when the protesters are say, more Sharia oriented than the governments replaced, its a tough choice

I'm sorry i don't understand what is so tough about it, replacing one bad dictatorship with one that clearly is going to be worse is hardly a tough choice, why would you even have to think about if its a good think to support a worse govt? (theocracy?)

are your western morals so flexible that its ok or more acceptable if one "govt" tortures and kills as long as they have the right "genes" or were brought into power by mob rule/military coup/voting

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. No governence without consent of the governed.

Thats a really important idea to us. So when you talk about liberating a place, we dont mean putting in a government that governs without the consent of the vast majority of the people. In addition to the ethical side, its really expensive to oppose all the people in perpetuity.

From the security perspective, look at the ethnic conflicts in the Balkan states. What happened is that they had this peace enforcer in the soviets that all the sudden could no longer afford to do it, so when that lid came off everything exploded. I believe that without that soviet presence, things would have worked themselves out with a lot more hot air and a lot less blood over the years. you wouldnt have that pressure cooker. So in the middle east, you have a similar situation, and you see it in the revolutions. When you advocate an inceased level of US intervention and control, you are advocating a situation which is like the balkans, because there is a very clear point on the horizon where resource issues could create an economic situation where the US is forced to withdraw.

The other question is, when things go wrong, who do theny blame? When people feel in control of their government, there is partisian bickering. When they dont EVERYTHING is the occupiers fault, because they literally not im control. Once people realize that governance is tough and that they are not perfect, it becomes a lot harder to blame others for creating situations they themselves also create.

[pelsar]

8. i'm asking a question of principle....

nothing to do with international politics nor national internal politics...nothing about US intervention.

just the moral concept of promoting/supporting the creation of a govt that promises to be govern with anti western values..i.e. no minority rights as defined by the western civil rights.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. Nobody is doing that.

Of course we would all love to see the majorities in all countries choose goverments that reflect our values. The extent to which that isnt happening in some of the arab spring countries is a source of disapointment. But it doesnt, in my eyes, undermine the value undermime the value of self governance.

[pelsar]

13. so your claiming a dictatorship is a valuable form of self government?

hows the syrian self government doing? which side are you on? the self government thats been governing for the last few decades or the confused population that doesn't understand the value of assad?

and Lybia, Kaddafi did have universal health care, subsidized education, etc. quite a guy in fact. So were you for or against?

how about saudi arabia?....do you promote, protect the saudi govt?

gaza and hamas?...that too is self government isn't it

iran? seems some didn't like the "self government but were shut up by the govt, so who's side are you on? the govt or those that wanted a change?
________

i'm confused about this value of self govt when its a dictatorship or worse a theocratic dictatorship, who actually benefits that your giving it some value?

btw you are entering an area of discussion that few dare venture.....

[napoleon_in_rags]

14. You're asking me if I protect the Saudi government?

If a guy who takes care of disabled people is propping up the Saudi government? The super rich, global player Saudi government?

No, I don't have POWER over the Saudi government, or Libya, or any of these places. My choice is whether to clap my hands on this forum when I see people protesting, or not. That's what you seem to be missing here, what happens over there is not in my control, and its largely not in almost aybody's control. The only thing I have any control over is putting my two cents in on what I think US foreign policy should be. I've given yo'u my two cents, which is that America shouldn't minimalize expensive military interventions, and exert subtle influence to help self governance in the middle east work for peaceful outcomes. Asking me whether I promote this stuff is like asking me if I promote rain. No, I don't, but look, its still raining.

[pelsar]

15. come on...it was just getting interesting...don't run away now..

I'm writing about the principle-nothing about control...you wrote that

"But it doesnt, in my eyes, undermine the value undermime the value of self governance."

given that we're talking about dictatorships (non democratic regimes) here, i'm simply asking you to clarify?....what is the value of this self governance when its not democratic...and i gave a few examples to clarify of states with that state governance and the result of it

a footnote: i get the impression that i am questioning one of the 'holies of holies" something which is never to be questioned or touched here: the concept of "self-government by people of select genes." However given that i am not religious i find nothing sacred about it, hence the questions.

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. I'm talking about democracies.

When I say self-governance. But acknowledging the fact that democracies, by which I mean majority rule, may vote in things which are different than our values, like a theocratic government in a place where the majority are Muslim.

the concept of "self-government by people of select genes."

With that I have no idea what you are talking about. If you're one of those Icke people, who things lizards are running things, you are in the wrong place.

[pelsar]

17. so basically you have no problem with dictatorships.....as long as they are voted in

meaning egypt which has voted in muslim brotherhood and friends, starts implementing shari law, removes any additional elections (elections and gods law don't really mix), starts, as per irans version, hanging homosexuals, create discriminatory laws for those who are not muslim, make the women wear "potato sacks"....

your basically going to defend their country to promote such values......and reject any western value influence....meaning you will reject amnesty international criticizing them, since amnesty value system is 100% western and, as i understand, they have no right to criticize or influence a different value system, that was voted in.

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. So you basically have no problem with invading every country in the middle east....

Including Israel because they have a different form of government than we do?

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” -Jefferson

That's the name of the game, the people well informed. And:

"In war, truth is the first casualty." -Aeschylus

Which means that once the fighting starts, its difficult to realize the promise of Democracy as advocated by Jefferson, its difficult for self government to turn to enlightened self government when a government is still young.

But I think you have some beliefs you're not putting on the table, maybe because this is a progressive site. I'll play the guessing game, and tell you one thing: the Arab Spring is happening because the people over there are so desperate that they would risk their lives, that they would light themselves on fire and all the rest for change. What people on a public progressive site think about it makes not one lick of difference.

[pelsar]

19. no no no.......dont do that.....

i have not said anything about what i believe and it has nothing to do with this site.

I am looking to read what your views are, not the "bumber sticker" sayings or the chants of "Peoples power 101" something that i can apply to the various regimes a value if you will....


I have never in the years that i have been here have been able to get a serious explanation of what "self-determination is and how a person who believes in western democratic values can support "self-determination when its result is govts such as iran, egypt, syria, where the minorities are trampled. This "respect" of those govts strikes me as slightly weird. If after all one respects them, then one should be pissed to read that amnesty intl does not respect them and are trying to change their values? no?

and then when there is an uprising, what? one "switches sides" to those revolting as the "new self-determination"....and if in Egypts case the MB takes over or in gaza hamas takes over, do you support them despite their suppression of minorities, until they are faced with an uprising against their own dictatorship?

well, how does this support for self-determination work, when the result is repression of the minorities?

pretty simple serious of questions that i would assume any self respecting progressive should be able to clearly answer...but I never seem to get one....

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. The thing I think you're missing is that we have no say over these things.

I mean, people here clapped for the Egyptian protesters because they thought it was a good sign, but they won't clap if a more extreme government takes over, same with Libya. But you say "support" for these things like it makes a lick of difference.

Listen, if we come on to this forum and all start bitching in unison about some bill in congress, maybe some congressional staffer reads these sights and will hear us, and will take it as a sign of what the base supports and it will have some small effect on how somebody votes to get re-elected. That's what it means to support something here. Politicians are accountable to their base to some degree. That guy who lit himself on fire in Egypt because he was starving is not accountable to us. The forces behind the Arab spring are in no way accountable to us, we don't have the power to vote them out. So you're asking me about "supporting" these regimes suppressing minorities... How am I doing that? Do you think progressives voted them in? Do you think we're sending campaign donations to them? Nobody supports totalitarian regimes here, but that doesn't make them go away either.

[oberliner]

21. Oh yes we do

It definitely makes a difference whether or not people support what's going on in various countries in the Middle East.

Many people who are active posters on DU are also active in the real world - where things do make a difference. Personally, I think you are fooling yourself if you think "congressional staffers" are reading posts here as representative of "what the base supports." What is true, though, is that people who post here also make phone calls, publish web sites, work for campaigns, engage in protests and directions, etc. That kind of thing often does make a difference.

With respect to who is accountable to "us" and who isn't - please remember that the United States is very intimately involved in what is going on in the Arab Spring. Our weapons, our money, our support - whether for or against the various regimes is often times the difference maker. You ask how you are supporting these regimes. How about by paying taxes? Egypt, for instance, gets a substantial amount of aid from the US. This is the I/P forum - people who aren't happy about what Israel is doing go out and protest the fact that the US sends them money and sells them weapons. That is making a statement that matters against a regime for which we have some responsibility for funding. Egypt is in a very similar situation. They have been right behind Israel in terms of financial assistance. We also give a lot of money to the Palestinian Authority. Some in Congress want to cut off this aid due to Hamas's potentioal role in the new government, others don't. But to say that none of these issues are relevant to progressives or that there is nothing we can do - that we have no power is just plain wrong.

[napoleon_in_rags]

24. Than you should be answering pelsar, not me.

Yes, DUers do all kinds of things to make a difference, and yes perhaps I played that down too much to make a rhetorical point. But what's happening in the middle east and in Greece and everywhere else is simply not in our control. Pelsar's asking me to answer for progressives on why we "support" the formation of extreme Islamist governments in the Middle East, as may happen in some of the post arab spring states. And I'm saying we don't support that, we simply can't have power over everything that goes down in the middle east.

[pelsar]

25. forget whether or no we affect....maybe we do maybe we don't....

my question is the inconsistency of the concept of 'self-determination" for someone who believes in western valued democracy....just the concept

lets assume that one believes that this "universal rights" mentality, civil rights, minority rights, is "universal"- a very western value...that puts the belief squarely in conflict with promoting a government that is against such things-always found in dictatorships and worse in theocratic dictatorships.

as i understand one is "suppose" to respect the wishes of the "people" even when they vote in an anti western dictatorship (as in egypt), who will remove whatever is left of any western govt.

how do you square that hole?...how does a "progressive" support a govt that is "voted in by the people" yet who's very core is against every other western value?

more so, dictatorships, as per history have "self-determination" for a restricted type, the rest of the population do not get their "self-determination"..so does that count as "self-determination."?
___

good example today:
http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=257520
a Saudi journalist accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammad, was on his way back to his home country on Sunday to face a possible beheading - the victim of a dangerous mixture of ancient religious strictures and 21st-century technology.

......Amnesty as well other human rights organization called on Malaysia not to deport Kashgari after he was arrested February 9, but a Malaysian court put him on a plane back home on Sunday before his lawyers could petition to block the order. Amnesty is now asking Riyadh to refrain from arresting him.

well who the hell is amnesty to get involved? they are a western value organization that is interfering with Shari oriented govts, that clearly have a different value system for their govts

[napoleon_in_rags]

28. Its simply a situation where the ideal does not match the pragmatic reality.

Yes, go amnesty. Go everybody advocating our values. I support them all. I disagree with those non-liberal values.

Okay, so I said it. I don't like those other values. Now what? What am I prepared to do about it? That's the question you are entirely to happy to float above, like some neo-platonic angel... But its really the only question of consequence: What do we do about the situation?

To me, reason is something that has to embraced with freedom of will, it can't be forced on anybody. The gateway to reason is first the realization that we are free, that we can choose reason or something else. The value of advocating self determinism is in the majority of people realizing they are free, and can choose what government they want. Once a people realize they are free, to make choices good or ill, the advice of peers becomes important. The power of dialogue, the power of relating to other people. The struggle against "the suppressor" ends and the conversation of brothers begins. That's where real progress can be made, where people can be informed, and the promise of Jefferson realized. But no sooner. While a people feel oppressed, they will resort to any irrational action to prove to themselves that they are free. So while I stand against their values as now professed, I do not stand for the idea that we should forcefully seek to suppress them, for so doing really crushes any hope that they will ever embrace my reason, because men will abandon reason the moment it seems like a tool of coercion.

I guess I just believe in people. I believe that crazy religiosity, propaganda and all the rest are how people react to perceived threats. I believe reason and compassion are how they react to perceived safety. So to me, the latter is by far the more powerful of the two for facilitating the creation of just governments.

Peace

[holdencaufield]

22. I'm leaning towards Napoleon's opinion here...

... which, I believe I understand to mean, just because I don't approve of the way a country treats its citizens, I have no right to do anything about it.

They say that "People get the government they deserve". But, I would also suggest that a country where every male over the age of 8 owns an AK-47 and his own personal RPG could never have a dictatorship foisted upon it against its will.

The problem with universal Democracy is ...

1. Not everyone is ready for it. As much as we like to say that all cultures are equally valid, it's just not so. Some culture still adhere to concepts like sexual inequality and segregation and ideals that our culture haven't considered acceptable for months.

2. Who's democracy do we foist upon them? America's tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum two identical party democracy? Europe's multi-party strange bedfellow coalition democracy? Or, Japan's democracy in name only oligarchy? People in charge will always find a way to milk the cattle -- democracy is making the cattle thank you for taking their milk.

3. True democracy -- like true justice -- is something that sounds REALLY great, but in practice makes every decision become a PTA debate over banning "Catcher in the Rye". If every decision is a majority decision then all clothes are jeans, all meals are pizza and because most of us are women, we're all married to George Clooney.

Sometimes, tough love means letting people get on with their lives and as long as they aren't trying to export their particular brand of crazy onto un-willing neighbours -- I say, let them go nuts.

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. +1 well said. nt

[pelsar]

26. the question is not whether we do anything about it.....

i haven't gotten there yet.....the question is if we accept, help promote, support govts, the creation of govts that are "non democratic" in the belief that they represent "self-determination.

and that this 'self-determination" is so important that other "rights" such as minority rights is dwarfed by this single most important goal and in fact may be ignored, trampled, put on the back burner so to speak.

[holdencaufield]

27. The questions are interlinked

I might think Black Holes are a destructive force in the universe (others may disagree) but ultimately, my opinion means nothing to Black Holes -- they are an unstoppable force.

The same goes with countries run by arseholes -- I might find the HAIC's to be a reprehensible jizz-buckets, but who am I (or my government) to do anything about it? What CAN we do about it?

America put out a considerable investment in blood and treasure to remove the HAIC from Iraq and create a government capable of self-determination. Did it work? No, of course it didn't. The Iraqi's have elections, but no choice. Minorities are still oppressed, rights are still violated and the entire place is just as bad off (some might argue worse) than before they started.

Here is what I DO think free countries should do to less-free countries.

1. Don't try to destabilize them through proxy -- Western powers never give enough support to internal dissidents against the HAIC's. They only support them enough to give them hope of winning, invariably pull the rug out from under them and leave the HAIC with a perfect excuse to crack down on their people even harder (Yes, we ARE the Emmanuel Goldstein's).

2. Don't embargo them -- Castro would have lost power fifty years ago if America built McDonalds and Starbucks in Cuba instead of Guantanamo. Junk food, popular music and romantic comedies with Angelina Jolie are remarkable powers for good.

3. Don't fuel their ambitions -- North Korea found early on that throwing fits and threatening violence was the best way to get people to give you things (things that keep the HAIC's in charge). Ignore their fits and threats and they'll eventually stop making them (yes, we're looking at you Iran).

4. Accept their poor, wretched, refuse -- If someone is willing to risk death to escape a place, then give them a place to escape to. If Jews in Europe had a place to run to -- they would never would have stayed until things got as bad as they did. If you're REALLY concerned about the lives of Kurds, North Koreans, North Yemenese, or Sudanese refugees, don't send green uniforms, send green cards.

5. Keep HAIC's in the playpen -- Use your vast military force to contain their ambitions, not to defeat them. Interdict their arms/drug shipments and -- for goodness sake -- stop inviting them to give speeches in New York (you're only encouraging them).


Just my opinion, of course.

[pelsar]

29. I don't really disagree with you here...

Miltary intervention appears to work only if the whole world supports you or "stays out of it" and your willing to redo the whole culture as per Germany and Japan post WWII...and those days are long gone. i actually thought the iraqi invasion was an interesting experiment, and was definitely "rooting for its success as a 'game changer" but I saw it as a real gamble. Contrast that to Afganistan with its history and i saw that as a "no fuckin way" is anything going to change there given its tribal character and lack of any central authority....

I'm not so much talking about how America should interfere or not interfere with the "less than free" countries, thats going to be intertwined with regional politics.

I'm just interested in the concept of "self-determination" as a value, can it even exists in a non democratic country given that non democracies by definition discriminate so is the "self-determination more important than other basic values?

[holdencaufield]

30. Can self determination exist in a non-democratic country?

I would have to say yes, I'm living in one.

Singapore is as non-democratic as countries come. Since independence from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore was under the rule of one man, Lee Kwan Yew. Singapore didn't even have their first general election until 2006 and in a remarkably above-board election, the ruling party took 68% of the popular vote and won 98% of the seats in parliament.

However, a cornerstone of his administration was racial harmony (Singapore is a very multi-cultural country), creating social safety nets and economic expansion to pay for it. Today, it's as modern a society that exists on the face of the earth.

Hong Kong is a very similar success story -- but, instead of one man running the show, no one ran it. Hong Kong is (or was) as close to a Libertarian utopia as ever was.

So, can it work, yea? Is it unique to the Asian character -- I would say not.

[Fozzledick]

2. Democracy requires protecting the rights of unpopular minorities and individuals.

Simple majority rule is called a lynch mob.

I would call minority rule a dictatorship or oligarchy, not an occupation unless it's by foreign invaders, but you seem to be getting tangled in other people's loose rhetoric.

[pelsar]

3. who do you promote....support?

are you going to support an "uprising" knowing full well that its success will not lead to protection of the minorities?

Iran 1979, khomeni was pretty clear about what he stood for and within a year had hung the liberals that supported him....yet the left supported his take over for what was/is defined as "self-determination"? Is it still "self-determination as they hang homosexuals?

Libya today? 6 months of european bombing to destroy a dictatorship (that had national healthcare, cheap education, apartments and torture chambers) and support what?

does anybody really believe that Libya wil be a western democracy? where more likely were going to see (as we are now) little fiefdoms where civil rights minority rights are not even an issue....so does that "self-determination give them the right to torture and kill whom they like?

and if not why did the europeans and left support such an uprising in the first place (I"ll ignore the oil factor....i don't think thats an issue for the left)

[Fozzledick]

6. That's not an easy call to make.

On the one hand, I can't help but feel sympathetic to the popular uprisings in Egypt and Syria. On the other, there's a very real risk that when the dust settles they'll be stuck with more of the same, if not worse.

Unfortunately revolutions don't always turn out as planned. Looking at it from a historical viewpoint makes me think of the French Revolution: the people who rose up against the oppressive monarchy wanted Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, but they wound up with the Reign of Terror followed by Emperor Napoleon. There's much to be said for the theory that Democracy requires the establishment of democratic institutions and not just the overthrow of the old regime, but that's not much help for people in situations as desperate as Syria today.

The situation in Libya strikes me more as just old-fashioned colonialism: using support for a minority tribal uprising as cover for direct military intervention to replace a sovereign nationalist monarchy/dictatorship with a more compliant puppet regime willing to let the Europeans grab the oil in return for their support, not unlike the old Shah in Iran.

As for self-determination, I think that's easy enough to define philosophically, the problem is how to attain it in reality given the vulnerability of revolutions to being hijacked by the best organized and most ruthless factions.

[pelsar]

9. i'm for the theory....

There's much to be said for the theory that Democracy requires the establishment of democratic institutions and not just the overthrow of the old regime,

when every possible or by stealth, like the christian missionaries did in africa in the 1800's. Trouble is i find it hard to imagine the left, sneaking in to gaza, by day screaming anti israeli slogans while at night teaching about women's civil rights, risking hamas anger....

[azurnoir]

11. yes so much is so 'vunerable' to hijack these days isn't it? n/t

[pelsar]

12. i have no idea what your writing about...

i don't expect you however to add much to the discussion.....

[azurnoir]

5. well I guess a 'good thread' is worth repeating'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11341377