Tim Worstall

Cuba for Cubans

Duncan Campbell:

Whether Fidel Castro recovers, resumes the reins and carries on for
another decade or whether we are already witnessing a long goodbye,
there seems to be one underlying message from inside Cuba, both from
those who support Castro and those who oppose him: this is Cuba’s
story, and the changes that will inevitably come must come from within
and not be imposed from the outside.

Quite possibly. But who is defined as a Cuban who has a right to take part in that discussion? I’ve always thought it slightly odd that the exiles in Miami are regarded by those on the left as not being part of that discussion. While Palestinians who left Israel a decade before are fully supported in their fight to take back the land.

Shouldn’t it be one or the other? Exiles should be supported in reclaiming their lost property? Or realpolitik takes over and you know, well, hey guys, long time ago, forget about it now?

I mean we’re not even talking about socialism here: Israel certainly still has a healthy slug of that in the kibbutz movement (arguably the only form of socialism that has ever actually worked: it being voluntary d’ye see?).

Couldn’t be that one lot are Jews now could it?

(BTW, D2 is probably right. That last line is a step too far. But seriously, can someone tell me why there is this difference?)

In

20 responses

  1. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    I think Matthew called “the moment when you finally lost it” a couple of weeks ago when you started doing jokes about black disabled lesbians, but I’m calling it now; the scheme of trying to pretend that your political opponents are anti-Semites is pretty lousy even when done well and this example is bizarrely tortuous.
    Tim adds: No, I’m genuinely interested. What is the reason that Palestinians are supported in regaining “their land” and Cubans are not?

    Reply
  2. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    No, I’m genuinely interested. What is the reason that Palestinians are supported in regaining “their land” and Cubans are not?
    Indeed, why is the right of return granted to Palestinian refugees and subsequent generations of those refugees, when the latter right has never been granted to any refugees before or since?

    Reply
  3. Steve T Avatar
    Steve T

    How many people know that the UN has two organisations for refugees, and that the definition of a refugee is very different? One for the Palestinians and one for everyone else. One with a small staff and budget has helped millions to restart their lives, and the other with a huge staff and budget seems to have helped on one.

    Reply
  4. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Careful chaps, or someone will argue that the Red Indians should get their land back. Or the Picts.

    Reply
  5. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    One for the Palestinians and one for everyone else. One with a small staff and budget has helped millions to restart their lives, and the other with a huge staff and budget seems to have helped on one.
    Exactly. As Mark Steyn wrote:
    They’re the only people on the face of the earth with their own UN agency and, after six decades in their care, are now the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth.

    Reply
  6. Judge Avatar
    Judge

    Indeed, why is the right of return granted to Palestinian refugees and subsequent generations of those refugees, when the latter right has never been granted to any refugees before or since?
    You are just wrong on that one, Tim N…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_return
    The Law of Return was enacted by the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, on July 5, 1950 CE (in the Jewish calendar, 20th Tammuz 5710), and the related Law of Citizenship in 1952. These two pieces of legislation contain expressions pertaining to religion, history and nationalism, as well as to democracy, in a combination unique to Israel. Together, they grant preferential treatment to Jews returning to their ancestral homeland.

    Reply
  7. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Judge,
    If Israeli government wants to allow certain people into Israel that is up to them, just as the UK government is within its rights to allow certain former British subjects residency in the UK.
    What I want to know is why the UN has decided that the offspring and subsequent generations of Palestinian refugees have a right to live in Israel, when in all other instances the UN has only granted right of return to the refugees themselves.

    Reply
  8. Devil's Kitchen Avatar
    Devil’s Kitchen

    Good lord, d2 is a tedious git , isn’t he? Nice to see the little piggy sqealing, “oooh, anti-Semite!”
    d2: Jews.
    There, am I calling anyone an anti-Semite yet, or do I have to say something other than “Jew” these days? What is this pathetic hang-up about race that you people have?
    DK

    Reply
  9. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    I have say, I find dsquared’s pompous rulings on whether Tim has “lost it” or not to be more than a little irritating.
    If Tim has indeed “lost it”, we could probably expect his sensible readers to be deserting him in droves. Somehow I don’t see this happening.

    Reply
  10. Andrew Zalotocky Avatar
    Andrew Zalotocky

    Cubans who fled the country to escape political oppression and/or poverty are likely to be hostile towards the Castro regime. Therefore leftists who support the regime will see them as political opponents. It’s got nothing to do with any principled position on the rights of exiles, it’s all about what side people are assumed to be on.

    Reply
  11. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    I think the answer is that a domestic popular revolution (which the Cuban one more or less was) is viewed differently in law and morals from an expropriation by foreigners (which the expropriation of the Palestinians more or less was).
    btw, congratulations, DK and Tim Newman; does the phrase “plus royaliste que le roi” mean anything to you?

    Reply
  12. Neil Craig Avatar
    Neil Craig

    Equally there is no pressure from either western governments or “leftists” to let the 500,000 Serbs of Croatia, 200,000 Serbs of Sarajevo or 350,000 assorted non-Albanians of Kosovo to be able to safely return home.
    So a big helping of “its not principle its who they vote for” all round.
    To be fair to pro-cuban leftists one could argue that the folks in Miami left voluntarily & have thus given up citizenship wheras the others were involuntary.
    To be fair to the Israelis one could point out that there is equally no great pressure to allow the several hundred thousand Israelis of Iraqi descent to vote there.
    To be fair to NATO countries leader’s we all know that they are a bunch of genocidal nazi war criminals who deserve to swing on the end of ropes.

    Reply
  13. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    btw, congratulations, DK and Tim Newman; does the phrase “plus royaliste que le roi” mean anything to you?
    Nothing whatsoever, although I am sure it does wonders to dispel any charges of pomposity which have been levelled against you.

    Reply
  14. Q Avatar
    Q

    Actually, Tim, I think D2 is telling you that you’re being surpassing pompous, more so than even the Pope of pomposity himself, D2.

    Reply
  15. Shuggy Avatar
    Shuggy

    “I’ve always thought it slightly odd that the exiles in Miami are regarded by those on the left as not being part of that discussion.”
    In the states, exiles are ignored by the bulk of the left because they tend to support the Republicans. More generally, it is because they are anti-Castro – and a significant swathe of the left are not because at base they support the Soviet model.

    Reply
  16. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    Amazing. Are we really to believe that the Democrats in America are actually Commies in disguise?
    What was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 all about?

    Reply
  17. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    One explanation might be that the Palestinians seem to have lost out as a result of being forced into exile – I’d guess they’re markedly poorer than they average Israeli – whereas the Cuban exiles, I’d have thought, are probably on average better off than most Cubans. The principle at work might be something like, if you’ve suffered and continue to suffer clear harm as the result of an injustice, you’re entitled to rectification, whereas, if, over enough time, the harms of the injustice have been made good – either by yourself or someone else – you’re not. If rectifications for injustice aren’t either at least time or harm limited in some way like that, you’d have to think there’s a pretty strong case for reparations for African-Americans descdended from slaves.

    Reply
  18. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    Why only African-Americans descended from slaves? Compensating the descendants of slaves is an intriguing but very complicated issue.
    Just to take one potentially difficult case, would the descendants of Francis Barber qualify in the circumstances of him being given his freedom and inheriting a legacy from Samuel Johnson, the famed 18th century lexicographer?
    “Francis Barber was born in Jamaica about the year 1735, and was brought to England by a plantation owner who was the father of one of Samuel Johnson’s closest friends. For a year, he attended school in Barton, a small Yorkshire village, and then he entered the service of his owner’s son, who sent him as a valet to Johnson in April 1752, two weeks after the death of Johnson’s wife. Two years later the plantation owner died, leaving Barber 12 pounds and his freedom.
    “Francis was only 19 at this time, and ran away to serve an apothecary in Cheapside, paying Johnson the occasional visit. In 1758, he ran away to sea and served two years on HMS Stag, protecting English fishermen from the North Sea. Johnson, who was quite fond of Barber, arranged for him to be discharged. He also paid for Barber to be educated at Bishop’s Stortford Grammar School.
    “When Barber left school, Johnson came to rely on him more and more, not only as valet, but also as secretary. Barber arranged trips, received documents, and kept Johnson’s diary. They were also great friends. When Barber married, Johnson allowed his wife and children to move into his house. Johnson died in 1784, leaving him an annuity of £70 and a gold watch. . . ”
    http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/francis_barber.html

    Reply
  19. james C Avatar
    james C

    ‘Tim adds: No, I’m genuinely interested. What is the reason that Palestinians are supported in regaining “their land” and Cubans are not?’
    In case you haven’t noticed, Cuba is populated by Cubans.
    James

    Reply
  20. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Actually, Tim, I think D2 is telling you that you’re being surpassing pompous, more so than even the Pope of pomposity himself, D2.
    Oh. Then why couldn’t he say that, rather than spouting French?!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading