Log in

No account? Create an account

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009, 01:58 pm

What pisses me off continuously about the political situation in this country is the way various political and human rights issues are mixed up in the way they are represented. Nothing illustrates this better than today's human rights march. If there is something that does a disservice to what I stand for and believe in it's this march more than anything. Why, if I am against homophobia, must I also stand against the deportation of illegal immigrants? Why, if I am against homophobia, I must be implicitly assumed to be voting meretz or something of the sort? Why, if I don't like the biometric database, I must be assumed to be against the naqba law as well? Why, on the other hand, if I am right-winged in some of my views, must I be represented by some bigots who think this country should have a halakha law? In short: why can't I have some moderate right-wing and some moderate left-wing views without those being monopolized by fascist racist religiously-balooney homophobes from one side and whiney cocksuckers who think the human rights of people who violate the law, like suicide bombers and illegal immigrants are sacred, from the other. Why can't there be some sanity?!

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 12:11 pm (UTC)

Amen. I don't know about sanity, but that automatic assumption is entirely annoying.

Besides - what was that about Naqba law? I missed all the drama.

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 12:55 pm (UTC)


Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 12:58 pm (UTC)

I kinda know what it is. And I know how to use wiki too :)

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 12:48 pm (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's like that everywhere. And yes, it can be annoying.

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 02:17 pm (UTC)

Agree 100%! I just can't get why they are doing it this way. They lose on the support a lot of people who would otherwise support them. Besides, I don't think there should be such a thing as "human rights march" -- it's just meaningless! Pick a concrete issue and have a rally about that issue -- one fight at a time. What's the point of diluting it with other issues? It only harms the cause...

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 03:05 pm (UTC)

I so totally agree.

John said once that in Israel, whether you're right or left seems to be determined by your opinions on Arabs.

Fri, Dec. 11th, 2009 03:29 pm (UTC)

They're just trying to keep up with modern life. Call it Political Multitasking. Something always gets lost in the crowd.

Sun, Dec. 13th, 2009 11:00 am (UTC)

The problem is that there are so many issues. For "ideologically inclined" people they are bundled in groups. For example, my credo is "freedom", so I test every issue on this parameter and usually decide according to it. But, first, since the traditional left-right divide has crumbled, each individual or group decides on the governing principles by himself, so there are no "two broad camps" anymore. And second, most people are not "ideologically inclined", so their stand on different issues is often contradictory if one starts to think in terms of general principles.

Your call for "sanity" is funny and true, but it is hopeless. The democracy works by bundling together individuals with varied views. One must decide which issue is most important, vote for the party that represents it best and suffer the disgusting people riding along.

This is the same in every country. The party platforms are historically formed bundles in every democracy. I have found that in some countries there are no big parties I can stand at all, but in others there are some agreeable ones, even if I do not accept their platforms entirely. The trick is to live in a country one can have some identification with some chunk of society and learn to compromise.

Sorry for so many letters - you have provoked me :-).