Thursday, September 14, 2006
Israeli Arab MKs in Lebanon for 'solidarity mission'
Yes, that's right. It is against Israeli law for any citizen to visit a hostile nation, unless there is special permission from the prime minister or the minister of the interior. Violating this law is punishable with up to four years in prison.
Well, it seems that three Arab Israeli MKs visited Lebanon and Syria to express solidarity with the 'victims of the war.' They claimed they did not speak with Hizballah, but what they did is bad enough. This is repulsive and repugnant. It is repulsive for many reasons.
1) It flat out breaks Israeli law. They should be punished for that reason alone.
2) They are visiting a nation Israel just finished a war with, and expressed solidarity with the 'victims of war.' Imagine if German American Congressmen visited Germany after WWII and expressed solidarity with the victims of the war? Can you imagine the outcry? The justified outcry?
3) The 'victims of war' were in fact often Hizballah supporters. Alan Dershowitz wrote a great article explaining how the Lebanese as a people are not victims.
It is disgraceful and disgusting that MKs would commit such a treasonous activity. The fact that they are Arab Israeli MKs only adds fuel to the fire of suspicion that Arab Israelis have to deal with in Israel. These MKs should be tried to the full extent of the law, and possibly even jailed. I also think that, at minimum, their status as legislators should be taken away, and they should be stripped of their MK status. This kind of activity cannot be tolerated. They are NOT representing the Arab Israeli population by engaging in these activities. Au contrare, they are hurting the very cause they seek to advance.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
...and I'm still waiting for John Kerry to be charged with treason for meeting with North Vietnamese government officials while he was still an active member of the Reserves and the US was still fighting in Vietnam.
Of course, I'm still waiting for Kerry to release his Form 180 as well.
STILL,
R
You say that the Israeli Arabs MKs are not representing the Israeli Arabs. I have not seen public opinion polls on this, but it is likely that they are representing a part of the Israeli Arab population. If, after all these years, there are Israeli Arabs who still do not accept Israel's right to exist, then it is reasonable to ask why they remain in Israel.
Render:
You have a point. However, what these Arab Israeli MKs did is worse, because they are representing the Israeli government as Members of the Knesset. That is why at MINIMUM, they need to be stripped of the titles.
Felix:
I agree that it is a damn shame that many Arab Israelis do not believe in the State of Israel. But then, neither do some Jews. See: a blog that consistently makes me vomit, written by an Israeli Jew, who Raccoon (a blogger), rightly considers a member of Israel's "fifth column."
http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/
Disgusting and vomit worthy. Israel is a wonderful democracy, that does not require that anyone swear allegiance to it as a condition for citizenship. That is something wonderful about Israel. However, you have a point. Maybe they should rethink this policy, at least with regards to new citizens moving to Israel (Desertpeace purposely moved to Israel!). And maybe Israel should condition some citizenship perks upon the condition of a sworn recognition in its existence.
Red Tulips,
In Vietnam war era, there was the saying "America, Love it or Leave It" Now we need to change it to: "America (or Israel), at least don't hate it or Leave It".
It is an interesting question as to when a country should deport some of its residents (citizens) because those residents do not support the country and indeed support that country's enemies. On the one hand , we want to be be tolerant of dissent, on the other, we want to preserve our country. The war with radical islam is eroding our multicultural ethic as far as islamists are concerned.
This casual treason is a disease wich infects the US, Canada, England and other countries still involved in the war effort. The first best example of this is the so called 9-11 "truth" movement.
Just look at what Reichsfuhrer James Fetzer said at a truthseeker gathering.
"Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors,... There actually was one weekend, where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend,and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains. Listen to me. The degree of perfidy involved here is so great,that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in the middleof the night and ripped them to shreds!"
- James H. Fetzer, June 2006
In World War II, the US and Canada rounded up ethnic japanese and herded them in to camps to protect themselves from home grown insurgents. It may have been "pragmatic" but that didn't make it right. But we did it anyway.
Today, in this war, we have people who are openly spouting enemy propaganda (eg. "Osama is innocent, Bush did 9-11"). And they're speaking in public of violently overythrowing an elected government. Yet we don't act against them.
Why are Fetzer and his Al-Queada sycophants running free?
Sword of Truth:
Interesting question. I do not know the answer to this. Yesterday, a Muslim Brotherhood representative from a UK IP address posted propoganda on this site. It was facile, easily refuted bullshit. You can read what he wrote right here:
http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2006/08/muslim-brotherhood-is-pro-hizballah.html
Anyway, the point is that he, and many others like him, roam free in London, plotting their terror from the safety of that city. While it seems the highest percentage of terrorists as a proportion of the population reside in London, London is not alone in this. There are terrorists and terror sympathizers in every city on the planet. I say that if you are spouting Muslim Brotherhood propoganda, you should not be able to do so from the safety and comfort of a London abode. Such a person should be deported or jailed. Preferably jailed, because deportation only means that these people can organize insurrections via the internet from another country.
I do not understand why known terrorists are able to roam free. It is disgusting and outrageous, beyond belief.
Ok let's get one thing straight, Alan Dershowitz did NOT say that the 'Lebanese as a people are not victims'. I find that to be a very erroneous statement that does not reflect the article. Either accurately summarize what he said or link to the article and let the readers decide!
But you're correct about the main issue, they broke the law.
sword of truth, I think they will realize this in due time and start hunting down terrorist sympathizers.
Mechanical Crowds:
In fact, the article Dershowitz wrote was titled Lebanon is not a victim. Dersh went on to explain how while a minority of Lebanese may not support Hizballah, a majority do, and the Lebanese as a people are no more victims than the Austrians or Germans were victims during WWII. In fact, Hitler had less support amongst the Austrians and Germans than Hizballah did and does have amongst the Lebanese. I did NOT misquote Dershowitz at all. Go reread the article yourself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/lebanon-is-not-a-victim_b_26715.html
As far as terror sympathizers go...we will see what happens. I think that being a mere sympathizer is not enough for jail or deportation, but it is enough to prevent someone from getting to the US to begin with. I also think that actual terrorists/terror organizers/terrorist propogandists should not be getting the support they are getting from the US and around the world, and should be jailed for their activities. These people are plotting the armed insurrection against the West, and we largely sit idly by and let them do it.
As to what to do with enemy sympathizers, it is a tough issue. Under the Declaration of War v. Radical Islam I define any Muslim who promotes violent jihad either in this country or against our allies and/or promotes the establishment of sharia law for Muslims in the host country, that these are individuals who should be deported. (This may have to apply only to non-citizens). I could see where a moderate muslim might object to this concept since it only applies to Muslims. For example, what about the Noam Chomskys and Ward Churchills who support, in effect, jihad attacks, but they are not Moslems. In other words, if you are a non-muslim traitor, you can stay here and keep your university post, write books, and make money, but if you are a Muslim traitor, out you go. Life is unfair.
I think the point is that we are afraid the Radical Islamists will act out on their fantasy ideology and go blow themselves up in a public place or abet or aid someone else who is planning to do so. Whereas the non-muslim, who sympathizes with the Radical Islamists, is less likely to become a Shahid and actually commit violence. That the criminal justice system can handle that problem.
As far as terror sympathizers go...we will see what happens. I think that being a mere sympathizer is not enough for jail or deportation, but it is enough to prevent someone from getting to the US to begin with. I also think that actual terrorists/terror organizers/terrorist propogandists should not be getting the support they are getting from the US and around the world, and should be jailed for their activities. These people are plotting the armed insurrection against the West, and we largely sit idly by and let them do it.
Just exactly what should be done with those who openly avdocate the enemys position in a time of like, like the so-called "truth" movment does, is a very difficult question.
It's one I don't have an answer for.
My point was, that the "truthers" choose to say what they say and do what they do. Unlike the japanese americans and canadians during WW2, who had no choice of what they were born as, these Al-Queada sympathizers are what they are because they want to be.
Despite this, we as a society don't even consider the question of what to do with them.
Sword of Truth and Felix:
I find it distasteful to say that ONLY Muslims who think a certain way should be deported. Firstly, many Muslims were actually born here in this country and cannot be deported to another country. Secondly, I find that it would be unAmerican to treat people in such a manner.
A better path to take would to decide as a society that certain speech is considered treason, and enough to be jailed over. Now, I am the biggest first amendment proponent out there, but there are individuals who are actively calling for the violent overthrow of this government, and do not get any repurcussions. There are individuals such as Chomsky, who visited Hizballah and praised them. All this is arguably treason. And should be treated as such.
Red,
Regardless of the provocation, I can not advocate making speech so treasonous to be considered a crime.
A healthy democratic society can tolerate any speech. Those European countries with laws forbidding certain speech are not healthy. But their lack of health had nothing to do with those laws.
Just as the majority of Islamic democracies enable the democratic election of religious tyrants, so too would immediate democracy of former eurpean dictatorships would also see dictators elected.
ibrahamov:
I disagree with you. Speech that advocates the armed overthrow of the nation, and/or the murder of elected officials is NOT healthy speech and is NOT promoting a healthy republic.
But anything short of that should be legal, in my opinion.
I want to add that it also pains me to see the Islamofascists use Western freedoms against us, but then if we change by being less free, they win.
Catch-22.
Post a Comment