Scathing leading articles in Ha'aretz

bugler

The Israeli daily paper Ha'aretz ("the land" in Hebrew) carries several interesting articles at the moment regarding the country's current government policies.

Gideon Samet, writing about the counter-productive and intentional tactics of Sharon's "defence" policies:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=117967&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Amina Hass, reasons for the IDF putting up a ring of steel around certain Palestinian controlled areas(forbidding Israelis to enter) and then risking its soldiers to escort and protect jewish settlers into the West Bank etc:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=117964&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


I'm not sure if we can say Sharons days are numbered yet, but the imminent Labor party conference may prove an uncomfortable experience for Shimon Peres and other major players in the government. Having seemingly already managed to get the IDF to temporarily stop demolishing Palestinian homes in Rafah( http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=117489&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y ) , it seems the Israeli left is about to make its feelings known.

From Monday's edition, Akiva Eldar, on the problems facing the Labor party in remaining in government with Likud:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=117082&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

tools

All those journalists are clearly anti-israeli, anti-american and are probably terrorists themselves for all we know. How dare they express such opinions.

Hobbes

There are two other good papers to read. The first one escapes me (and is kind of the most neutral I've seen).

The other is www.israelinsider.com which is the other side of the coin and it's quite funny to read the spin on some things (both side spin, but intresting all the same).

At the time of the French people going over to protest (a few weeks ago) Israelinsider was screaming for blood that they be deported, and what not.

here is a good example.

swiss

Originally posted by tools:
All those journalists are clearly anti-israeli, anti-american and are probably terrorists themselves for all we know. How dare they express such opinions.

They express those opinions because those opinions are theirs to express. That these opinions may be objectionable to some bears no relevance to this fact. It is generally an axiom of civilised nations to allow free speech. People have the right to express in whatever 'non-conformist' (I don't like using this term) manner they choose. If you don't like it, feel free to disregard the links to the news pieces.

Israel has long forced restrictions on the Palestinian people, and have essentially incarcerated them in their own land. This has been propogated by years by Western deference to Israeli policy as well as Israeli propoganda that labelled most of the Palestinians as terrorists.

Given the suffering of the Palestinian people which has to date been inflicted by the IDF, it is unsurprising that terrorist attacks take place against both the Israeli state and it's citizens, as well as against their Western backers who have remained largely compliant as Israel abrogated all moral responsibility as the dominant military power towards those who it saw as it's enemies.

While these terrorist attacks are to be wholeheartedly condemned, until Israel addresses the patently discriminatory way in which it treats the Palestinian populace, such attacks will continue, resulting in the continuation of the vicious circle of violence and death that has plagued the middle east since the end of the second world war.

Sand

Nice opinion pieces. While I agree with Swiss's opening paragraph Id add that the quote he used by tools was most likely an (unsuccessful) attempt at sarcasm.

I too agree with one of the articles writer that Israelis who wish to visit Palestinian areas (Area A as he puts it) should be allowed to do so. If nothing else it will contribute to the quality of humanity's gene pool by reducing the influence of the "Exsplosive Stupidity" gene, and get a few Darwin Awards heading to Israel, as opposed to Hicksville, USA.

Its quite clear that while Israeli actions verge on the stupid (The mentioned demolishing of housing, the exstension of settlements when any peace deal will require their removal or freezing and so on), theyre not murderous relative to bombing resteraunts filled with women and children. So its not so much propaganda as fact Swiss:)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
theyre not murderous relative to bombing resteraunts filled with women and children

No just putting bombs in public places which kill children.

Sand

Weve had this argument before. We disagree. End of discussion:).

Hobbes

Not sure how you can disagree about an incident that actually happened.

I guess that would be sticking your head in the *sand*?

Sand

Ive already had long running discussion/arguments with people (some of whom display traits of nothing less than brainwashing/gullibility) over the nature of terrorism, why the palestinians are terrorists, why terrorism is not comparable to milatary action and why the incident you mention was a **** up rather than terrorism - why exactly would I be interested in continuing an argument when Im confident in my own views, and such arguments achieve nothing tangiable? At the end of the day you hold your view, I hold mine. What is there to discuss that hasnt already been discussed?

JustHalf

Originally posted by tools
All those journalists are clearly anti-israeli, anti-american and are probably terrorists themselves for all we know. How dare they express such opinions.

*sigh*

I'm getting a wee bit tired of people 'sockin' it to the man' in a place were clearly most people agree with them.

Typedef

It's kind of cool to notice that Sand is accepting that things like the demolition of Palestinian housing so that Israel may settle in occupied Palestinian territory is immoral. Lets face facts, only with Sharon out of office will the conflict stand a hope of being resolved. Also as is obvious there are plenty of rational Israelis who acknowledge that ostensibly the end of Palestine/Israel conflict will be realised when the occupation itself ends, of course all Israelis are not like Ariel Sharon, but the sad fact is that "hawks" for want of a better word like Sharon can sieze the day and have been the predominant force in Israeli politics for the duration of the occupation.
No-one least of all me would suggest Israel has no right to exist, it exists and it's citizens have rights. By the same token Palestinian people have rights, the right of self governance, the right to equality no matter what their religion, the right to live in a peaceful and non-repressive society. These are some of the most basic human rights and entitlements that exist.

Lets support any factor or influence within the Israeli establishment that wants to bring about the end of the occupation and/or a more moderate stance to the question of occupation and annexation as opposed to the Sharon mindset.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
I too agree with one of the articles writer that Israelis who wish to visit Palestinian areas (Area A as he puts it) should be allowed to do so. If nothing else it will contribute to the quality of humanity's gene pool by reducing the influence of the "Exsplosive Stupidity" gene, and get a few Darwin Awards heading to Israel, as opposed to Hicksville, USA.

So you reckon the problem is that arabs are genetically inferior? Have you got a list of any other inferior races that could do with some good white blood?

swiss

Originally posted by Sand:
While I agree with Swiss's opening paragraph Id add that the quote he used by tools was most likely an (unsuccessful) attempt at sarcasm

Perhaps so... *ahem* sometimes it's difficult to detect sarcasm in writing. Perhaps the use of :rolleyes: (the sarcasm icon) would help to avoid misunderstandings.

theyre not murderous relative to bombing resteraunts filled with women and children. So its not so much propaganda as fact Swiss:)

Emm, I know you may not want to perpetuate this discussion/argument - but I'm actually with Hobbes on this one. Just to let you know I don't think I'm particulary brainwashed or gullible either. Don't mind what all the rest of the posters say .

I would certainly agree that Israeli's should be allowed into Palestinian contolled (I use the term loosely) 'Area A' sites. Whether or not you believe that the Israeli government uses military reports as propoganda, it is a damning indictment of policy that disallows people to visit these areas and find out the situation for themselves - no matter what premise they use to justify this measure.

I would also agree with Sand that Israeli citizens venturing into these areas would be taking their lives into their own hands. There is indisputably a lot of racial tension in the area that has resulted in over 50 years of conflict. Whether you equate such actions with stupidity or bravery is up to one's own personal beliefs. I believe the latter option is best suited here.

Sand

To clarify Type, I believe its stupid and wrong to demolish housing- I dont believe its justifiction in any shape or form to bomb women and children in resteraunts. This has always been my viewpoint.

Tools youre challenging Type for his crown with that last post:) Darwin awards is a joke website awarding people who kill themselves in utterly stupid ways, praising them for removing the "exsplosive stupidty" gene (imaginary gene) from humnaitys gene pool- i.e evolution. If Israelis are stupid enough to want to visit palestinian areas and get beaten to death by palestinian mobs, fine by me:) They just shouldnt expect any help from the army or government who they believe to be so clearly wrong should they get in trouble or be kidnapped:) Speaking of which, youre still alive so you dont qualify for a Darwin, but you might qualify for a honourable mention given that last post:)

tools

Originally posted by Sand
To clarify Type, I believe its stupid and wrong to demolish housing- I dont belive its justifiction in any shape or form to bomb women and children in resteraunts.

Um has ANYONE said "suicide bombings are justified in response to israelis bulldozing arab homes". No. But in the same way that we can't pursue a policy of bulldozing unionist areas up north and not expect SOME sort of payback, the Israelis can't either. In the real world, injustices, big and small, are invariably repaid out of all proportion. Who gets it? Ordinary people as per usual. The poorer the palestinians are kept, the less educated they are and the more susceptible to extremist groups they become.

Speaking of which, youre still alive so you dont qualify for a Darwin, but you might qualify for a honourable mention given that last post:)

Hehe, don't worry I'll compile a list of your funniest double standards posts soon enough you cuddly tory/far-rightist you

Sand

Read the posts in question Tools. There are several people who would not say that terrorism is wrong, and unjustifiable in any circumstance, and certain individuals attempted to compare terrorism to milatary action. Basically they did a good impression of a Sinn Fein member asked to condemn terrorism utterly and completely. If anybody else has a problem, read the posts in question before annoying me to repeat what Ive already said.

And who said i was a tory ( I hate the tories actually) and/or far right? You dont seem to understand my viewpoint at all.

Good luck finding double standard posts, given the level of sanity portrayed by the post you made Im sure we can trust you to be the judge of this.

Youre aware of course that this whole thing springs from you - acting like an idiot over a humorous comment I made regarding the Darwin Awards - implying I was a white supremacist or something.

Tools, if you expect me to debate with you, then debate with me- dont make up stupid crap, saying Im a racist or something. If you dont understand a comment I made, then say so and Ill clarify it.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
And who said i was a tory ( I hate the tories actually) and/or far right? You dont seem to understand my viewpoint at all.

Tools, if you expect me to debate with you, then debate with me- dont make up stupid crap, saying Im a racist or something. If you dont understand a comment I made, then say so and Ill clarify it.

Your political views are quite typical of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals. You are reminiscent of Richard Littlejohn of The Sun if you are familiar with his column. You share his contempt for multiculturalism and this comment looks decidedly ignorant and racist to me, like something off a BNP site.

I assume you dont mean the arranged marraiges, female genital mutilation and other anti female practices (nice neck rings, shame about the neck)?

You support right wing policies like the death penalty. In fact you advocate shooting people in the head as a system of justice which not even the most right wing states in the US do. You're on the same lines as the Taliban and tin pot dictatorships there. Your claim that fascism is "left wing" betrays a political and historical illiteracy that is unprecedented on these boards. You seem to advocate a Thatcherite/ neo-liberal "laissez-faire" economic system where the market rules for the sake of efficiency. Clarify any of these if you feel like it.

Sand

Really? Hmm youd be shocked to know then that Im in favour of enviromental conservation, abortion, womens rights (equal rights mind you- not special rights) and individualism. All these are topics that the left has claimed the moral high ground on, yet I justify my belief in them using my righty philosophy. Shocking really. Where I really disagree with the left is on their economics.

I oppose economic migration on the grounds of multi culturalism- If someone can give me a good economic reason for it then grand. We live in one of the most multi cultural eras where culture and ideas are exspressed via near limitless communication networks- this has little to do with immigration, which in the case of Britian, where "multi-culturalism" has merely led to racial tension and a ridiculous level of political correctness.

You quote one of my remarks where I show that those who demand equal esteem for immigrant cultures (i.e multi culturalism), and reckon immigrant cultures have a lot to teach us, must - by exstension - support the equal esteem for such practices as female mutilation - unless of course multi culturalism is good in some cases, but not in others. So its not really a good reason for immigration on its own, is it? The reason you dont like the quote is because it shows up those who parrot multi culturalism like it was some absolute good as the morons they are:)

Yeah Im for the death penalty. A large portion of Irish people do as well, if anyone bothered to ask them. Punishment should fit the crime and unlike bleeding hearts I dont give two craps about crinimals. The left should save its concern for those deserving of it. And I dont advocate shooting people as a system of justice. I advocate shooting people as a punishment.

Nazi = National SOCIALIST WORKERS party. There was a large degree of central control over economy and Hitler himself said a communist made a good Nazi once he saw the error of his ways - (imo communism is as bad as nazism so hes hardly rectifying the error:) ). Nazism was basically extreme socialism (not quite communism) with ultra nationalism thrown in. Of course since then the left has attempted to tar the right as Nazis, which is pretty laughable.

Free market is most efficient. Of course the government will have to step in to correct some market failures (In the case of externalities, and monopolies and so on) but it is far more efficient than the socialist system. People should really study economics, it has a lot to teach of practical value.

Anything else you want clarification on?

Ri-ra

This thread is now a million miles off-topic, but here goes:

Since when has "ethnic diversity" constituted a reason for economic migration? The reason is surely that economic immigration offers different people the way to a better standard of living. Ethnic diversity is a result, not a cause.

"Racial tension" is not the result of multiculturalism (your cause-effect example); it is the result of bigotry.

"Political correctness" is the result of guilt on the part of sections of the population who try to balance the bigotry of other sections. Which did you imagine came first? PC or bigotry? NB: this does not constitute a defence of PC-ness on my part.

"Ethnic diversity" does not mean accepting every single aspect of a different culture. That's just misdirection. To say that you are open to diversity does not involve condoning practices such as genital mutilation. On the contrary, it means accepting to live with the different cultural practices of others as they pursue their lives so long as they do not harm others or contravene the laws of the land.

I won't bother with the Nazi stuff: that's just plain incorrect.

One point and one question about the so-called "free market":

1. if the government should intervene in the case of externalities and monopolies and the like, then it's not entirely "free." Corporate welfare is still welfare, and is intended to redistribute wealth.

2. Who is the free market "most efficient" for? Which is not to advocate a socialist model. Maybe you should try thinking about these questions without the aid of an unquestioned ideology.

bonkey

I find the whole debate on Israel vs Palestine hugely interesting, but for a very simple reason.

When I say "Israel are wrong to destroy housing", someone else seems to read that as "Palestine are justified to commit acts of terrorism because of ....", and then drag me up on the evils of terrorism.

On the other hand, were I to say that the Palestinian bombing campaign is morally wrong and cannot be justified, people seem to read this as "the Israeli's are perfectly entitled to **** on the Palestinians, because of ...".

Its simple - both sides are wrong. Both sides publish articles, make political speeches, and have their advocates, but in all cases, they are simply showing how wrong the other side is. Unfortunately, the response to this is almost always "We are right because you are wrong".

No.

Both sides can be, and in this case are, wrong. Both sides have comitted despicable acts, and attempted to justify them through various means. There is no justification for the acts of either side, and any unwillingness to negotiate simply adds to those wrongs.

jc

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Really? Hmm youd be shocked to know then that Im in favour of enviromental conservation, abortion, womens rights (equal rights mind you- not special rights) and individualism.

You're in favour of environmental conservation? How very radical of you. These views are still in line with those of the tories and republicans. Of course tories and republicans opposed their introduction into mainstream acceptance vehemently for a long time in the first place but that's by the by.

I oppose economic migration on the grounds of multi culturalism- If someone can give me a good economic reason for it then grand. We live in one of the most multi cultural eras where culture and ideas are exspressed via near limitless communication networks- this has little to do with immigration, which in the case of Britian, where "multi-culturalism" has merely led to racial tension and a ridiculous level of political correctness.

In other words you want a culturally homogenous ireland or at least an Ireland with one dominant culture which in the 21st century is simply unrealistic. Look at our cousins in the north if you want an example of what happens when one "culture" is dominant and believes itself "superior" over another. Sooner or later things have to balance out and integration - multiculturalism - must take place for everyone's benefit. Of course the country should have a sensible immigration policy and part of that policy should be to educate people that black people are not going to eat them so there's no need to spit at them in the street and call them names, which I've seen far too much of in Dublin. Is that a part of the irish culture that's so great it's supposed to be excepted from change? Immigrants will lose much of their own identity to "fit in" with irish society. Conversely Irish people will hopefully drop some of their more insular negative traits, and adopt some positive foreign ones.

You quote one of my remarks where I show that those who demand equal esteem for immigrant cultures (i.e multi culturalism), and reckon immigrant cultures have a lot to teach us, must - by exstension - support the equal esteem for such practices as female mutilation - unless of course multi culturalism is good in some cases, but not in others. So its not really a good reason for immigration on its own, is it? The reason you dont like the quote is because it shows up those who parrot multi culturalism like it was some absolute good as the morons they are:)

Using female mutilation (which is an extremely rare phenomenon) as an example of multiculturalism is ridiculous. You're digging up the worst stereotype you can find to sneer at muslim people. It's like someone saying "irish people shouldn't be allowed into our country because they're all blind drunk, they'll shoot us and their priests will rape our kids."
That you choose black and muslim examples to argue against immigration is telling. Why don't you make a point as to why non-EU citizens like russians or latvians should not be allowed in? Because they're white? Because they're "like us"?

And your inability to argue any point without resort to calling your opponents "morons" really does you no favours. You're displaying insecurity, lack of critical faculties and zero debating skills. How long do you think you'd last in any proper debate if you're standard line was "shut up you're a moron". Tsk.

Yeah Im for the death penalty. A large portion of Irish people do as well, if anyone bothered to ask them.

Um what do you base this on? A large portion of taxi drivers and drunks maybe.

Punishment should fit the crime and unlike bleeding hearts I dont give two craps about crinimals. The left should save its concern for those deserving of it. And I dont advocate shooting people as a system of justice. I advocate shooting people as a punishment.

So that bloke Downing who got released after 27 years in jail, you would have had him shot in the head then? And the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4? Yeah right on. Saudi Arabian justice alright by you? Medieval punishments to satisfy medieval impulses. Those who support the death penalty admire power and successful cruelty.

Nazi = National SOCIALIST WORKERS party. There was a large degree of central control over economy and Hitler himself said a communist made a good Nazi once he saw the error of his ways - (imo communism is as bad as nazism so hes hardly rectifying the error:) ). Nazism was basically extreme socialism (not quite communism) with ultra nationalism thrown in. Of course since then the left has attempted to tar the right as Nazis, which is pretty laughable.

Well this is by far the most twisted piece of gibberish I've ever read. The nazis and fascists in general desire a culturally homogenous militaristic society. Both communism (extreme socialism) and fascism (extreme conservatism) demand total obedience to the party and state. Modern socialism is more like humanitarian internationalism, the antithesis of fascism, where it's survival of the "fittest" or at least survival of the powerful.

Free market is most efficient. Of course the government will have to step in to correct some market failures (In the case of externalities, and monopolies and so on) but it is far more efficient than the socialist system. People should really study economics, it has a lot to teach of practical value.

A totalitarian fascist regime is actually the most efficient system. Nazi Germany's productivity was incredibly successful. But the fetish of efficiency has its drawbacks evidently. The thing about the free market is that corporations become so powerful they render governments (ie. citizens representatives) useless except for when they need labour and civil rights laws to be relaxed in their pursuit of higher profits. Studying economics does nothing to explain why people behave as they do under certain conditions. You should study history, sociology, literature, philosophy and a few foreign languages, instead of playing computer games

Anything else you want clarification on? [/B]

Yeah have you read Richard Littlejohn's To Hell In A Handcart book? He's right up your tiny street.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by tools

Yeah have you read Richard Littlejohn's To Hell In A Handcart book? He's right up your tiny street.

Did anyone else notice the disgusting racist abuse in that review?

"On the one side were sensible people (Sun readers, Texans, William Hague) who supported the right of an individual to protect his home by any means available..."

tools, please don't link to such racist publications again on this forum.

bonkey

Originally posted by tools
That you choose black and muslim examples to argue against immigration is telling. Why don't you make a point as to why non-EU citizens like russians or latvians should not be allowed in? Because they're white? Because they're "like us"?

Wow - the politest way I've seen someone assert racism in a long time

While I only partially agree with tools' interpretation of the comment, I really shudder to think how little faith someone can have in the Irish cultural heritage, if they are worried about it being eroded through multi-culturalism.

I would go further, and say that it is a blinkered view, in the extreme, to allege that Ireland is a single culture - that somehow being "Irish" gives you a unique culture shared by all your fellow Irish?

Fear of multi-culturalism is, IMHO, a form of Xenophobia, and can border on racism. You are essentially saying "I dont want my life polluted by your culture". Is our culture unique, or should every cultural group in the world be allocated their own little plot of land to build a wall around and keep those danged foreigners out? Are you happy enough to be told you may never reside outside the 26 counties? Should the tens of millions of Irish-descent be sent back to us? Thats the logical conclusion....

jc

Sand

This is where I sigh deeply and wonder if theres a point.

Multi culturalism - One I dont give a crap about culture as such, I just feel those who think " Lets open our borders and well have a great multi cultural society" are chanting multiculturalism like it was some absolute good, when it is quite clear it is not.

Tools youre just proving what I said a few weeks ago about the left and their crushing of political debate- I said something along the lines of "Try having a discussion on immigration without some lefty shouting racist nazi KKK bastard at anyone who disagree with him" . You assume that because I oppose unmerited economic migration and illegal migration that Im some sort of white supremacist. Pathetic. BTW how can you be so sure that Im white?

Tools if somebody makes a moronic comment (like calling someone who makes a humourous remark regarding the Darwin Awards a white supremacist) then they need to be called a moron - otherwise theyll "infect" other people with their monronic rubbish.

The cases you mention, Guilford 4 etc etc, were miscarraiges of justice and are a reason for reforming and correcting the Justice system. If a Justice system makes mistakes on that scale then it has no authority to impose ANY sentence on ANYONE, just in case theyre actually innocent.

Communism (Left wing idealogy, internationalist) vs Nazism (Center Left Idealogy, ultra nationalist).

Nazi Germany's productivity was incredibly successful.

And post war democratic Germanys production was so impressive, especially given the damage down to German industrial base during the war, that it is known as an "economic miracle". Totalarian states like Nazi Germany were outproduced by liberal states like the USA during the war. This is quite a simple way of saying that a totalrian system is not efficient, especially when its hell bent of killing 6 million of its people and driving some of its brightest minds out of the country (Einstein for example) due to illiberal policies. Thats the thing with arts students, you can study philosophy to wonder "Why are we here" and other pointless questions- but it doesnt equip you to deal with practical questions like - "Whats an efficient market system". See above for proof:)

I dont read the Sun. Its drivel.

The reason is surely that economic immigration offers different people the way to a better standard of living.

And like many before me, I ask- whats in it for me? This is not a good economic reason for immigration, at least not for those who are "assimilating" the migrants.

"Racial tension" is not the result of multiculturalism (your cause-effect example); it is the result of bigotry.

Britian is our closest neighbour and is far more "multi - cultural" than we are. I dont see what they have now as some wonderful vista we must aspire too. Stephen Lawrence, The race riots in the northern cities, and the ghettoisation of non-white minorities. You might say we could do it better, but english politicians have been trying for much longer, with greater resources and have failed. I dont oppose migration on the above grounds, I merely recognise that migration will bring similar difficulties and we better be getting something out of it- namely skilled workers that our economy requires.

On the contrary, it means accepting to live with the different cultural practices of others as they pursue their lives so long as they do not harm others or contravene the laws of the land.

Which is one of the "pillars" of my political beliefs. However I dont see multi culturalism, or the desire for multi culturalism (as exspressed by Tools and others) as a good reason for economic migration.

1. if the government should intervene in the case of externalities and monopolies and the like, then it's not entirely "free." Corporate welfare is still welfare, and is intended to redistribute wealth.

Governments not intervening to redistribute wealth in the case of externalities, but merely correcting market failures (A firm doesnt take the cost of pollution into account- the government must ensure that it does for example). This applies for positive externalities like education and negative externalities like pollution. Monopolies also need to be broken up (Natural monopolies an exception) to encourage competiveness and thus efficiency.

2. Who is the free market "most efficient" for? Which is not to advocate a socialist model. Maybe you should try thinking about these questions without the aid of an unquestioned ideology.

Economists view an efficient market as distributing goods and services to those who require them most and thus value them most. Free market is most efficient in this regard, still has failures mind you - see above- but its more efficient than other models.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
And like many before me, I ask- whats in it for me? This is not a good economic reason for immigration, at least not for those who are "assimilating" the migrants.

Why the hell should there be anything in it for you?

Have you never heard of the concept of Humanitarian aid?

I mean - why help the poor and oppressed? Why offer assistance to poorer nations? All we're doing is spending our (my) money on helping someone else. I get nothing out of it. Wouldnt it be a better to ignore these people, let them continue their suffering, and lock our doors so that they cant get in here where life is better? That would make more economic sense. And hey - while we're at it, lets kick out the poor and the unemployed - they're only costing me money as well.

Perhaps, at the end of the day, what you get out of it is the knowledge that supporting an ideal such as immigration helps to build a fairer, more equitable world for all, where people help each other rather than just asking "whats in it for me".

jc

Sand

Humanitarian Aid is not economic migration. Youre getting confused with political asylum.

We should help the poor and oppressed nations help themselves. The "braindrain" from those nations to our economies does not help them.

And every person asks "Whats in it for me?". Its the basis of market economies. So I ask again, what does mass immigration do for me? Nothing so far as I can see. Why are you surprised then that Im not singing from your hymnsheet? If its such a benefit for you you wont mind paying for it yourself:)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Humanitarian Aid is not economic migration. Youre getting confused with political asylum.

We should help the poor and oppressed nations help themselves. The "braindrain" from those nations to our economies does not help them.

It can when those nations are not in a position to make use of those brains.

The way I look at this (and deliberately use the term Humanitarian Aid) is to look at the history of our nation. Ireland "exported" millions of people to the US over the past two centuries. Allowing those people economic migration from Ireland was quite literally humanitarian aid - it helped the US, it helped Ireland by reducing the burden on our government, and it helped the individuals themselves.

Yes, I accept that the braindrain probably stinted Ireland's economic growth, but we were, quite literally a pauper nation with no way to utilise these people.

The net result? Ireland now enjoys massively close ties with the United States. It is no coincidence that we are such a favoured nation over there with so many Americans claiming Irish descent. This is not the only reason, obviously, but Ireland holds a sweet spot for so many Americans it cannot be discounted.

On a related note, the cost of offering aid to these countries would probably outweigh a balanced aid/emigration combination.

Also, note that the US gained from allowing these emigrants in. It enrichened itself. There is no reason that mass immigration into Ireland could not do the same....if a few things were changed.

And every person asks "Whats in it for me?". Its the basis of market economies. So I ask again, what does mass immigration do for me? Nothing so far as I can see. Why are you surprised then that Im not singing from your hymnsheet? If its such a benefit for you you wont mind paying for it yourself:)

Mass immigration does nothing for you when its in a configuration where the immigrants cannot get work and remain as nothing but a burden to the government and the people. On the other hand, a much tougher stance on getting "returned value" from the unemployed and/or training for the same, coupled with a sillingness to let these immigrants work, would change the situation to one where we could benefit.

Quite simply, economic migration is just that - economic. Allowing people to come in and live off the state is as counter-productive as allowing the natives to do it. Allowing people to come in to a system where the unemployed are encouraged to train/forced to do voluntary work is less likely to be a cost, and far more likely to be a benefit.

In short, if we sorted out our welfare system, we would have little or nothing to fear from mass economic migration.

jc

Ri-ra

Someone above asked what was "in it" for them regarding economic migration. Surely skilled (think of all the foreign doctors in Ireland, for example) and unskilled labour (workers to do the low paid jobs that the Irish will no longer do-- fast food outlets, ancilliary work, etc.). The point being that skilled labour is not the only thing that a country might gain (I'm pretty sure McDonald's is still inching towards the trillion burger mark with Ireland's help...).

Some points with respect to intervention. Sand believes that certain types of governmental intervention in a so-called free market are good, but other types of intervention are bad. The inconsistencies of this position are many, and make it possible to use the principles of the free market against itself.

The market needs to be rescued from certain bad "externalities"-- (funny word to use in relation to the market. It begs the question of the market's outside. If it has an outside, then it can't answer all our problems, can it? It is therefore a reductive way of looking at things. But however.)-- things it cannot control.

In the same way, things happen to people that are beyond their control. S h i t happens. We may all need a helping hand at some stage. Personally, I'm happier knowing it's there. So I'm all for interventions in the face of uncontrollable events, but without confining it to the market. It's simply inconsistent to advocate governmental intervention in one set of circumstances, and refuse it in another.

Markets also need rescuing from monopolies which are inefficiencies in the distribution of goods and services. I agree that monoploies are a bad thing. But the ideology of the free market monopolizes the thinking of certain people, social groups, organizations, etc., and ironically brings about inefficiencies in the distribution of goods and services: for example, certain vital social services and the goods they require may cease to be available to all, or disappear altogether, if the ideology of the "free market" is uncritically adhered to. It happens all the time, all over the world.

I happen to believe that it is my and society's best interests to intervene in the ideological monopoly of the so-called free market. This means that the role for government is no longer defined with respect to the market, correcting its failures (again, where might these come from?) since it cannot offer the solutions to all of society's problems.

By providing these goods and services freely to all (which ironically remains incompatible with a free-market model), the type of social tensions which will (perhaps inevitably) arise in an emergent multicultural society, can at least be dealt with. Without them, you'll probably need a police state. Then you'd be Thatcher.

By all means study economics, but try also to get an education.

Sand

Bonkey
Certainly many Irish emigrated to the US, but the US of then cannot be compared to the Ireland of now. They had a seemingly limitless frontier which required a population to settle it and they did not receive the social welfare that immigrants to Ireland receive.

We had no way to utilise our own educated "elite" because we had no capital, and did our best to prevent foreign capital entering Ireland. Since then we have encouraged foreign capital and the results have been dramatic.

Im glad you recognise economic migration is just that- economic. I agree that social welfare should be linked to work by the unemployed, if only public work stuff like clearing litter etc etc. Youd agree then that the immigration policy must be geared in some way to the requirements of the economy?- right now the economy is slowing and thus doesnt require low skilled workers as such, high skilled workers is what attracts foreign investment in the first place, there is also strain on infrastructure such as housing and so on- hence immigration simply places more strain on these. Such an immigration policy, linked to economic requirements, would be tough to sell to the left imo. Personally I feel if immigrants are willing to do jobs that Irish wont do , then it proves that the welfare system is too generous.

Ri-Ra,
The government should intervence to correct identified market failures, where costs arent taken into account by individuals. This is a recognised pillar of macroeconomics. The externalities I mention are a term describing the "side effects" of economic activity, such as pollution from a factory, which is not taken into account by the factory owner- pollution doesnt cost him anything as such. As such it is not external to the market, but rather external to the individual *in* the market. It is clear the government should intervence to discourage negative externalities (such as pollution) and to encourage positive externalities (such as education). This is the major role of the government with regard to the economy.

The argument against government intervention is the difficulty a bureacracy will have in gaining correct and proper information regarding the problem, the possibility that the correct action in response to the problem may be politically unadvisable, and that there is often a "lag" between the government taking action and the actions taking effect, in which time the situation may have changed.

By all means have an education. But please study economics before you try to discuss it:)

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Multi culturalism - One I dont give a crap about culture as such, I just feel those who think " Lets open our borders and well have a great multi cultural society" are chanting multiculturalism like it was some absolute good, when it is quite clear it is not.

I know you don't give a crap about culture. It's skin colour you're concerned about or else you would have answered why you pick on black and muslim people rather than asians or white european immigrants who have huge cultural differences to us.

Multiculturalism has worked pretty well in mature societies like australia, new zealand, holland, sweden. Is the USA not multicultural? People from how many different nationalities and cultures died in the twin towers?

Despite all too common attitudes like yours and those of the ignorant racist scum who abuse people in our streets, Ireland WILL continue to benefit from multiculturalism, as long as anyone who manages to immigrate is not herded into a ghetto or stigmatised as being a 2nd class citizen, due to some narrow minded eejits "infecting" society with poisonous lies and fiction about the inherent superiority of Irish culture.

Tools youre just proving what I said a few weeks ago about the left and their crushing of political debate- I said something along the lines of "Try having a discussion on immigration without some lefty shouting racist nazi KKK bastard at anyone who disagree with him" . You assume that because I oppose unmerited economic migration and illegal migration that Im some sort of white supremacist. Pathetic. BTW how can you be so sure that Im white?

You espouse the EXACT same reasons for opposing immigration and multiculturalism as neo-nazi groups like the french national front do in their propaganda. You even cite the same examples and the same "we'll be swamped" rubbish. These days those groups don't do so much sieg heiling and goosestepping. They smile a lot, dress nicely and come across all reasonable like in Austria.

Tools if somebody makes a moronic comment (like calling someone who makes a humourous remark regarding the Darwin Awards a white supremacist) then they need to be called a moron - otherwise theyll "infect" other people with their monronic rubbish.

Eh by the way, I was joking that time in response to your rather asinine humour. Heh, Do I pull you up on every monronic statement you make? No. Because I reckon the moderators would be working overtime. I still might list your "greatest hits" soon though.

The cases you mention, Guilford 4 etc etc, were miscarraiges of justice and are a reason for reforming and correcting the Justice system. If a Justice system makes mistakes on that scale then it has no authority to impose ANY sentence on ANYONE, just in case theyre actually innocent.

That's no good, they'd be dead now if you had your "justice" system. Why were they framed do you think? Anything to do with racism?

Communism (Left wing idealogy, internationalist) vs Nazism (Center Left Idealogy, ultra nationalist).

Wrong wrong wrong. The soviets restricted travel and communications severely. China does the same with its citizens. how is that being "internationalist"? Nazis were center left!?!!? rofl? Tony Blair is centre left. Is he at least partially nazi? So everything ever written about the nazis and post-war neo-nazi groups describing them as "far right" should be rewritten. Ah some excellent revisionism. I sense a budding David Irving in our midst.

Economists view an efficient market as distributing goods and services to those who require them most and thus value them most. Free market is most efficient in this regard, still has failures mind you - see above- but its more efficient than other models. [/B]

You're assuming that one economic/political model will work all over the globe. Sweden's economic model is very socialist and reliant on heavy taxation but it would not work in very many other countries. Swedish people have developed a particular political and social consciousness that allows it to work quite well. Ideologies and theories cannot be forced on peoples and cultures who hold different value systems or are particularly dependent on their environment for a living. If the free market is so superior how does Cuba have lower infant mortality and higher adult literacy than the USA, the greatest economy in te world? I'm not saying lets copy Cuba, but clearly america with its massive economy could learn something from it unless it wants its gap between rich and poor to grow further. In the name of "efficiency", america wastes it's people and resources.

Argentina, how's that for an example of how the neo-liberal "free" market works.

Britian is our closest neighbour and is far more "multi - cultural" than we are. I dont see what they have now as some wonderful vista we must aspire too. Stephen Lawrence, The race riots in the northern cities, and the ghettoisation of non-white minorities. You might say we could do it better, but english politicians have been trying for much longer, with greater resources and have failed. I dont oppose migration on the above grounds, I merely recognise that migration will bring similar difficulties and we better be getting something out of it- namely skilled workers that our economy requires.

Our economy needs workers with all levels of skills. Look, our economy is too small! We're an island. We need more people! We need more cultural diversity to create new avenues of entrepreneurism. Comparing britain, a former imperial monarchical class-ridden power which has one of the worst instances of disparity between rich and poor with ireland, a former colony founded on principles of equality and social justice and which imo is largely still committed to those principles is silly. Stephen Lawrence case: He was murdered by racist yobs and the police were slammed as being institutionally racist so what are you saying? Black people shouldn't be allowed in because racists will be upset? Or because the cops willl be too racist to deal with racist murders professionally? Conflict stems from poverty and inequitable distribution of resources. Just as hitler convinced germany that the jews, regardless of social standing, were the source of the country's problems, there might well be similar little Hitlers here who will seek to blame immigrants (black and muslim ones mind, maybe some romanians thrown in for good measure) for any economic problems which may arise here. So what do we do? Hide? And expect the world to take our emigrants (on the basis that we're "good crack") the next time we have a recession?

Sand

I couldnt give two shags about skin colour tbh. Feel free to continue to keep your arguments racially based however. It says more about you than me tbh.

USA is multicultural, but we still have the KKK, racial crimes, and the US is so racist that racially discriminatory laws are required to keep it "balanced". Not an advertisement for multi culturalism.

You say that Ireland will continue to benefit from multi culturalism- How? Please answer me this. Try to think beyond new recipes for cooking bacon or new songs or customs that I can download from this self same internet were communicating on.

Youre saying anyone who disagree with unmerited immigration and/or illegal immigration are neo nazis? Thats a pretty sweeping statement. Its also ****ing slander that makes my blood boil. Your level of debate, which is basically name calling because you havent got an argument worth more than a piss against the wind, makes it very hard for me to keep my cool with you. Count yourself lucky that being indirectly called a moron is the worst youve received. Please state where I said "well be swamped". If you cant find it kindly retract it and apologise. I dont expect you to have the guts to do so.

Oh yeah, explain the funny side of this to me

So you reckon the problem is that arabs are genetically inferior? Have you got a list of any other inferior races that could do with some good white blood?

Your words in response to my mention of the Darwin awards with regards to Israelis wishing to travel into palestinian areas in the current climate.

Communism was internationalist because it was not nationalist- thats why Hitler hated it so much, It (Communism) wasnt about Germany, but about "Workers of the world unite" - he viewed German communists as traitors against Germany, conspiring with Communists in the USSR.

Argentina was an example of bad economics- They should have cut government spending in response to their neighbours devaluations, but didnt do so and landed themself in this. Nothing to do with free market economics, but rather their piss poor handling of their budget.

Im saying its realistic that mass immigration will lead to racial tension. Thats just a given fact, look at Britain. You admit so yourself in your rush to brand everyone a racist KKK nazi bastard. I dont view a racially tense society as being beneficial in and of itself. Sue me. You have a 19th century/marxist view of Britain & Ireland btw.

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Argentina was an example of bad economics- They should have cut government spending in response to their neighbours devaluations, but didnt do so and landed themself in this. Nothing to do with free market economics, but rather their piss poor handling of their budget.

And where were these government spending cuts going to come from? The draft budget for 2002 proposed to cut spending by 18.6%. This was after civil service salaries and some pensions had already been reduced by 13% with unemployment rising from 3% to 20% and people with no social security reduced to searching in dustbins for food. The number of people in extreme poverty rose from 200,000 to 5m, those in poverty rose from 1m to 14m, illiteracy increased from 2% to 12% and functional illiteracy from 5% to 32%. The state loses half its tax revenue as a result of tax evasion. Only 17% of those in high income brackets pay income tax. The government followed IMF instructions to the letter, sold off state assets, "liberalised" the economy and it f**ked them. Up the bum.

Sand

No what ****ed them up was pegging their currency to the dollar - this helps brings about credibility for the argentine currency, but when their neighbours devalued and Argentina didnt (because it was pegged to the dollar), tax revenues fell- it is only sane to cut the budget then if you dont have the money to pay for your spending. As for the tax evasion you mention- what has that ot to do with the free market? Its a crime?

Ri-ra

Ah, Sand. You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. But, no matter. It's clear enough that you can't see past the dogma you've been indoctrinated with. You still see everything as an effect of the market. I was arguing the opposite. If the market fails due to or must take into account "externality," then it cannot control or be responsible for everything. In such cases, the government must intervene. Simple really.

The argument against government intervention is the difficulty a bureacracy will have in gaining correct and proper information regarding the problem, the possibility that the correct action in response to the problem may be politically unadvisable, and that there is often a "lag" between the government taking action and the actions taking effect, in which time the situation may have changed.

Again, your quote clearly implies (as it cannot help doing) that the market must enter into contact with a myriad of other institutions/ forces, and cannot be the thing to which society can appeal in the last instance. You sound like Frank Fukuyama, but that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.

By all means have an education. But please study economics before you try to discuss it

!!!! Clever boy! The point being that education includes things other than economics. Economics is a part, not the whole. Have you studied politics, then? But you're an undergrad, and will learn.

Sand

Ri- Ra were both saying the same thing - Where theres a clear market failure then the government should intervene. Other than that the government should not intefere as it can do more harm than good for the reasons i mentioned.

You should understand the market is not a enforced system, like communism. Its the common desire of the individual to advance himself - whats in it for me? The government cant stop people from being people. Controlled economies such as communism have led only to black markets. Institutions dont impact the market, the market impacts institutions.

Education = Training for a job. I know its terrible that I dont care about say Plato and his ideas on society etc but I ive got finite resources of both time and money and Id rather learn something useful. The great thing about arts students is that they know more about economics than economists do. Hence they *know* socialist economics are good. If Id had known that before I went to college Id have studied an arts course which would have provided me with all the knowledge I need to to overthrow the capitalist system:)

P.S aint it grand the way a thread on Israeli newspaper articles has become a thread about me and any opinion Ive exspressed on the boards- yay!!!:P

bugler

Eh, bonkey, have a read of what you posted on the sticky relating to guidelines for posting in politics. The fact that a thread has gone this far off topic for so long is bad enough, the fact that it has done so with the active participation of a moderator is bizarre

On the stupidity of Israelis wanting to enter Palestinian areas: Does this apply to settlers, in your view Sand? The only difference being that settlers can expect protection from the IDF? Are we to believe that Palestinian militant attacks on illegal jewish settlements are a viable way of raising the Israeli peoples IQ average?

bonkey

Originally posted by bugler
Eh, bonkey, have a read of what you posted on the sticky relating to guidelines for posting in politics. The fact that a thread has gone this far off topic for so long is bad enough, the fact that it has done so with the active participation of a moderator is bizarre

Fair point. Mea culpa.

Thread locked.

Blame bugler

jc