Here’s a kicker. Kazakhstani President Nursultan Nazarbayev is visited the United States this Friday. While having his government run ads in response to the sure to be hilarious movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev is getting the royal treatment by the Bush Administration. On Friday, Bush had the audacity to say that Kazakhstan is a “free nation”. What an idiot. Even the conservative National Review called Bush’s embracing of Nazarbayev as such:
But like too many visitors to the White House these days, Nazarbayev is an autocrat. He is not democratically elected, he allows little leeway for his opponents, and he is working to keep political power centralized in the hands of his own family. For Nazarbayev, who visited the Clinton White House twice but has not met Bush in Washington, D.C. since December 2001, the invitation is a victory. He will use the Bush White House to confirm that his autocracy has substantial U.S. support. This couldn’t come at a worse time, as a predominately Muslim Kazakhstan teeters on the brink of turning into another Saudi Arabia: corrupt at the top, with ample cause for discontent at the bottom.
But I guess that according to Bush’s definition of “free”, Kazakhstan is probably a shining beacon. I also think that we can translate “free” as geopolitically vital to US interests. If you are willing to make deals with the US, like Nazarbayev is, then you are placed in the ideological clear no matter what you do to your citizens.
As a LA Times editorial put it,
[T]here are few nations more strategically important to the United States than Kazakhstan. Its mineral resources are vast; by 2015, it is expected to account for nearly as much oil production as Iran. It is a stable U.S. ally in a region marked by shaky friends, rivals and foes, such as Russia, China, Afghanistan and Iran. It is a majority-Muslim country that sent troops to Iraq and opened its airspace to U.S. flights during the invasion of Afghanistan. It is a model for nuclear disarmament, having agreed to destroy the missiles it inherited from the former Soviet Union.. . .
Yet Kazakhstan is too important to ignore or keep at a distance — and the reasons go far beyond its oil wealth. If Bush confines himself to meeting only with leaders who have perfect democratic records, he’ll have to rule out the heads of most countries in the developing world.
True enough. The US has to deal with these countries but it can certainly do so without such silly hyperbole. Such statements are just embarrassing and further undermine the little credibility Bush has left.
Nazarbayev’s visit was of course overshadowed by Borat and the genius publicity campaign for the upcoming movie. Borat attempted to crash the White House meeting, only to be turned away by the Secret Service.
I just hope the movie is still in theaters when I get back to the States in late November.
What do you think Russians would say if this guy were going after Russia instead of Kazakhstan? More importantly, what do you think they’d do?
You’re right that Bush shouldn’t say Kazakhstan is free. But for your part, you’ve overlooked that Kazakhstan isn’t providing tons of assault weapons to Venezuela, nukes to Iran or financial aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. On that basis, Bush is perfectly correct to say that Kazakhstan is more friendly to the US than Russia.
La Russophobe: I would assume that if Borat was instead Boris, satirizing Russia instead of Kazakhstan, that Russians would respond with a wide variety of reactions and responses. Just because you live in a world that doesn’t allow for nuance doesn’t mean that nuance is not an option for billions of other people – including Russians – worldwide.
You never fail to present Russians as uniform carbon copies of one another. Time and again, this shows your preadolescent mode of thinking.
and aliyev was at the white house a couple months ago. like the world needs better examples of the bush administation’s hypocrisy was needed, the embrace of these two autocrats, who believe the best opposition politician is one with a bullet in the back of the head. so much for no longer embracing dictators. now while admit that many azeris love their president, at least to me, and i’ve pissed off a few kazaks for calling their president a durak, i ahve also talked to quite a few azeris who didn’t much care for bush’s embrace of aliyev. and i’m sure there are those in kazakhstan who feel the same way today. This type of crap by the us government only perpetuates the image america has cultivated for half a centurt all over the world. democracy, freedom, human rights, are good for americans and europeans, but that’s about it. and just as the majority of the world has already learned, the people of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan will in the not too distant future will learn. the us government dosen’t give a lick about them either. and then the real fun will begin. again.
and i’m sure if borat was a russin instead of a kazakh, the fsb would hunt him down and stick an ice-pick in his skull. they do it all the time.
An ice-pick in the skull? I always wondered what happened to Yakov Smirnoff …
Of course, the American government often falls into the realm of being hypocrites. We like to perpetuate this idea that we are a virtuous nation, that we uphold ideals of human rights, freedom, and democratic values. But then we get into bed with every petty dictator or autocrat that suits our purposes, while accusing every other dictator or autocrat of being evil. Our oppressor of human rights are ok, but THEIR oppressor of human rights is a monster.
Bush is a bigger hypocrite than most American presidents. But I think this is more do to with timing than his particular lack of virtue. Unfortunately, I think this national trend is likely to get worse before it gets better. As natural resources dwindle, American leaders are likely to partner up with less and less savory individuals, all in the name of maintaining profits and cushy lifestyles … errr … I mean our freedom.
I don’t think that the Russians would do much more than the Kazakhs have, vis-a-vis a Russia-mocking version of Borat. After all, people take the nikey out of Russia all the time.
As far as the weapons to Venezuela go, should you really be worried? AKs and SUs don’t have the range to be a threat to the USA. And, like him or not, Chavez is an elected leader, although he is a bit clownish. And he has likely not forgotten that the attempted coup against him received warm vocal support from Washington. If those weapons were to be used to put down a popular uprising, then it would be a scandal. Other than that – what’s the problem?
I think that Kazakhstan is better viewed as similar to Belarus, though better economically developed (in the big cities and extractive industries, anyway.) Apart from the fact that Belarus has been islolated (not much call for their tractors, apparently), there’s very little difference between the way they are run. Nazarbaev has rigged elections, clamped down on opposition, spirited large amounts of money overseas, etc.
ANONYMOUS: Please given an example of a foreigner ridiculing Russia and a significant part of the population supporting him in doing so. If you can’t, your comment is nothing but propaganda. Perhaps you aren’t aware of it, but OVER SEVENTY PERCENT of Russians express support for proud KGB spy president Vladimir Putin even though Russia is losing 1 million people from its population under his rule. That’s about as “uniform carbon copies of one another” as there could possibly be.
BLAIR:
Kazakhstan and Belarus are not analagous in US eyes. Kazakhstan is pro-U.S. and Belarus is rabidly anti-U.S. America has every right to distinguish between pro-US autocrats and anti-US autocrats, it’s called rationality.
We’re talking about a gigantic quantity of AKs and the intent to export them to support the development of like-minded regimes elsewhere, such as in Bolivia.
Moreover, the point isn’t that we should be scared of Russia, the point is that we SHOULDN’T. For sure, Russia is in no position to threaten the US in any serious way, which is why the US should lose not time in confronting Russia now. If it waits until there is a real threat, that will be too late. The problem isn’t the security threat, it’s the brazen character of what Russia is doing (the US has an embargo on Venezuela). Obviously, Russia will do whatever it can get away with, and the US needs to show where the boundaries are. Chechnya is one thing, Georgia and Venezuela and Iran are others.
WALLY: No, not like Yakov. Like Galina Starovoitova. Or Paul Khlebnikov. Or maybe they’d just arrest him. You know, like Rakhmankov or Khodorkovsky. Or maybe they’d rig a duel for him to participate in, like Pushkin. However it might happen, he’d get the Russian treatment.
What WOULDN’T happen is that he WOULDN’T become rich and famous, like the guys who trash Bush on Saturday night live. That’s because America is a vibrant strong country that can laugh at itself, while Russia is a pathetically weak blog of territory not long for this earth.
Oh and, by the way, perhaps you don’t know it but Yakov Smirnov DEFECTED from the Soviet Union because he didn’t want to get an ice pick in the head, as Johnnie says. Maybe you think that his not being killed after that proves what a nice liberal open state Russia is, but perhaps you haven’t heard about Russia needing more than a decade to subdue tiny Chechnya and general rumors of Russian incompetence? If not, you really ought to read up on it a bit, it’s quite fascinating.
Yakov Smirnoff performs nightly at his theater in Branson, Missouri, the Las Vegas of the Bible Belt (without the gambling, of course). I only wish someone would stick an ice-pick in his skull. Then I would truly be able to say “America! What a country!”
Though an exciting discussion I find it difficult to understand why all discussion about any country in the world engages only two binary poles democracy-autocracy and friends-foes of the US. Why is it that we have to assume that all countries should eventually be free and democratic? Why do we care only about who serves the interests of the US and who doesn’t?
And yes, could you possibly define those terms? What does free mean? Can we have a democracy when some inhabitants of that democracy are not allowed to appeal to court?
JOHNNIE: That was actually amusing. Something must be wrong with you.
MAYA: You are engaging in logical fallacy. This discussion only involves three countries, Kazaskhstan, Russia and the U.S. Therefore, it can’t possibly be any indication of anyone’s views as to “any country int he world” as you say. Ironcially, you yourself are attempting to force the issue to a binary pole even while complaining of others doing this.
If a country isn’t actually your enemy, then you are correct to say that it’s foolish to imagine that they are. On the other hand, if a country really is your enemy, it’s far more foolish to ignore that fact. To decide which of these two positions is more important, I follow the old adage: “It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.”
But I don’t need that adage where Russia is concerned. It has a huge number of ICBMs pointed at my country; it is supplying piles of assault rifles and attack planes to our arch enemy Venezuela, over our embargo, as it seeks to destabilize all of South America; it is providing nuclear technology to Iran despite the objection of the whole of Europe; it is providing piles of money to terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah; and as we speak both the Duma and the Red Army are developing formal statements that America is Russia’s enemy. Any one of these, much less all, is more than sufficient to convince me that Russia means ill. Since none of them apply to Kazakstan, I consider that a friendly nation which I’d like to help become more democratic.
If you want to know what freedom is, go steal something right in front of a police officer. You’ll gain a marvelous insight, I assure you.
La Russophobe:
You once again demonstrate your inaptitude for reading comprehension and nuance.
What I wrote was: “I would assume that if Borat was instead Boris,
satirizing Russia instead of Kazakhstan, that Russians would respond with a wide variety of reactions and responses.”
Pray tell, how is this propaganda?
Also, your “carbon copy” theory is so pathetic as to not warrant further comment.
How sad that you could not even begin to approach Maya’s questions with even an iota of intellect.
Maya – Americans tend to be rather black and white (oops) on particular issues or topics. Part of this is reflected in our two political party system. You are either for something, or you are against something. That is just a very typical American way of thinking. As LR likes to imply, if something happens while Putin is president, it HAD to be HIS doing. I mean, he didn’t stop it … did he? He goes around murdering reporters and human rights activists in Russia in his spare time. When not visiting Sochi.
Of course, based on this line of thinking, Calvin Coolidge was an autocratic dictator who oppressed the free press. After all, he was president during the crime and murder spree of the Gangland era of the 1920s. Must have been all his doing.
So yes, Americans aren’t big on nuances or subtlety of human behavior. George Bush has done a great deal to further this notion, with his drawing a line in the sand and saying you are either “with us or against us”.
Let me make my point simpler:
1. Why does every discussion has to revolve around binary poles? For example, your good friend Israel is sellig weapons to the highest bidder including illegal weapons, and to countries such as China – not exactly “a friend”, perhaps a future foe even. Maybe we have some shades or grey?
2. Why do the only existing binary poles are friends-foes of the US, democratic-despotic? Can’t we possibly think of other binary poles (if we can’t think without them), maybe something involving human rights?
3. And I really want an answer for this one, what does “free” mean? Does it mean “a country which had been liberated from Russian/soviet rule”? Does it mean “a country inhabited by free people”? Using a dictionary I came up with: “at no charge, for free”, so maybe it actually means a country selling itself or perhaps giving itself to the US at no charge. When you say “free” in an American context, what do you mean?
ANONYMOUS: It’s propaganda because it’s a facile, boldfaced lie, unsupported by any source material, designed to make Russia look better than it is. You can’t give one single example of any foreigner attacking Russia and receiving a “variety of responses.” Anyone who knows Russia, even wacko wally, knows exactly what Russians would do in this case.
MAYA: Do you see what a ridiculous hypocrite Wally is? While puporting to condemn extremism, he adopts it in regard to people like me. It’s really pathetic, isn’t it? Almost makes it seem he’s right about Americans. Luckily, he’s the exception in America, not the rule, which is why America bestrides the globe like a colossus.
Now for your answers:
1. Your comment about Israel is inapposite. Just because Israel isn’t mentioned, you assume the speaker approves of Israel’s actions. That is a binary position, not an accomodating one. If you were really accomodating, you would have asked what the speakers think about Israel before making any conclusions. As for me, I have no problem with a country tolerating behavior from friends that it wouldn’t tolerate from enemies, it’s a normal human condition. To do otherwise would be a binary approach. I’m not aware that Israel is selling weapons to China, please provide your source material and then I’ll comment on Israel’s action. As for me, I’m only interested in Russia and that is why I only comment about it in most cases.
2. You mischaracterize my position and that of many US critics of Russia. Human right is one of our primary concerns, as you can plainly see from the content of my blog. It is documented fact that Russia is one of the most negative environments for human rights on the planet; just ask the ECHR. Ironically, many Russophiles adopt your binary model when this issue is raised, accusing the critics of polarizing and arguing that Russia need not reform since other nations have problems too. In this way, your approach is used to seriously undermine human rights.
3. I reject your implication that “freedom” means different things to different people. That is what the Politburo said during Soviet times to argue that the Soviet people, dying in gulags, were more free than Americans. You can argue about whether freedom is good or bad, but there is only one definition. Freedom means you make your own decisions rather than having other people make them for you. Russia has never existed in this condition for even one day — perhaps its just a coincidence, but Russia has also always existed in a state of misery. Americans regularly change power between serious rival political parties. Americans can call their president “penis head” without being sent to prison for one year at hard labor. Americans don’t have propiska or universal conscription. They are free. A communist would argue that the result of their freedom is squalor and unhappiness, but in light of Soviet history it’s impossible to argue that Russian lives are better. In the end, freedom isn’t about the quality of life, it’s about the right to make your own mistakes and have your own identity. Perhaps this concept is so foriegn now to Russians that they simply can’t grasp it.
La Russophobe:
Have you ever heard of the concept of citizenship?
I’m not asking you to google it or to wikipedia it. I’m encouraging you to try and think about what citizenship involves.
You point to the propiska and conscription in Russia as evidence that Russians cannot boast freedom as you define it.
Then you talk about how Americans are so “free” – again by your definition.
Can you really be so naive as to think that Americans pay taxes (a wide variety) simply because “Freedom means you make your own decisions rather than having other people make them for you”???
Could it possibly be, Mlle Russophobe, that deeper analysis is needed here? And possibly, less blind America worship, and less blind hate of Russia?
If, according to you, the opposite of freedom is “having other people make [decisions] for you,” and the Russian people are not “free,” I would have to assume that Russians are individually given directives every morning as to which color socks to wear for the day.
Thanks again for the hilarity, la Russophobe!
Also, please consult the Oxford English Dictionary on “assumption” versus “lie.” While you’re at it, please look up “satire.” While it is clear that you are unwilling to accept anything but attacks on Russia, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be made aware of your vocabulary confusion.
Hardly anything hypocritical in disliking your venomous bigotry. This is my opinion based upon your repeated intolerant commentary and your basing an entire opinion blog on hatred of a particular ethnic group. I think people in this forum don’t require me to cite the specific examples of your record of insults, hatred, and racist remarks – they are rather well-documented by your own hand. It requires very little to bait you into spewing vitriolic remarks towards Russians or anyone whose opinion is not like your own.
Having an opinion does not make it a black/white issue, of course. Their are nuances and shades to my opinion. You might someday accidently write something inciteful or worth reading. The infinite monkey theorem does come into play – eventually even a chimpanzee banging away at a keyboard might produce a coherent, relevant, or even elegant idea. Nor are my comments based upon dislike of a particular ethnic group. I don’t like your opinions and comments because they reveal you to be a single-minded, racist bigot with incredibly narcissistic and egomaniacal tendencies. You just don’t like my opinion – that’s all.
My original comment was that Americans tend to view the world in absolutist terms. I feel confident in this point of view based upon American political history, news and commentary in the US, interactions with other Americans across the United States, and my prior experiences living in other countries for many years. Most Americans view issues as either for/against options, with little nuance. The reasons for this are purely conjectural, some of it is tied to political structure, but I think to a large degree it is tied to education by rote. I think it simplifies debate and sells news as well.
ANONYMOUS: I didn’t say Americans were free not to pay taxes, I said they were free not to serve in the military and free to live in whatever city they choose without propiska. Russians are not free in that way, or in any other way. Your statements grossly mischaracterize mine in a typically ignorant manner.
WALLY: So, you’re free to hate me but I’m not free to hate Russia, because you have “good reasons” to hate me but I have none to hate Russia. No wonder you love Russia so much, you have a major Stalin complex. WACKO WALLY gets to decide who can hate and when, because he’s master of the universe. What an unprincipled lunatic you are, posturing about hatermongering while spewing it in spades. But I guess you are just jealous that my blog is way more popular than yours. I feel your pain.
If you are suggesting somehow that Russians DON’T view the world in “asbolutist” terms and have more flexible view to foreigners who attack it (as is the topic of this post) than Americans, you really need to lay off the samagon.
La Russophobe: I was trying (in vain apparently) to get you to consider what citizenship involves, ie rights AND obligations.
Americans are given certain rights as citizens, but are also expected to fulfill certain obligations – like paying taxes.
Russians, too, are given certain rights and are expected to fulfill certain obligations. Russia also has a tax regime, and, as you point out, male citizens are expected (though not all of them do) to serve in the military.
The obligation of military service or the propiska does not preclude Russians having rights in addition to their obligations.
By your definition and according to your narrow view, Israelis also lack freedom. Israeli men and women are expected to perform military service.
Must your view of the world always be so narrow?
Omnipresent LR:
Don’t you have a day job?
I would like miss bliss to point out exactly where Mr. Shedd said he hated her. I certianly don’t mean to speak for Mr. Shedd, who obviously has the meams to speak for himself. Nevertheless, it is my belief that he simply pities you.
ANONYMOUS: You say Russians have rights, but you don’t name a single one. That just about says it all. Russian life is ALL obligation, individual human life has no meaning in Russia, as was clear at Beslan and Dubrokva.
BIG BLACK: Do I seem omnipresent to you, dear? It could be your classic Neo-Soviet propaganda – or maybe just the awesome power of my rhetoric. Then again, maybe there’s more than one of me.
JOHNNIE: I don’t know what planet you’re from, but when a person calls another person a “bigoted hatemongering idiot” and lots of other personal abuse of a similar kind, here on this planet it generally implies hate. True, he’s never actually used the word “hate,” but then I’ve never used that word myself in regard to Russia; “hatemongering” is a characterization Wally has made of my comments without bothering to explore their motives. As for me, I think he’s motivated not by pity but by rage and envy, since my blog is more popular than his and I’ve used it to criticize some of his more outrageous statements, including his stating that America is a nation whose population consists mostly of “brainwashed fanatics.” If he merely pitied me, he wouldn’t have banned me from commenting on his propagandistic blog, exposing his outrageously misleading Russophile claims, now would he?
In short, Wally adopts the same sort of language in describing me as I do in describing Russia, yet when I use that language he professes moral outrage. In other words, he’s a classic Russophile hypocrite, the kind that has doomed Russia to the ashcan of history. With friends like him, it needs no enemies.
La Russophobe: In case you failed to notice, I also chose not to point out any specific rights of Americans or Israelis.
By your logic, I guess, readers can thus infer that neither Americans nor Israelis nor Russians have any rights – only obligations.
Unlike you, I tend to have faith in the fact that most readers of this blog are smart enough not to fall for your twisted “logic.”
That being said, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Russians, Americans, and Israelis all have the right to own property as citizens of their respective countries. As for the many other rights these people can lay claim to, I refuse to do your homework for you.
Previously you made a rather disturbing reference to why “America bestrides the globe like a colossus.” I implore you: lay off the Niall Ferguson.
ANONYMOUS:
You’re not supposed to point out AMERICAN rights, I’ve already DONE that. FREEDOM FROM CONSCRIPTION AND FREEDOM FROM PROPISKA.
You are supposed to point out RUSSIAN rights. You can’t, because there aren’t any. Russians are an enslaved people. You are the one who is “twisted.” All you are doing is repeating Neo-Soviet propaganda.
If you think Russians have the right to own property, I suggest you speak to Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Shell Oil or Exxon. The Kremlin freely destroys property rights whenever it feels like doing it because Russians have no independent judiciary.
America is by far the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. Compared to America, Russia is a third world state. America has won over EIGHT TIMES more Nobel Prizes than Russia.
You’re the one who needs to lay off … lay of Vladimir Putin and Lenin.
Oh Please La Russophobe, Russians votes in elections. They have property rights [rant all you want, I am sure I can give you some examples of individuals prosecuted in the US and paying huge taxes). They have the right to practice their religion. I have heard more free speech in Russia with serious criticism of Putin’s government than I heard in the US. I have seen more demonstrations in Russia than in the US.
For God sake, even 19th century serfs had rights. No one, not even their landlord was allowed to kill them. Everyone has rights – don’t you think you taking this chut’-chut’ too far?
MAYA: So, when the experts at Freedom House classify Russia as an “unfree” nation teetering on the verge of absolute dictatorship, I guess you lump them in with me as a bunch of ignorant maniacs who just can’t see Russia for what it really is, a great democracy, or America as a dictatorship.
I suggest you ask a muslim or jew in Russia if they have freedom of religion. Then ask a Jehovah’s Witness, if you can find any still alive. Russians don’t even know the meaning of the words freedom of religion. Russian Orthodoxy is now being taught as a subject in Russian public schools.
Interestingly enough, that’s just what Russians were saying in the time of Stalin, when Stalin was killing more Russians than Hitler ever dreamed of doing.
Just in case you are interested in some facts:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6818
La Russophobe: I suggest you think for yourself for once.
Thanks for the “facts” joke. That was a good one.
How interesing. Mr. “anonymous” who won’t even give his own name says, without any evidence whatsoever, that Freedom House, one of the world’s most respected sources of information about democracy, is not factual. I guess Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin is the only place where facts can be found, huh?
Typical neo-Soviet propagada. How sadly pathetic. How pathetically sad.
I just joined this discussion and it’s already tiresom. La Russophobe, distinguish please between xenophobia and the right to practice religion. Sure, there is antisemitism in Russia, but you can find that in France too. Is France no longer a “free country”? (whatever that means) Synagogues are open and Jews have the right to practice their religion. There is even a Russian chief rabbi, an institute for Jewish studies in the old building of MGU and a bunch of other Jewish institutions.
Gee Maya, sorry you are bored. But the facts tend to indicate you are wrong, given that this post had 28 comments before you arrived, rather unusual for a Russia blog. Perhaps your perspective is a bit warped? Or maybe you’re just jealous? Why exactly do you feel the need to indulge in personal attacks? If you think it’s boring, why not just ignore it? After all, nobody asked for your opinion.
I guess you don’t follow the news much, or you would know that the Russian government is in the process of specifically elevating Russian orthodoxy to the rank of state religion, attacking Western Christianity, Islam and Judaism. NGOs are under attack, and orthodoxy is being introduced into schools. Frankly, I think the contention that Russia has freedom of religion for sects that compete with the dogma of Alexei II is so detached from reality that it just sounds like Soviet propaganda.
It’s certainly a typical Soviet propaganda tactic to respond to any criticism of Russia by pointing to the alleged flaws of other countries rather than producing evidence of Russian virtues. MGU probably has a department that studies Neanderthal man, but that doesn’t mean he is alive and well in Russia today.
If you like, you can try to argue that freedom is bad, that Russians are happier living as lemmings than they would be living free. But if you try to argue that Russia actually is a free country, that its people enjoy anything remotely like the level of civil liberties present in France, then you must be consigned to the ashcan with the rest of the Neo-Soviet propagandists who are utterly destroying Russia with their lunacy.
Judaism is the state religion of Israel.
The Anglican church is the state church of England.
Lutheranism is the state religion of Denmark, Norway and Finland.
A country can have state religion and still have religious freedom.
If you had some knowledge of something other than Russia today, you’d be able to compare Russia to other countries (except for the US) and understand that the Russian expirience is not that unique and therefore maybe not quite as despotic as you’d like.
actually, maya, judaism is more than the state religion of israel. isreal is by definition, as stated in it’s basic law, a jewish state. this goes far beyond england or russia. only jews, in fact, only those jews approved by a rabbinical court, are allowed to immigrate into the country. it is illegal for the two-three arab members of parliament to even mention that israel is anything other than a jewish state.
MAYA: Wow, a load of crap.
I guess you haven’t heard that America was populated by people fleeing the Church of England.
I guess you think Christianity is thriving in Israel.
The fact that a country CAN have religious freedom with an official religion doesn’t mean Russia DOES.
You put forth NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED of affirmative evidence that Russia has religious freedom.
Dear Johnnie
A. There are 10 Arab Parliament members is the current Israeli Knesset(out of 120)
B. They speak on behalf on the Palestinian minority in Israel – about 10% of the population. There are Arab based parties in Israel and recently, and not for the first time, a group of them went to Syria and spoke against Israel. It is not illegal to speak of Israel as anything but a Jewish state. I don’t know where you are taking this from.
C. Arabic is one of the two official state languages in Israel.
D. The Knesset has a mosque in it.
In short, though Israel is defined as a Jewish state, its citizens have the right to practice their religion, whatever it may be. Israel is a far more complex case than you may think. You should distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Jewishness as a “race” (for lack of a better word)
Yes, and one thing that I forgot.
JONNIE, you said “in fact, only those jews approved by a rabbinical court, are allowed to immigrate into the country.” Wrong again. The majority of Russians who immigrated to Israel in the 90s were not accepted as “Jews” by the rabbinical authorities. According to Jewish law, only if your mother is Jewish are you Jewish. Israel follows a different law – if you can prove that one of your grandparents is Jewish you are allowed to immigrate to Israel. This is the context in which Sean wrote a while ago about Russian skin heads opperating in Israel – those are people who immigrated on the basis on The Law of Return, yet are not Jewish according to Jewish religious law and do not consider themselves Jews.
And dear LR – Israel, let me enlighten you, is in the middle east. You know, that place between Between Egypt and Syria, not that far from Iraq. Most of the Christians lefts with the crusaders.
SEAN:
I’m curious. Do you think that if someone read this post they might consider you a “Kazakhphobe” or a “Bushpobe”?
Here’s a blog from someone who lived in Kazakhstan for two years:
http://www.ottendesign.com/blogger/blogger.html
If you read it, you won’t find many examples of the sort of “unfreedom” you describe in your post. Have you spent much time in Kazakhstan, or are you relying on the kind of rumors you condemn where Russia is concerned?
Based on this blog, I’d say Kazakhstan in no more unfree than Russia; granted, that’s very unfree indeed. But if Russia can be invited to sit on the G-8, I see no reason why American can’t have a fine time with Kazakhstan.
maya –
by my count there are 8 Arab Knesset members, but either way, I admit I was low on the count. And yes, there are Arab parties in the Knesset, that I know. But no Arab has ever been a member of governemnt, and no Arab party has ever been a part of a ruling coalition. And we don’t even need to get into why Arabs only make up 10% of the population of Isreal today.
And perhaps I need to clear up another point I made perhaps too hasty. So maybe it isn’t illegal for Arab Knesset members to to say Israel shouldn’t be a Jewish state. However, they are not allowed, nor is anyone else, of working through the system to change that. That is forbidden.
And so what if Arabic is an official state relgion or there’s a mosque in the Knesset. That’s simple p.r. And yes, there is some freedom of religion in Isreal. But are you seriously going to tell me that Muslim and Christian Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews? That is simply not true.
As far as immigration law, perhaps I was wrong on that as well. My source for that, Israel Shahak’s “Jewish History, Jewish Religion”, is a little dated. And it was about five years ago that a Reformed Judaism freind of mine was denied the right to live in Israel by a rabbinical court. I know Israel is worried about demographics, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have recently lessened their definition of who’s a Jew to increase their population. But neverthess, one must be considered a Jew by some court or government office to immigrate to Israel. And Israel is the only country in the world to have such a law.
I know Israel is a complex and dynamic state. I have spent a great deal of the last 15 years studying the country. I have taken classes, been to conferences, and heard many speakers concerning Isreal. And I hope you reealize that your talking points do not neccisarilly (sp?) reflect that complexity either.
And though I hate to back up miss bliss, there are still many Arab Christians that have yet to be expelled from Israel.
If you would like a bibliography of some of the books I’ve read, I would be happy to give you one, though much of what I have learned has been garnered through newspaper articles and the like. Right now I’m reading Tom Segev’s “One Palstine, Complete”.
Johnnie,
I did not say that Israel is not racist. Neither did I say that minorities have the same rights. What I did say is that it has religious freedom, which I am still willing to uphold.
As for the rest of your comments:
1. There was an Arab member of government appointed to Sharon’s government in 2001, look up Salah Tarif.
2. Theoretically, if there was a majority in the knesset to change the definition of Israel as a Jewish state – then of course that will be done. Suggesting such a thing is a little like suggesting in US Senate not to call the US a democracy any longer. There are people working on changing the national hymn, flag and other things. It’s not illegal, it’s just difficult to find a majority for it.
3. Distinguish between religious freedoms and issues of nationality. If you are an Israeli citizen, you have the right to attend a mosque, a church or any other religious institutions of your choice. Actually, if you want to get married/divorced/buried you have to do that through a religious institution. Funding and supporting Muslim and Christian religious institutions is not PR, it is neccessary in a state that does not seperate religion
4. Immigration – Your reform friend was probably not born to a Jewish family and then chose reform practice. He/she probably converted to reform. The issue here is not religion, it is blood. The “law of return” was enacted on the basis of Hitler’s race laws. The legislation was done in 1950 with a change in 1970. No recent changes since then as far as I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return)
5. According to the World Fact Book as of 2004 about 2% of Israeli population is Christian. They, by the way, tend to immigrate out of Israel more than Muslims simply because they can. Europe, the US and Canada accept Christians more easily.
I am sorry if I was misunderstood. The issue of Israel, much like that of Russia, is far too political here in the US. It seems that if you are a Jew, you are not allowed to criticise Israel, and if you consider yourself lefty, you can’t do anything but. It’s all about your identity and has little to do with anything that country stands for, for better or worse.
And JOHNNIE, Lets count together (taken from http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=789)
1. Jamal Zahalka
2. Wasil Taha
3. Azmi Bishara
4. Mohammad Barakeh
5. Hanna Swaid
6. Abas Zkoor
7. Ahmad Tibi
8. Talab El-Sana
9. Ibrahim Sarsur
10. Raleb Majadele
11. Nadia Hilou
12. Majalli Whbee
Actually we were both wrong
maya –
So you are right, there are 12 Arab members of the Knesset. I am surprised. But good for them, though an Arab who would be a member of Kadima I personally find quite repulsive. But then there have always been Arabs willing to sell out their people, and that is a shame.
And though I can’t recall where I learned about the never being able to change the Jewish State thing, I stand by my comment on that.
And while any Isreali may worship as the please, which I didn’t disagree with, you cannot say they are all on equal footing as Judaism.
And the “blood” requirement, as you said, was based on Hitler’s race laws. What more can be said about that. No other country in the world has such a law.
And would you not consider 2% of the population as Christian “many” as I stated?
And as a non-Jew, a find it also extremely diffcult to criticize Israel. You don’t know how many times I’ve been called an anti-semite, by simply stating things I’ve read in ha’aretz or that has been written by Israeli authors And I disagree that leftys (why is that always used as a derogatory term?), and I admit I am on the left on many issues, can do nothing but criticize Israel. The Democratic Party (though I hesitate to call that the left) are as pro-Israel as anybody. That icludes Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, those considered to be the most left. The Nation, definitley considered a lefty magazine, has a continuous pro-Israeli line. While the left may critisize Israel more so than the political right, to sy that the left can do nothing but, is mistaken. This comes from my own personal experience as well as my readings.
And I did not know about the Arab in Sharon’s govenment. So there has been one in the almost 60 years of Israel’s existence. But neverthelss, no Arab political party has ever been asked to help form a government.
I believe while there are things we disagree on, there are also mnay things we would agree on. And I hope this discussion between us, bereft of personal attacks and inflamed rhetoric (which I admit to have taken a prt of, some people bring out the worst in me), shows that informed and respectful political discussions. this was the norm before you-know-who showerd up.
JOHNNIE: You really are one sick puppy. You even attack me personally in comments that not only have nothing to do with me, they have nothing to do with Russia.
I can’t think when I’ve heard more ignorant remarks. You’re such a total blockhead. MAYA is my CRITIC, you dolt. It doesn’t prove you can be civilized that you, my critic, can talk to ANOTHER one of my critics without using personal insults. Now, if you can have a civilized discussion with an ALLY of mine, that might prove something. Where did you study logic, the Kremlin?
BTW: Maya really showed you for the fool you are. You claim to have expertise about Israel then repeatedly make giant fact errorts about it on basic points. You’re a total fraud.
Darling Johnnie,
You have proven my point exactly. Speaking about Israel, just like about Russia, is more about American identity than about what it actually happening in those countries. Realities and fact are always far more complicated than your political identity.
I have no problem with criticising Israel, as you have noticed I do it myself incisively. Your position, however, has been severely misinformed. Talking to American lefties I have heard that Israel is an Apartheid state, that there are no Arab parliament members, that Arabs are not citizens. It is so very easy to refute your position on the basis of facts that you don’t even challenge “Pro-Israelis”.
Saying that an Arab member of Kadima sells off his people, i.e. is not a real Arab, simplifies Israeli politics beyond recognition. Reality is far more complicated than that. It’s not a clear cut of indigenous and white colonialists. Not knowing anything about the guy and his politics, not even knowing that he existed, I wonder how you can be repulsed.
The similarities between your anti-Israeli position and LR’s position on Russia are striking. Both of you have read quite a bit. Both of you however take the information that you have read only to prove the point you had held before you ever embarked on the reading. After refuting almost every point you raised, I couldn’t even shake your position a little bit. Why? Because the facts don’t matter, what matters is that somehow if you accepted the complexity of the situation, it would question your identity and your politics.
maya –
please don’t call me darling. i have attempted to address you in a respectful manner. I have admitted the errors in my arguments, pointed out where I still disagree with you, as well as where we agree.
Sorry if I offended you, Johnnie, I meant no disrespect.
JOHNNIE: You are SUCH a crybaby. You go around calling people “fucking idiot” and all manner of other crude abuse but if anyone calls you darling you’re bawling like two year old. What a woos! Glass jaw! Can dish it out but can’t take it! Go back to kindergarten you hypocritical little baby. You’re the quintessential Russian “man”.
wow. no, WOW. how on earth did an innocuous post on kazakhstan degenerate into an insult free-for-all?
no, if u don’t mind to hear from someone who’s living in kazakhstan and who by dint of holding a kazakh passport is considered a kazakh, i’ll post my two cents.
first off, there was something fishy about the visit. u would have thought that the nazarbaev entourage would have exploited the visit for what its worth, for domestic propaganda consumption above all. in reality though, the visit got precious little airtime on government-owned channels, and private – although very much muzzled -outlets barely mentioned it, sandwiched as it was between the latest car pile-up on the streets of alma-ata and the new batch of unfortunate investors unlucky enough to have sunk their nest eggs into shoddy real estate deals. curiously enough, there was no footage – that i know of – of nazarbaev actually meeting bush. all the newscasts did show were panoramic views of washington and scenes from the streets of d.c. taken from a passing car. that’s all. not once did the anchors even hinted at the fact that bush had deigned to classify kazakhstan as free, which u would have thought would be pounced on by the kazakh propaganda machine. i guess even the powers that be in astana blushed at the thought of stating something that even they knew not to be true. some people i know, very cynically, even speculated that nazarbaev in reality didn’t go anywhere and the news of him being received at the white house was pure and unadulterated propaganda as his handshake with bush was not shown on national tv. now, i would not go this far, but the ducks r most definitely not in a row here.
ASTANA:
With all due modesty, the post didn’t generate all the comments, I did. I either wrote or provoked most of them.
Now let me ask you: What do the people of Kazakhstan think of this comic?
And: Do you think Kazakhstan is less free than Russia?
And: Who do you think is more anti-American, Kazakhstan or Russia?
lr,
i don’t think modesty is the range of human emotions known to u
))
as for ur questions,
1) i can’t speak for ‘the people of kazakhstan,’ but the people i know tend to shrug off his antics as uneducated and catering to lowest possible denominator tastes, kind of jackass meets benny hill. to me he is not funny because his scatological homor is on the level of a three year old. his primary audience r those who find pull-my-finger irresistibly hilarious. having said that, i don’t know why the haves in astana got their panties in a twist over him. i guess in their pr naivité they tend to forget that the more u criticize something, the more u draw attention to it. the foreign ministry in astana has even held a seminar for expatriate journalists dissecting the flaws of cohen’s movies. that’s just stupid. but then again, if the government reacts to barat like that, it deserves all the ridicule it gets.
2)kazakhstan is more unfree than russia, hands down. there’s no competition here. we don’t have investigative journalists at all, and if polyatkovskaya had lived in kazakhstan, she would have ‘commited suicide’ with two gunshots, one in the heart and one in the head (that seems to be the most common fate for anybody willing or deemed to willing, to challenge the ruling family) or been thrown in the slammer on phony child molestation charges (the fate reserved primarily for the opposition-minded chateratti) years ago.
3) as far as the mood on the street goes, kazakhs, including urs truly, r as anti-american as russians. the government can’t afford to be, as america provides security guarantees to the ruling family and the usa is where most of the money that the power clique has purloined the country of, has been heading all this years.
hope i’ve answered ur questions