False Issues

Head of a Man by Annibale Carraci

The political universe is pregnant of false issues. Below, we will address three points that are politically juggled with to justify cheap politics.

False Issue #1
Corruption impairs African development.
There’s corruption all over the world, however the people denounce and fight against it. In most parts of the globe democracy is implemented despite jobbery; that is, the people elect their government every 4-5 years, they get education, healthcare, freedom of speech (of assembly, of association, of religion etc) and equal opportunities to help developing their nation. The same happens not in most of sub-Saharan Africa, why? Because the present situation serves someone’s interests. The African elite studies abroad (where they decry the African situation) yet when they return home they yield to the status quo for fear of reprisals; and in the process they allow their  fellow-citizens to be dragged through the mud and misery by those who sell off their country to China: African leaders.

False Issue #2
Arab-Israelis.
In Portugal, we do not call our black people, Afro-Portuguese; we do not call our Jews, Judeo-Portuguese; we do not call our Hindus, Indo-Portuguese; we do not call our Muslims and Arab descendants, Arab-Portuguese...we call them Portuguese citizens. A national citizen is a national citizen, regardless of its cultural/religious background.
The label “Arab-Israelis” represents a subliminal message and is politically dangerous: these citizens call themselves Arab or Palestinian nationals with Israeli citizenship; to whom then do they pay allegiance: the Arab League, Gaza or Israel? Without prejudice intended, the “Arab-Israeli” stance sounds treacherous; thus, a danger to national security.

False Issue #3
Recognising a Jewish State isn’t, in any way, a threat to the rights of those Israelis who profess Islamism, Christianity, Baha’i or any other faith.
The United Kingdom is a Christian nation, de jure, and all citizens (regardless of their religion) enjoy the same rights and bear the same responsibilities. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the United States (for example) are Christian countries (de facto) and yet citizens of all faiths have the same rights and responsibilities as any Christian.
So, if Muslims who descend from Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Jordanians and etc, in Western countries, recognise those nations as officially Christian and serve in the military, sing their national anthem with fervour and respect their national flag (that often bears Christian symbols [e.g. the Portuguese flag even bears the 5 crucifixion wounds of Christ]), what is the problem of singing Hatikvah, respecting the Shield of David Flag and being loyal to the Jewish State?
I visualise the day when all Christians and Jews in Arab nations will enjoy the same rights and religious freedom as any Muslim citizen...


What other false issues do you know of?

Comments

  1. Olá Max,

    I agree that all of us have been using corruption as an excuse to our lack of will to press African leaders to change the course of things. India suffers from severe corruption (that led Anna Hazare to go on a hunger strike until legal reforms would be carried out to consider liable all members of government as well) and yet it managed to develop itself (by educating the people) and presently be one of the most interesting markets to invest in. So, Africa has no excuse to remain in this stale-male.
    Yes, arab-Israelis do send out the wrong message. I am not saying they are traitors to Israel, but the ambiguous label may indicate an ambiguous allegiance - which can be dangerous to Israel (this is the same as those Americans who happen to be Muslim and fought against America, along side the Talibans). The third false issue is indeed false (and obvious) and I am not even going to bother commenting it.

    I'd like to add two other false issues: 1- Saudi Arabia as a Western ally: Saudi Arabia sells us oil, but it is far from being an ally (quiz: where was Al-Qaeda born?). If this country were a true ally, it would help the US and the EU to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but instead it fuels the feud even more to serve their own interests.
    2- If America vetoes the UN statehood bid it will have issues with her arab allies: which arab nations will be angry at the US: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt (that is shooting its own foot), Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen? Ummm....

    Tchau

    ReplyDelete
  2. Olá Celeste :D!

    "India suffers from severe corruption (that led Anna Hazare to go on a hunger strike until legal reforms would be carried out to consider liable all members of government as well) and yet it managed to develop itself (by educating the people) and presently be one of the most interesting markets to invest in. So, Africa has no excuse to remain in this stale-male."

    That's a good example, bravo. And yes, Africa has no excuse to prolong the stalemate.

    "Yes, arab-Israelis do send out the wrong message. I am not saying they are traitors to Israel, but the ambiguous label may indicate an ambiguous allegiance - which can be dangerous to Israel (this is the same as those Americans who happen to be Muslim and fought against America, along side the Talibans). The third false issue is indeed false (and obvious) and I am not even going to bother commenting it."

    Indeed...it is a complex issue.
    It was terrible to see Americans fighting alongside the Talibans - I felt betrayed (and I am not American, now imagine if I were).
    Right? But since the Palestinians use it as an excuse not to recognise the Jewish State and the whole world seems to consent through their silence, I had to address it.

    "1- Saudi Arabia as a Western ally: Saudi Arabia sells us oil, but it is far from being an ally (quiz: where was Al-Qaeda born?). If this country were a true ally, it would help the US and the EU to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but instead it fuels the feud even more to serve their own interests."

    I'd agree that Saudi Arabia is a pseudo-ally. And one of the reasons supporting my opinion is the one you shared with us; yes...the Saudis do not help Palestine nor Israel to achieve peace; au contraire, they fuel the conflict because without it they do not have a subject that glues Muslims together in the Age of Darkness, which the Arab World is experiencing right now. By leading the Arab People to focus upon the Palestinian cause they detract their attention from their thirst for democracy.

    "2- If America vetoes the UN statehood bid it will have issues with her arab allies: which arab nations will be angry at the US: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt (that is shooting its own foot), Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen? Ummm...."

    America has given the Arab world a chance (with this present administration) and so far it hasn't worked; but we'll see in the future (after the revolution post-revolutions).
    Yeah, those countries' stance and situation do not look good, do they? And a lot of questions are being raised...

    Celeste, thank you ever so much for your stupendous comment :D.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  3. Max, Africa is getting better from what I heard. Even Angolans are beginning to protest against their ultra-corrupt President and his family (the so called "Dos Santos" clan).
    I have no doubt whatsoever that most arab-israelis are traitors: they refuse to sing the hatikvah, they do not respect the flag and they consider their first language to be arabic instead of Hebrew. To have the citizenship of a country implies full loyalty to its national symbols and interests. When this does not occur then treason is taking place, it is that simple and this is what Israel is facing. So, I answer your question: these arab-israeli are loyal to the Arab world and only hold the israeli citizenship as a way to gather intel and keep the seat warm for any eventual arab-attack/invasion.
    Who needs arabs to recognise the Jewish State? Israel is a sovereign Jewish State, period.

    I can present you two other false issues:
    One: Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Yerushalayim and not Al-Quds. Yerushalayim is ours and the Palestinians will never, ever, get the hold of it..."Insh'allah" they will never get hold of the West Bank either.
    Two: the refugees question. When Israel and Palestine agree upon physical borders, this question ceases to exist, it is that simple. But if the Palestinians continue to insist upon it then they don't plan on having a physical state (perhaps they wish to have only a virtual one).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Max,

    Happy Wednesday my dear.

    I used to think that history books reflected the truth and at least news reporters would tell us the truth. Alas they are only following a secret agenda of one or a group of individuals that have ulterior motives. There is a whole other level of secrets and lies that are very well laid in the fabric of politics. Now I concentrate on the individual good I can do to enhance my life and the lives around me. If we knew all the machinations in place we would really be shocked. Keep fighting the good fight. God sorts it all out in the end.

    Truth Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't see any problem especially with the term Arab-Israeli. In the United States we have African-Americans and it's never really a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Ana :D!

    " Africa is getting better from what I heard. Even Angolans are beginning to protest against their ultra-corrupt President and his family (the so called "Dos Santos" clan)."

    Oh yes, I heard about that protest in Angola - they still got a long way to go (27 people is not enough to start a revolution).
    Soon, we will have to talk about Africa again...

    Thank your for answering my question regarding the "Arab-Israeli" label. I understand why you may have answered the way you have.

    "Who needs arabs to recognise the Jewish State? Israel is a sovereign Jewish State, period."

    lol well, apparently Israel seeks recognition and I understand well why it does: once the Arab States recognise the Jewish State, Israel has political & diplomatic leverage before its neighbours - which is vital for healthy political relations in the ME.

    "One: Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Yerushalayim and not Al-Quds. Yerushalayim is ours and the Palestinians will never, ever, get the hold of it..."Insh'allah" they will never get hold of the West Bank either."

    I agree with you that Jerusalem is Yerushalayim. What do you think of President Obama's basis for negotiations (1967 borders with land swaps)?

    "Two: the refugees question. When Israel and Palestine agree upon physical borders, this question ceases to exist, it is that simple. But if the Palestinians continue to insist upon it then they don't plan on having a physical state (perhaps they wish to have only a virtual one)."

    That is true. Plus, why would the Palestinians wish their countrymen to live in a foreign country with a refugee status instead of having them living in their own country with full citizenship (and all the things that it involves)? It makes no sense...

    Ana, superb comment for which I thank you immensely :D.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Lady A :D!

    "I used to think that history books reflected the truth and at least news reporters would tell us the truth. Alas they are only following a secret agenda of one or a group of individuals that have ulterior motives."

    *nodding in agreement*...

    "There is a whole other level of secrets and lies that are very well laid in the fabric of politics."

    Well, most of the times it is management of truth; but yes, there are some lies in the midst as well (if we consider the harm they cause to the people, target of their political manipulations).

    "Now I concentrate on the individual good I can do to enhance my life and the lives around me. If we knew all the machinations in place we would really be shocked."

    You do well, sista; you do well :D. True...

    "Keep fighting the good fight. God sorts it all out in the end."

    I'll try, girl. Oh, absolutely!!

    Lady A, fabulous comment for which I thank you a million times :D!

    Truth Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Vid :D!

    "I don't see any problem especially with the term Arab-Israeli. In the United States we have African-Americans and it's never really a problem."

    I was waiting to see who would mention this, and I am glad you did *bowing*.
    Of course, I do not agree that the term "African-American" is totally tension-free; because this type of labels is kind of discriminatory. An American is an American, despite his/her cultural background. Besides, black Americans, although descending from African slaves, are not African they are Americans, period.

    Vid, thank you so much for your comment :D.
    I dropped by your blog; I saw that you are new in the blogosphere and I'd like to wish you success in this new experience :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  9. Max,

    "What do you think of President Obama's basis for negotiations (1967 borders with land swaps)?"

    Before I answer your question, I'd like to say one thing: in 1967 there was no Palestine (by the way, a name invented by the Romans); Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan, after the so-called Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition plan - a plan that granted them a much larger area [including Jerusalem] than 1967 borders (since they wanted the whole land for themselves: that was and still is their main plan).

    I think President Obama was saying that since Palestine didn't exist at the time Palestinians are to negotiate with Israel a land (which includes land swaps) and frankly, I believe that this is a very good advice to the Palestinians, cause Israel already has a Land...what about them? Ok, I know you will say they now have Gaza, but they don't see it that way, do they? And that's a problem...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry, Max...this could be viewed as spamming but I wanted to share an interesting article:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14988070

    Read it and let me know what you think, please.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In Norway, we have like 0.2 something percent corruption in the government. Everything is quite transparent and even your income or assets can be accessed publicly. I like the transparency because you can see everything. Politicians getting gifts from private companies are even subjected to investigations at once.

    I agree with issue #2. A national citizen is a national citizen and it irks me when media labels people like Afro- "name the nationality" for example. It just creates a certain division among the people instead of uniting them as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well we live in a false world where the rulers love to sway public motives to their benefit, although it seldom works that way. Sometimes it does happen that when you tell a lie ten times, it does start seem true. In the same way is public opinion. When the same thing is repeated by ten people, you also start thinking about it and generally go where the majority public mood is. There are radicals in every society and that is the bane of a more homogeneous world which everybody of us would have loved to see. But as it happens swaying public opinion is not a difficult task. Once you feel you're thought as being different to the majority view, you'll be mocked, ostracized or silenced with some vague syrupy emotions. These days in the garb of secularism, the pseudo secularists love to appease the minorities just to get an assured vote-bank and that is where the problem begins. Its not the ordinary public on the state which is divisive, but its the top bosses, who go on their work through the radicals. More and more nations where two or more religions peacefully co-existed before and fighting with themselves and a few people are busy adding fuel to the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I totally agree with you on the African American thing. Here we also have Filipino-Chinese. I don't see why they have to be called in two names. The African-Americans were born in the USA so that makes them Americans. The same way with the Filipino-Chinese; they should be called Filipinos.

    Hope you are doing great my sweet Max. Have a wonderful week ahead.

    *hugs*

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ana,

    "Before I answer your question, I'd like to say one thing: in 1967 there was no Palestine (by the way, a name invented by the Romans); Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan, after the so-called Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition plan - a plan that granted them a much larger area [including Jerusalem] than 1967 borders (since they wanted the whole land for themselves: that was and still is their main plan)."

    It is a fact. However, Jerusalem was going to be an international zone (in principle, it would not belong to Palestine solely to protect Holy sites to other faiths). Hamas says that it rejects Fatah's (or OLP, PA) UN Statehood Bid because it wants the whole territory, which they call "hystorical Palestine"...

    "I think President Obama was saying that since Palestine didn't exist at the time Palestinians are to negotiate with Israel a land (which includes land swaps) and frankly, I believe that this is a very good advice to the Palestinians, cause Israel already has a Land...what about them? Ok, I know you will say they now have Gaza, but they don't see it that way, do they? And that's a problem..."

    It is not convenient for Palestine to acknowledge that Israel is capable of withdrawing unilaterally from territories, they view as being occupied (well, in my perspective Gaza was being occupied; however the West Bank is not); since it deligitimises their propaganda and it nulls all their arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ana,

    "Sorry, Max...this could be viewed as spamming but I wanted to share an interesting article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14988070. Read it and let me know what you think, please."

    No problem. Thanks for the link, darling. I read it and I found it very interesting: I have been reading online newspapers for quite a while now, and this must be the first time I read an article such as this.
    The world takes pride in attacking Israel whenever they can; but it is expected (we all know the drill).

    Nevertheless, the article is superb: I recommend it.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Charlie :D!

    "In Norway, we have like 0.2 something percent corruption in the government. Everything is quite transparent and even your income or assets can be accessed publicly. I like the transparency because you can see everything. Politicians getting gifts from private companies are even subjected to investigations at once."

    I like transparency as well and, more nations should follow the Norwegian example (although differences in cultural behaviour may prevent it from working in every nation).

    "I agree with issue #2. A national citizen is a national citizen and it irks me when media labels people like Afro- "name the nationality" for example. It just creates a certain division among the people instead of uniting them as a whole."

    You know it!

    Charlies, thank you so much for your superb comment (always a pleasure) :D.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Kalyan :D!

    "Sometimes it does happen that when you tell a lie ten times, it does start seem true. In the same way is public opinion. When the same thing is repeated by ten people, you also start thinking about it and generally go where the majority public mood is."

    Very well said!

    "Once you feel you're thought as being different to the majority view, you'll be mocked, ostracized or silenced with some vague syrupy emotions."

    It is a question of attitude: if one is insecure about itself, then what you are saying here happens for sure.

    "These days in the garb of secularism, the pseudo secularists love to appease the minorities just to get an assured vote-bank and that is where the problem begins. Its not the ordinary public on the state which is divisive, but its the top bosses, who go on their work through the radicals."

    True.

    "More and more nations where two or more religions peacefully co-existed before and fighting with themselves and a few people are busy adding fuel to the fire."

    Very well said. And this is particularly true in the Land of Israel (before it was officially proclaimed as such by the UN, in 1947): Arabs and Jews lived side-by-side in peace; then the Mufti of Jerusalem (and its radical buddies) began threatening the arabs that were friends with Jews, who made business with them; and they even killed arab families who disagreed with their radical views to set the example - then the political propaganda began...up to this day *nodding*. It is sad.

    Kalyan, outstanding comment for which I thank you immensely, mate :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Liza :D!

    "I totally agree with you on the African American thing. Here we also have Filipino-Chinese. I don't see why they have to be called in two names. The African-Americans were born in the USA so that makes them Americans. The same way with the Filipino-Chinese; they should be called Filipinos."

    Absolutely!! This kind of labels only promotes discrimination and division; instead of integration and union.

    "Hope you are doing great my sweet Max. Have a wonderful week ahead."

    I am doing super great, darling, thank you :D. Thank you, and I wish you the same :D.

    Liza, thank you ever so much for your super comment :D.

    Hugs

    ReplyDelete
  19. Max, I like your comments on the race - nationality item. My consciousness began in the 1960's which is when the notion of racism was introduced to me. It seems that each decade since has resulted in more rhetoric regarding racism to the point that half of the political positions are introduced with an argument of the form "This is the right thing to do, because if you don't agree then you are a racist".

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Looney :D!

    By mistake, I inserted the reply to your comment in a different post: I am ever so sorry *bowing*....

    "Max, I like your comments on the race - nationality item. My consciousness began in the 1960's which is when the notion of racism was introduced to me. It seems that each decade since has resulted in more rhetoric regarding racism to the point that half of the political positions are introduced with an argument of the form "This is the right thing to do, because if you don't agree then you are a racist"."

    *Bowing*. Ah yes, I have noticed that too: it is an absurd. However, there are those who do use politics to express their bigotry (i.e. they criticise a government with such hatred that you know they are referring to the entire People/ethnicity).

    The bottom line is: one can disagree with the politics of any government in the world, without putting the people/ethnicity in the midst of it.

    Looney, superb comment for which I thank you immensely :D.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers