Paestinian Shame

There are many times where the term “wrong side of history” is used, but it is still a valid term, it is not an overused term, particularly when it comes to important events in history. A recent event that qualifies to have the term applied to it is the vote that took place in the United Nations to grant the embattled Palestinian Authority the status of “non-member observer state” in the United Nations. This would not give them the full status of a “member nation” like the United States, or Canada, but it would allow them to join other UN agencies, and more importantly, eventually bring cases to the International Criminal Court.

The vote in the United Nations took place sixty-five years after the historic partition of the British ruled territory that became Israel, but which was also supposed to become an Arab controlled nation; the nation of Palestine. The treaty has been broken from the first, and it is time for Palestine to be born. One hundred and thirty-eight nations decided that giving Palestine the stylus of a “non-member observer state” was the least that they could do at this time, while perhaps being a token, it was also the right thing; they recognised that the Palestinian people have been living under an apartheid rule, living under the threat of Israeli aggression at the slightest provocation. Guns answering rocks, bombs being dropped on unarmed civilians, and refugees languishing in camps for generations hardly seems like the fair observation of a treaty.

Instead of having the ambassador to the United Nations from Canada speak, the Foreign Minister himself, John Baird, decided to take it upon himself to travel to New York and personally address the UN on this matter. Rather than supporting the idea that Palestine deserved to have a greater voice in the international community, Canada’s Foreign Minister chose to be a vocal opponent to the vote. Canada's Foreign Minister chose to stand on the wrong side of history.

“This resolution will not advance the cause of peace or spur a return to negotiations. Will the Palestinian people be better off as a result? No, on the contrary, this unilateral step will harden positions and raised unrealistic expectations.” (Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird; Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

If by “unrealistic expectations” Mr Baird is referring to the idea that the Palestinians might call on the international criminal court at some point, perhaps he is correct; the ICC tends to be slow to judgement, but that is no reason to deny the Palestinians admission to the United Nations, even if it is not a full member status. The fact that Canada, particularly under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has reiterated its staunch support of Israel and its policies regarding the Palestinians does not mean that the government must deny the Palestinian people representation in the United Nations. In fact, equality for the Palestinians would benefit both them and the Israelis. People who are equal, people who have the dignity of knowing that neither is being discriminated against, are less likely to take up irrational, violent acts, in order to make the point that could better be made politically.

How many violent acts have the Irish Republican Army committed since the issues in Ireland were dealt with politically? If you ignore the problems they do not go away on their own; they will not go away unless they are dealt with one way or the other. Some people believe that they can be dealt with through violence, something many people abhor, but it is used nonetheless. If Palestine were recognised as a state, and the rights of the people were recognised and respected, is it not conceivable that many of the problems being experienced in that part of the world would no longer be an issue? What are the causes of the problems today? People building houses, settlements, on land that is supposed to belong to the Palestinians; unlawful arrests and attainments; blockades of medicine; people being prevented to go to work because they cannot cross checkpoints; and other things that degrade and humiliate the population living within the Palestinian Authority.

Human dignity is being denied these people, and nine nations voted against giving them “non-member observer state” status in the United Nations. Those nine nations are on the wrong side of history. Canada, the United States, Israel, Panama, Palau, the Marshal Islands, Nauru, the Czech Republic, and Micronesia: these nine nations are not only on the wrong side of history, they are cowardly, insensitive, and ignorant of the historic importance of this vote.

Forty-one nations decided not to vote for, or against the proposal to upgrade the Palestinian status. The motive for the abstention is curious, but neither here nor there: these nations chose to ignore the opportunity to grant another nation more rights. For some of the nations this might not seem like a difficult choice, especially when you consider a nation like Romania, or Albania, both of which have histories where suppressing their citizens is not uncommon. However, the United Kingdom also abstained, as did the Netherlands, which is quite confounding when you consider that both nations received tremendous damage during the Second World War, and are intimately familiar with the suffering associated with persecution. One would have thought that this knowledge would have made them more sensitive, more empathetic to the cause of the Palestinians.
                           
In the words of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority:

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimatize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine. We did not come here to add further complications to the peace process, which Israel’s policies have thrown into the intensive care unit; rather we came to launch a final serious attempt to achieve peace. Our endeavour is not aimed at terminating what remains of the negotiations process, which has lost its objective and credibility, but rather aimed at trying to breathe new life into the negotiations and at setting a solid foundation for it based on the terms of reference of the relevant international resolutions in order for the negotiations to succeed.

“Every voice supporting our endeavour today is a most valuable voice of courage, and every state that grants support today to Palestine’s request for non-member observer state status is affirming its principled and moral support for freedom and the rights of peoples and international law and peace.” (Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

In light of these words, and the recent peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it only seems fair that diplomacy should be given the chance that it deserves, rather than pushing a military agenda against a mostly un-armed civilian population. The reply to the words by President Abbas was nothing less than scathing, dripping with hatred and menace, and they came from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the IDF and the citizens of Israel. Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner. ... The way to peace between Jerusalem and Ramallah is in direct negotiations, with out preconditions, and not in one sided UN decisions. By going to the UN, the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel, and Israel will act accordingly.” (Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

One must ask, what does the Prime Minister mean by “acting accordingly”? After all, this was an act of peace, not an act of aggression; no one was killed, no missiles were launched, and no bombs were exploded. The United Nations is a diplomatic body, it is where peace is negotiated, it is where people go to negotiate treaties, it is where people go to have “peace talks” with their neighbours, and other nations. For the Prime Minister of Israel to assert that seeking “non-member observer state status” is some sort of precondition to the way the Palestinians will be addressing Israel in future negotiations is, in a word, delusional. One might want to remind Mr Netanyahu that even should the Palestinians become signatories of the Rome Statute, and therefore the International Criminal Court, Israel is not a signatory of the statute and does not fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu is feeling a pang of conscience knowing that charges could well be brought against Israel in the ICC, but unless Israel decides to sign the Rome Statute, there is nothing to fear, just as the Goldstone Report had no binding powers against Israel when it indicated that war crimes had been committed against the Palestinian people during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.

Advancing the rights of Palestinians has nothing to do with religion, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you support Israel as a nation. Israel will continue to exist, just as Palestine has a right to exist as well. This vote by 138 nations is an acknowledgement that a majority of the members of the United Nations agree that the status of Palestine should be increased. It is a recognition that the fact that there is something wrong in the “Holy Land” is obvious; the only question that remains is which side of history will you be on when the final lines are drawn.

Taking Violence out of the Fight for Israel

Is it possible to support the Palestinian cause without supporting, or calling for violence? Yes, but it is difficult. However, it is also the only way to get things accomplished in a country where the land is seen as something that God specifically gave to one of the people living there, not the others. It also takes great patience, endurance, and something that demonstrates that we are better than those perpetuating violence against those who are being oppressed, just as those who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. supported the long march rather than the quick solution seemingly offered by riots and violence. King recognized that violence would only result in more hardship for black people across the United States; it would not advance their civil rights, it would diminish them, causing them to take a step back rather than a leap forward.

Supporting  peaceful solutions is sometimes seen in today’s paradigm of instant gratification as being impractical – it does not bear fruit quickly enough in the minds of some who would rather see the oppressors simply be overthrown with violent swiftness; but, in the case of Israel that is both impractical and, in psychological terms, something akin to magical thinking. The problems in Israel, in Palestine if you will, are being compounded by violence: they will not be, cannot be, solved by them. When we trick ourselves into believing that the solutions to our problems are to be found on the other end of a bullet, or a bomb, or a guided missile, it is time to step back and reassess the situation before we are further led down the garden path of deception.

Violence, as seen on the level that is currently taking place in Israel, and which Israel may respond with, cannot resolve any of the issues facing the Palestinians as a people. Threatening to send in a ground force of 75,000 troops, on the other hand, is not a way to find a handful of terrorists that aerial bombings have been unable to stop. How does the Israeli army expect to stop these attacks? Will they go door-to-door like the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, clearing out the insurgents? If they do the one thing that can be counted on is that there will be a massive amount of civilian casualties, and it will all be justified because rockets were fired into Israel.

People will always be divided about the Palestinian cause so long as there is ammunition for the Israelis to use as propaganda against them – that ammunition comes through the use of violence against the oppressive regime they are trying to defeat. But there is one question that deserves being explored for it reveals a great deal that may not be understood about this situation and the way it is perceived in the west, particularly in the United States (and similarly in Canada): Why does Israel maintain the support of so many in the west when there is so much evidence against them in the way they have treated the Palestinians?

The answer is quite simple, as we see with the present situation in Gaza: it is not because they break out the videos of violence perpetrated by blood-thirsty Palestinian terrorists, self-described as ‘freedom-fighters’ (that’s what they always call themselves, regardless of their cause), and they have their rationale for every retaliatory action, including the amassing of seventy-five thousand troops on the border of Gaza, in search of a handful of Hamas rocket installations that Israel has not been able to eliminate through aerial bombardment. That’s more than a subtle response to the rocket attacks and anyone who happens to be crazy enough to approach the armed juggernaut the Israeli Defense Forces represents. The reason that Israel receives such support from the west goes back several thousand years can be summed up with the term “Christo-Zionism” which is a conjunction of “Christian” and Zionism.

When exploring the issue of Israel and American politics it is impossible to not notice how important that tiny country seems to be compared to the United States, a much larger nation in every respect. The recent presidential election was a very easy way to demonstrate just how important the “Jewish vote” is to both political parties, even though it does not represent a large number of votes; both the Republicans and the Democrats spent a tremendous amount of time courting the Jewish vote even though Jews make up a very small part of the population. Yes, there are many wealthy individuals who happen to be Jewish, so there were was much money do be had, and as a demographic it is a very influential group of people, but, regardless of that, they still have only one vote per person.

The real reason that politicians in the United States are so interested in preserving their relationship with Israel, and have sought such close ties with the nation since 1948, is because of the misguided notion that Israel represents the prophetic fulfilment of the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. There is an idea that Zionism is something that the Bible meant to be, when in fact it is a new ideology ... new in the sense that it emerged at the end of the 19th century and had nothing to do with the Bible. Zionism is a construct that ignores the historical facts regarding the background of Israel. It ignores the facts that are recorded in the books that Jews revere as being Holy and inviolable, but that does not bother Zionists – like all good fundamentalists the facts are irrelevant – they just don’t matter.

It became fashionable for Christians to begin adopting the Zionist ideals when the state of Israel was established in 1948, believing that this heralded the beginning of the End Times. It became part of what was known in theological circles as a teaching called “millennialism” and quickly became associated with teachings about the Rapture of the Church which would occur, according to some teachers, after the Great Tribulation. Christo-Zionists became really excited when Jerusalem was captured after the 6 Day War in 1967, believing that this was truly the final piece in the puzzle, completing the fulfilment of the new Israel, spoken of in the Book of Revelation. The clock was ticking ... the Rapture was imminent ... the Mayan calendar was winding down and they didn’t even realize it existed. They were mistaken.

Israel exists as a nation that has more than one population: a population that existed before the Jews arrived, a population that was there long before the nation was established in 1948, and long before they arrived for the first time, when they were led by Moses and Joshua. When Joshua lead them to the “promised land” the people were given an opportunity to take possession of the land, without sharing it with anyone, as was decreed by the Lord. However, the people were disobedient. In essence, God gave the people permission to commit genocide, to eradicate the people living on the land that he had promised them, but they refused. Instead of killing, they made a contract to share the land. I’m not making this up, you can find the entire account of this in the ninth chapter of the book of Joshua. At the end of the chapter the people with whom this “treaty” was made are, in essence, turned into Temple servants – a fancy word for a slave. At that time it seemed preferable to survive as a slave than to face genocide at the hands of an army that carried the Ark of the Covenant.

The ramifications of that contract continue to this day: you do not get a “do over” to commit the genocide that you failed to commit a few millennia ago, it just doesn’t work that way; and no, it does not matter that you were tricked into making the contract. That, as the saying goes, is your problem. We don’t commit genocide in order to have more “breathing room” ... or don’t you remember when that was done a few generations ago? Don’t you remember when your home is were taken out from under you, your land was stolen, your families were hauled off without due process, their property stolen, never to be seen again. Lives destroyed all because somebody had decided they were sub-human? It is astounding that the people who grew up hearing the stories of the Holocaust would not be willing to learn its lessons and reach out to the people living on the land that they call their own. Yes, the land was promised to the Jews by God (or by Moses, depending on your point of view); but there were strings attached to that promise and that is something that has to be lived with; it is something that has to be recognised, and that is something that is being ignored when ever the Palestinians are oppressed by the present Israeli government.

Of course, it takes two to tango and what is going on right now in Israel is not the result of one hand clapping. There are two parties to blame in this craziness, but one of them can choose to stop it: one group is overreacting and another group is actively antagonising, making things worse for both themselves and for the Palestinians in general. When has violence ever solved a problem that should have been addressed politically, through diplomatic channels? We may argue that there have been justifiable wars: wars against despots and against fascism, but random violence has never solved anything, especially when it is aimed at innocent civilians. In fact, unless you manage to utterly destroy your opponent with an overwhelming first strike, the likelihood is that you are only going to make your enemy more intent on eliminating you than they were before: an attack begets a response, the response begets another attack, and so on, until everyone is dead or dying. Unfortunately, this increases the likelihood that they will retaliate against the population in general, with innocent lives being lost, women and children, for what causes? There are many causes in the world, but are they worth the death of children, are they worth the loss of future generations? Consider this: if you and your children die for your cause, who is left to enjoy what you may have gained through your sacrifices? Nobody.

The point is, Israel has a far superior military and will have no problem destroying anything in its path, including the civilian population of Gaza if it so chooses. The rocket attacks that have been occurring of late have been coming from a small number of terrorists backed by Hamas, not by the citizens of Gaza (I am unapologetic about referring to those launching the rockets as terrorists: they cannot represent the best interests of the Palestinian people so long as their principal tool is violence). There is no reason for Israel to send in 75,000 troops to find a handful of terrorists. Please, do not get me wrong, I do not condone the actions of Hamas at all: I abhor violence on any level, especially unprovoked violence that is designed to provoke more violence and strike out at innocent civilians, which is precisely what these rocket attacks are designed to do: Hamas has to know that by supporting these attacks they are only adding to the suffering of the population they claim to love. It only demonstrates that fundamentalists are fundamentally warped and utterly illogical in their approach to conflict resolution. Adherents of fundamentalism are always, at their core, mentally unbalanced.

The question remains: how might it be possible for the Palestinians to resort to non-violent protest? How can they hope to stand against the policies of the Israeli government without appearing provocative? If they refused to take up arms against their oppressor would the world see the truth about how Israel had been treating them, about how Israel had been violating the treaties that it had signed with them? Would it change the way the United States supported Israel? There have been many examples of the brutality and even war crimes committed by Israel, as evidenced and documented in the Goldstone Report, but this “evidence” ends up falling on deaf ears for the simple reason that the United States government at the United Nations, and Christo-Zionists in general will not allow for any sort of criticism of Israel to stand. If you try to criticise Israel the Christo-Zionists will accuse you of being an anti-Semite, or say you are anti-Semitic.

This is not only patently ridiculous, it makes it impossible to pursue any sort of dialogue that advances the issues of the Palestinians. There is a great difference between criticism and anti-Semitism. Consider this: can you criticise the government of the United States and still love the country? Can you “disagree with the congress”, but still call yourself a patriot? Of course you can; many people would expect you to do so, it’s part of life. Or, on the other hand, can you be a proud American even if the man living in the White House is not someone you voted for? If you live long enough there are probably going to be several presidents that you do not necessarily adore, but that would not stop you, or it certainly should not stop you, from being a “proud” American. Your identity should not rely on the identity of one single politician.

As someone who was born to Jewish parents, who grew up learning about the rich tradition of “my people” there are many things that resonate when certain things are heard, but “Promised Land” and “Israel” are not synonymous for the simple reason that the illusion was not reinforced by the fictions that so many blindly accept. At the same time, the idea of “Palestine” and neighbours living together in peace was something that seemed so natural, it surprised me tremendously that this was not a common idea as I grew older, especially when the lessons of history became more evident. Criticising the government of a nation does not mean you hate the people of that country, it means you disagree with the way that country is being run: disagreeing with the government of Israel, with the policies of the Zionists, does not make you anti-Semitic, it makes you anti-genocidal. That is not racist, it is humane.

What is the likelihood of an Israeli politician having any desire of sitting down and discussing the concept of peace with the Palestinians if there are rockets being launched from Gaza? I would hazard that it would be far more likely that they would not want to talk, simply because they would feel that they are in a de facto state of war. However, if one side stops using violence, if they lay down their arms, how might that impress the others? What sort of message would that send to the rest of the world? Of course, people will ask “why should the Palestinians stop using violence first, the Israelis started this?” Or “why don’t the Israelis lay down their arms?” All good questions, but it does not matter. What matters is that violence must come to an end.
Did Israel start this? Did Hamas start this? Did Palestinians start this? Does it matter? People have died; people are dying: it’s time to stop the madness and put an end to the violence that has been plaguing the region for far too long.

Israel should not invade Gaza, and, as a gesture of good faith they should withdraw their troops and stand down their alert status. The terrorists in Gaza, the “freedom fighters”, must cease firing there are rockets at Israel immediately. Reciprocity does not accomplish anything when it comes to violence, that must be understood more than anything else or nothing will ever be accomplished. Israel must also be prepared to honour the agreement is that it has made with the Palestinians, especially those relating to the settlements.

Peace is possible, moreover it is essential: without it we cannot live.

Proper Criticism vs Anti-Semitism

During the first day of an anti-racism summit at the United Nations a number of nations walked out during the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he called the State of Israel a “cruel and repressive racist regime” to a conference on race. Now, before we get carried away by the rants of the Iranian President, who may need a medication adjustment, take one moment to consider this: the United States decided to not attend this conference when some nations proposed that “Zionism” be considered as a form of racism. Canada joined several other nations who were too cowardly to consider this truth, including Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands ... oh, and Israel.

The important thing here is that Ahmadinejad made his comments, prompting about forty of the delegates – mostly from western European nations – to leave their seats in protest, but his message was still heard by many and reported to the world. Unfortunately, the reporting of this event is coloured by President Ahmadinejad's past comments in which he has denied facts about the holocaust. The walkout was prompted by Ahmadinejad's description of the relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, “They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.”

Another thing that was said seemed to be just about as concise an observation of the situation taking place in the State of Israel as anything else that has been said in the past sixty years: “... [I]n compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.” Not unexpectedly, the United States condemned the comments as being “vile and hateful” while the Vatican, an organization with 2,000 of human rights atrocities as their gift to humanity called the speech “extremist and unacceptable.”

But is that all there is to this? Should we dismiss the comments of Ahmadinejad simply because we want to think of him as some crazy Islamic fanatic? No, that is not how it ends; it cannot end here. The problem is, Ahmadinejad is right. No, the Holocaust happened, of that let there be no doubt, but the idea that the State of Israel is supposed to be the representation of God's promised land to His people, that is a myth that must be dispelled, along with the idea that the Zionist agenda is anything less than a form of racism with the genocide of the Palestinian people as the ultimate goal in order for the Zionists to ultimately cleanse their “Holy Land” of all non-Jews.

Before going any further into this discussion and allowing any confusion to set in, lets establish something of a foundation as to the difference between being critical and voicing that opinion and being hateful towards something or someone. Ask yourself this question: can you be critical of something or someone without hating them? Be honest, now, can you look at someone you love and tell them that you disagree with them and then explain why? What if one of your friends, or a relative, committed some heinous crime, would you encourage them to turn themselves in – to do 'the right thing', even if it felt like a difficult thing to do? These are difficult things to ask, but they go to the moral core of who we are as people. As moral beings we learn from the mistakes we make through life and from the critiques and criticisms that we receive from the teachers and others around us who care enough to point out what we can do to improve ourselves, to make us better members of society and better citizens.

Could you imagine for one second that when your mother or father corrected you, dare I say criticized you, as a child, did that diminish their love for you? Of course not – in fact, people usually only take the time of criticizing things that they really care about, otherwise they wouldn't bother taking the time to do so. If you were critical of the United States during the Bush administration (or any presidency) does that make you an anti-American or are you merely in opposition to certain policies of the government of the nation? Personally, I am a Canadian and I have been in disagreement with the policies of the Canadian government on many issues over the past several decades, but that does not change my love for this country, nor would I want to live anyplace else; it merely means that I want this country to be better than it currently is, I want Canada to live up to the promise that could be, if only the politicians would stop their partisan bickering and started putting the people first rather than the special interests that put them into power.

If you are honest and are able to say that you are at odds with a particular government and not the people then you are well equipped to judge between authentic anti-Semitism and the vile rhetoric used by many to protect inherently evil positions. It is important to understand that this is the true foundation of democracy; knowing that you are allowed the right to voice your ideas and opinions about the laws, leaders and the operation of the government without fear of reprisal for having an opinion that may be contrary to the official beliefs of the government, and that you, as an individual citizen, have a voice in the choosing of that government through your vote. Any nation that cannot suffer the indignity of facing criticism or being examined for its domestic policy, a policy that includes apartheid-like activities, active military oppression of a civilian population living within their borders, and multiple incidences of civilian “collateral damage” taking place during “defensive” operations, should seriously consider the century in which they live and the actions which they have been taking for the past several decades. There is no place in this wired world in which we live for the type of secrecy that allowed tyrants like Hitler and Stalin to carry out their malicious acts under a curtain of silence. It is no longer possible to control the flow of information as was done during the time of the Second World War and the cold war when people transmit news to websites and blogs at the speed of “twitter”, virtually as quickly as it happens. Propaganda has become something that once was called “spin”, often pathetic attempts by “official spokespeople” to put the “cat back in the bag” after the world has already seen the live images from several sources. It does not work.

If the State of Israel, and those who profess to be Zionists (or their supporters), had their way in regards to the flow of information at the U.N. conference in Geneva, Ahmadinejad would have been stopped in his tracks: the uttering of anything that could even be remotely interpreted as being “anti-Israel” would automatically be classified as being racist and, as such, would not permitted in a U.N. conference, let alone a conference on the elimination of racism. However, the glaring truth of the matter is that Zionism IS, in fact, a form of racism in several ways and, particularly in light of the recent events in Gaza, it has been demonstrated as an ideology devoid of anything but self-interest in their agenda coupled with a near manic defense of their “right” to protect their homeland from the people from whom they stole that land.

There is a serious problem when you begin to examine the Zionist position of “defense” of their land as a justification to use violence against the Palestinian people. It seems difficult to argue against the desire to retaliate when someone has launched a rocket into your settlement and it lands in your backyard or crashes into a school. These are terrible, tragic events that must be stopped; innocent lives lost are never things that seem justified, and they can never be compensated, nor can any act repay the loss that the survivors may be feeling. While some may desire revenge that can only lead to more acts of aggression and that, in the end, only leaves more innocent lives ruined, more people mourning, and more people seeking some sort of retaliation. Ultimately, if you follow the saying “an eye for an eye,” the entire world is left blind. It is time to restore the sight to the blind.

The idea that Israel is carrying out the violence against Palestinians to defend their land is laughable on several levels, especially if you have seen any of the photos or videos that were taken from the most recent Gaza conflict. What weaponry did the Palestinians have to threaten the Israeli Army and Air Force with? With what could they have hoped to shoot down an IAF F-16 or F-15, planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, drop laser guided munitions (stand-off weapons – the plane does not even have to be near the target to drop the bomb), and other “smart” weapons that land within a few metres of their targets? An AK-47? Even if there were thousands armed with the ubiquitous AK, they could not scratch the air force; unlike the movies, it is not possible to shoot down a jet with a machine gun (unless the bird is flying about 500 feet off the ground and you are the luckiest shot in the world).

Let's face it, if you are critical of the ACTS of the Israeli government that does not make you someone that hates Jews. An anti-Semite is, by definition, someone that hates Semites. Semites are people of Semitic descent: Arabs and Jews. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Semite is defined as 1a “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples 2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.” [Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew] Now, if you hate Arabs for whatever reason, you are an anti-Semite (don't say, “but, I have an Arab friend ...”). You cannot hate some and like one as a token. Hatred is hatred, it is insidious, entering our being until it controls our every thought and action, guiding our lives until we our its slave. This is the root of Zionism: hatred of the Palestinian people.

The lessons of the Holocaust came at such a terrible price, the highest that could be paid, but what value are those lessons if they are squandered by those who have inherited that which came out of the ashes? The idea of creating a place – a safe place – for those Jews who wanted to leave Europe after the Holocaust seems now like an idea that may not have been the best conceived idea. One must ask, why would people who had just escaped extermination merely for being who they were not want to live in peace with their new neighbours? Why would they choose to adopt national policies that seemed more related to what they had just escaped rather than aiming at developing a true democracy in which every person living in the State was granted equal rights under the law, all the rights granted to a Jew: anything less is something called institutional racism and, quite frankly, is disgusting as it mirrors what was done in Nazi Germany after the Purification Laws were passed. Jews were denied all basic rights as German citizens, even if their families had been living in Germany for generations and had served in the military during the First World War. With the stroke of a pen, and a crooked cross, they were all disenfranchised. They became un-people.

This is the case, today, in the State of Israel. As a result of the placement of the settlements throughout the land that was promised to the Palestinians it is virtually impossible for these un-people to travel freely without being harassed by the countless Israeli checkpoints. They cannot travel to their jobs, to school, and there have been several cases where patients have died because they were denied access to essential medical care. Does this sound like the actions of a modern democratic nation or like some monstrous, “cruel and repressive racist regime.”

Image 'copyleft' by Carlos Latuff
Ultimately, the criticisms of Israel must not be dismissed under the flag of racism by labeling them anti-Semitic. There happen to be many Jews out there who do not agree with the actions of the State of Israel, we are not being anti-Semites ... I do not hate myself. As for President Ahmadinejad and his remarks, we must be careful; he was correct in what he said, but he is also someone who plays to the extremist movement in his country and is running for re-election in June and has been receiving criticism for the floundering Iranian economy. All of the anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric is fine for the press coverage, but it hasn't done a thing for the global isolation of Iran, resulting in high inflation and unemployment. For Ahmadinejad to earn the votes of the most radical voters in Iran he must continue to spew his invective and racist brand of anti-Semitism, if only to show that he is a leader that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately it only turns him into a caricature.

More than that, because a world leader mixes legitimate criticism of Israel with such highly charged language and denial of such historical things as the holocaust it makes the job of criticizing Israel all the more difficult for the rest of the world. We must show that our criticism is based on facts, not emotional reactions to things. Calling people names does not accomplish anything, save for demonstrating the level of maturity that is not present at the time.

Now we must find a way to clearly communicate to the world that the message is not about the Jews, nor is it about Israel, the message is about the way the government of the State of Israel is handling (or mishandling) the situation with the Palestinian people. Why are Palestinians not allowed the right of return when they have lived there for generations? Why are their homes seized and destroyed, without appeal, to make room for illegal settlements? Why to so many questions ... and so few answers. Ultimately, the answer is: things must change. They must. Not, “yes, we can”, but, “we must change, we must”.

Ultimately, there comes a point in time where something either change its ways and adapts to a new way of life which allows it to move on and survive, or it fails to adapt to change and it subsequently dies. We must change, we must.

To Honour Israel

This is an important year for the State of Israel and the people living in that land. As they celebrate their 60^th anniversary as a nation another people are observing another anniversary, one with less cheers to be sure, but a sober observance nonetheless. Those who have not been deemed worthy of being granted the “right of return”, something all Jews enjoy, mourn their disenfranchisement from land that had been in their families for generations and the systematic destruction of their people. Resettlement camps, refugee camps, security 'fences'; terms that sound like they refer to an age gone by, but no, they refer to the “modern” State of Israel; the modern Apartheid State, the Genocide State. In seeking a way to honour a land that I am entitled to become a citizen of by virtue of my birthright – something that my brother is denied by virtue of his – seemed like a necessary thing to do, and yet I struggled with the task; how can I, I asked myself, honour a nation that routinely murders innocent civilians through the use of military tactics and weapons that are designed to maximize collateral damage? Would that not be like endorsing their activities? Perhaps it boils down to what is actually said and the tenor of the message; it should not be doubted at this stage that these comments are being provided by someone even remotely sympathetic to the Zionist agenda. Having said that I will add that I am vehemently opposed to all violent approaches to settling the “Middles East situation”, save for the one where everyone who does not want to live together in peace is sent to a deserted island where they are allowed to starve to death ... unless they can cooperate and work out a way to get off the island. There is no excuse for violence; Period.

Thus, I have decided that the only appropriate homage to the State of Israel/Nakba of Palestine is through poetry. There are three poems below: the first is a simple Haiku, the second, entitled 'Being' is an exploration of an existential/metaphysical struggle, while the third, 'Hatikva', deals with the issues of promises. I hope you enjoy them. All poems are ©2008 by Peter Amsel, and the illustrations are © by Ben Heine.

Eretz Yisroel
Sixty years of promises
Krystalnacht again.

~fin~

Being

Being disappears, slowly at first
but inexorably with each passing moment
as our lives are crushed by the weight of others
bearing down upon us
like jackals to their prey,
seeking out the weakest
the youngest
the most vulnerable.

With teeth bared in a flash of anger it ends in an instant
the flash of blood and a muffled scream
the only reminders for the witnesses for what they have seen
once again
as death has its way
unfettered by any restraining forces
prowling with the voracious appetites of
unfulfilled lust ...
for blood and fear ...
for the sake of pure terror ...
for no reason at all.

Being dissolves – begins to fade
the memory a sun-washed derelict of days gone by
requiring much more repair than any will invest ....

Being rusts, it crumbles and rots ...
and disappears.

~fin~

Hatikva

The first lie is the hardest one to tell;
once told, you tell yourself,
it is only one ... and you have also learned to rationalize.
When you make up the excuses for what you know is wrong
for what you know is wrong ... and yet ...

You did it anyway;
there is no other way, you say, sometimes to yourself,
at other times out loud (hoping someone might hear)
praying someone will hear.
That becomes the second lie:
there is no other way,
there is no other way,
there is no other way ...

What there isn't always is the will to see
that other way;
the will to do something that is more difficult
just because it is the right thing to do.

There is always another way.
We won't see it with our eyes closed,
nor with hardened hearts and stiff necks,
our sympathies closed off to the pain of others,
to the suffering they feel, and
the tears they shed.

We won't hear the lies that are told, in our names,
when we cannot see that their stories
are our stories,
just as real;
their sufferings are ours,
their blood flows just as red.

So long ago in places with such terrible names;
names like Auschwitz and Sobibor,
Westerbork and Buchenwald ...
sobering names, to this day,
places where the ground will cry out
with the horrors of what took place
until the end of time,
just as it does for those who have been
dispossessed of their homes,
in modern pogroms and purges,
cleansing the land.

“My homeland, my homeland”, they cry,
calling upon the
Name of the Lord while driving others
from their homes.

Evicting them,
just as they had been driven out,
forced to live in Ghettos,
awaiting their resettlements,
awaiting their deaths;
knowing that the promises they were told
were worthless ...
worth less than the dignity they were being treated with ....

There was no astonishment;
they had been lied to, were being slaughtered,
and are now doing the same;
stealing with impunity,
leaving shattered lives amongst the broken promises ...
broken by both sides,
neither trusting the other, some would say
with cause, 'justifiably', with reason ...
There is no other way,
there is no other way, (They say)
the truth becomes just another casualty to a war that has
yet to begin tallying the total cost of its folly;
and why should they worry ...
another lie, after all, comes so easily now.

We have all mastered the art,
turning away when things are
too difficult to face,
too “hard” to watch,
or just something that we find distasteful.

After all, if you can survive without a home for sixty years,
why should we worry about another decade ... or two,
or four?

All we have to do (lies coming as easily as a waterfall) is
offer the palest promise of “peace”,
of reconciliation,
a promise of settling the issues,
once and for all ...
until it's time for the next bombs to fall.

~fin~

There is no alternative to peace; peace is not the result of war, nor is it the product of a “strong” security policy. Peace is a way of life that can only come through true dedication and desire; without that there is no hope.

A Time for Passion; A Time for Peace

Our species has been endowed and imbued with a spectrum of emotions, not the least of which is the ability to feel things with a tremendous amount of passion. Our expressions of passion may at times seem to go beyond that which would be considered normal, or acceptable, under “ordinary” circumstances, but we must always remember that this is one of the most powerful of emotions; passion is not only connected with our ability to love and express that important feeling, it comes into play with other emotional states as well. People often speak of being passionate about their work, there is passion involved in the creative act (something that I can attest to without any hesitation), and it is very evident whenever any sort of conflict that strikes an emotional note arises.

Rather than approaching a situation with calmness and logic, passionate feelings well up to the surface and reason is swept aside. At these times we seem to be reduced to unthinking organisms guided by something akin to a reptilian brain, that vestigial portion of our brainstem that controls the involuntary nervous system (respiration, for example) and which guides crocodilians on their quest for prey. If that sounds severe, if it sounds harsh or overly judgemental, please understand that it is said from the point of view of someone who understands the situation by virtue of having learned it first hand. This is not a case of the “reinvention of the wheel”, it is merely a statement of fact: if we allow ourselves to be guided by our passions in all things, we are doomed; Period.

While it must be acknowledged that emotions are vitally important to our lives and we would not be who we are without them, it is important to understand that when we allow them to guide the way we accept things without question and form our opinions based purely on how we respond to the situation on a purely emotional level we are then in danger of missing the real picture.

Rather than experiencing the range of emotions and enjoying them we become slaves to them, slaves to the anger that is stoked by blind rage, a rage that isn’t even understood in rational senses anymore. Emotionalism prevents us from seeing the evidence that contradicts our passionate stance on a subject, to the point of detaching ourselves from the world of facts and evidence-based reality: bodies lined up in streets become propaganda from the “enemy”, props that they arranged in order to elicit sympathy. War crimes are dismissed as being improbable acts, or as having been justified by the situation.

What needs to be done in order to solve the problems facing those living in Israel/Palestine is both difficult and easy; it is a solution that stares us in the face, and yet we do not see it for the elegance of its simplicity. In a time when the concept of “common sense” has been reduced to something no better than a campaign slogan of past campaigns for neo-conservative politicians attempting to sway the electorate in a land far removed from the peoples of the troubled Middle East, true common sense is often abandoned in favour of things that fly in the face of logic; the choice of strife is made over that of peace for the simple reason that to do otherwise would be to dishonour those who have paid for the land with the blood that flowed through their veins. It is this sort of rhetoric that paints them into the corner, leaving them without an alternative that doesn’t end in violence, violence for the sake of justice and the avenging of the losses that they have experienced, sometimes in the distant past. It does not allow for an alternative that doesn’t include a fanatical approach to the “protection” of the land, even if that means the use of techniques inspired by the lessons gleaned from the darkest days of Jewish history, the Holocaust and the Pogroms.

The solution is difficult because it goes against what seems to be the character of our species: we are a passionate and stubborn people by nature. We are a people that allow our passions to guide the creature rather than allowing our intellects to lead us, though we know that we are capable of taking control whenever we put our minds to the task. Our preference is to contend that there is no fault; there is always a way to justify that something is right even when everything points to the fact that our actions are wrong. We may call this the “natural” way of our species as many times as we desire, but that will never change the simple fact that the truth of the matter is quite different; we were never designed to be controlled by the passions that have led us, more times than need to be mentioned, past the point of no return. We were never meant to be led by unbridled passions that lead directly to the deaths of innocent lives for causes that could — and should — have been solved by the greater gift that our species has been endowed with: our intellect and our ability to reason through any issue with well-devised diplomatic solutions that do not involve the deployment of military forces and the deaths of countless innocent lives.

The reason that the solution for this is easy is quite simply because it calls upon the essential humanity found in each of us: rather than looking at the conflict in Israel/Palestine as it exists today, as an ongoing conflict between two different peoples struggling over the same piece of real estate, we must first recast the situation into an entirely new paradigm that will clarify the issue into a way that even the most intellectually challenged individual will be able to grasp the simplicity of the circumstances. Without being torn apart by our passions it becomes possible to see that the problems facing the people of Israel/Palestine are not that difficult to overcome, so long as you understand the importance of a simple word, a word that even the scriptures of the Old Testament say we should hold closer to our hearts than any other; that word is love.

In the fifth book of the Torah, or Deuteronomy as it is known in the Old Testament, Moses is given the “greatest commandment” from HaShem in the sixth chapter. It is important to note that this commandment is given at the time that the Lord God Almighty first promises the “Land of milk and honey”, which the Children of Israel decided to take possession of in a state of disobedience by not following the directions given to them by the Lord. The “greatest commandment” is revealed in Deuteronomy 6, a commandment that is repeated by another – Yeshua HaMoshiach – Jesus Christ – in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 22:37). After the “Sh’ma” is declared (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”) we are given the commandment: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” In the Gospel of Matthew there is an interesting addition, which is also reflected in the teachings of Rabbi Akiva, that the second commandment is like the first, “you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:39-40).

Why would love, and something that seems to come out of a children’s television show from the 1970’s, being neighbourly with others even when they are different from us, be a required skill to be able to solve a conflict that has gone on for generations? Indeed, that is a question that resonates with intensity for many, but the answer is simplicity itself: what is the real reason for this conflict? Why are Jews and Palestinians at war with each other? Why do Arabs in neighbouring countries, for that matter, have such hatred for the Jews – a hatred that is reflected back by the Israelis? When you look at the blood of Jews and Arabs, when you look at who their ancestors were, there seems to be no reason for enmity; both claim to be descendents of Abraham, brothers with different mothers. Even if you do not accept a Biblical account of their heritage, Semites hating other Semites makes about as much sense as an Austrian from Vienna hating another Austrian by virtue of their living in Salzburg, or the very real situation of people in the Dominican Republic hating and fearing people from Haiti – people who are ethnically identical by virtue of them all having come to the island as slaves – and yet the Dominicans feel that the Haitians are, somehow, “more black” than they are.

It is time to step away from the passions that are leading us towards inevitable destruction and look at how easy it is to live together in harmony when the common goal is to move forward with life rather than towards death through ignorance. During the Cold War a great fear was promulgated by the propaganda puppet-masters behind the American press: the constant message that I remember hearing through the administrations of Ronald Reagan and even, to some extent, his predecessor Jimmy Carter, was that the Soviets were a hair-trigger away from launching an all out nuclear assault against the west – a first strike attack. I never bought into this line of thinking for two simple reasons: First of all, it simply didn’t make sense to me. The Soviets – led by Brezhnev at the time – had to know that the United States possessed the capabilities, with their nuclear submarine force alone, to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike that would obliterate the Soviet Union several times over. Thus the term MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction (or Mentally Addled Decision-makers, depending on your point of view). There is, after all, no such thing as a “limited” nuclear war and the Soviets understood this.

The second reason that I didn’t accept the premise of what the war-mongers in the west were trying to pass off as the “truth” while simultaneously whipping up a frenzy of jingoism and nationalism was even more basic and fundamental: if we accepted the hypothesis that the Soviets loved their children even half as much as the people in the United States did then they would never want to see the horrors of war visited upon their nation again. More Russian lives were lost (Soviet citizens and soldiers combined) during The Great Patriotic War, what the Russians call World War II, than any other nation that fought in the war – on either side. The famines and purges that came after the war continued to claim victims, adding to the twenty-six million that the war had taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that even the most hardened Politburo members and military advisors would have cringed over the images of the “motherland” being ravaged – yet again – at the possibility of a thermonuclear war, even on a “limited” scale. When they advised Brezhnev in regards to the deployments of their nuclear forces they would have been acutely aware of the fact that any first strike use of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union against the United States or any of her allies would be inviting a nuclear holocaust upon mother Russia such as never could be truly imagined; it was, truly, an unthinkable option. After the near disastrous outcome of the Cuban Missile Crises, an event we are still discovering details about, forty-five years after the fact, where the world was led so close to the brink of a nuclear holocaust you can still taste the tinge of a nuclear winter when it snows in North America, it seems unlikely that the Soviets would have been so eager or willing to go as far down that path with the United States as they had with JFK.

The Soviets learned from their mistakes in Cuba. Now, what can we say of the Jews? Why should Jews be concerned with the issue of living together in peace? Only for the simple reason that this simple concept nearly led to our people being wiped off the face of the earth. When the Nazi propaganda machine began churning out its lies about the Jews being the cause of the economic woes of the German economy it wasn’t being original; the Jews of Europe had been blamed for causing the spread of the Black Death in the Middle-Ages as well. Anytime a scapegoat was needed all one had to do was find the nearest Shtetl and grab as many Jews as was necessary, perhaps enough for a private Pogrom.

The Holocaust, if nothing else, should demonstrate what happens when people fail in their responsibility towards all of humanity: we are not only the brothers and sisters of those who look like us, but of everyone, regardless of their race. The answer to that age-old question, “am I my brother’s keeper?” is, in fact, “yes, you are”. You are your brother’s keeper, and your sister’s; you are your niece’s keeper and your nephew’s, and you are your neighbour’s keeper, and anyone else who happens to fall within your sphere of influence as a human. That is what makes us human, that is what defines our humanity; we have the capacity to care for one another and when we allow ourselves to arise above our petty prejudices, we do so. We do not abandon those who do not have anyone to care for them nor do we leave the weak or the sick to die by the wayside. We do not kill a child whose mother has died in childbirth, we find someone to care for them, giving them love and raising them as their own. We love; actions define our humanity, not what we call ourselves.

As the Jews who were freed from the concentration camps often discovered when they tried to return to their pre-war homes, many things had not changed; their homes, if left standing, had often been stolen by other families who would not return them unless the “dirty Jews” could prove ownership (a difficult task considering they had been taken from their homes with few, if any, personal belongings – said belongings having been taken from them at the camps). The same thing went with bank accounts, accounts that to this day are being contested by families trying to prove rightful ownership.

Does this not teach us anything? What would have happened if the German people had stood up and said, “Why should we believe these ridiculous lies? These are my neighbours and I trust them!” If asked to take up stones against Jewish business, “but what have they done to us?” Of course, there is anti-Semitism. That is, alas, a fact of this world. As warped and demented as this fact is, it is even more demented to see such hatred between two peoples who have far more in common (including anti-Semitism, though the Arabs may be experiencing a bit more post 9/11, but the Jews aren’t far behind … neck-n-neck) than the main thing that divides them, religion. There is no “official” religion of the Palestinians, though there seems to be a predominantly Sunni portion with a sizable Christian minority as well, but this should not be used as an excuse for not being able to live in peace with each other.

Religion is what has blinded the Israeli position regarding the land that they protect with higher esteem than anything else; the land that has been granted, they believe, as a sacred covenant to them by the Lord God Almighty. The belief that the division of the land is impossible is seemingly fundamental to the tenets of Judaism, and yet this belief is as erroneous as the very idea that the present State of Israel is a representation of the Biblical Holy Land, the Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey.

Who amongst you can relate the story of how the Jews came into the Promised Land? The story is long, quite complicated at times, and filled with some of the most unpronounceable names that you can think of … until you read the Book of Numbers. There is an important preface to the story, contained in the Book of Joshua, that is found a bit earlier, when the Lord makes the actual promise of the land to Moses, in Exodus. Moses is told: “Little by little I [the Lord God Almighty] will drive them [the inhabitants of the Promised Land] out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land. And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant [contract or agreement] with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:29-33, NKJV, parenthetical comments are my additions).

So, what went wrong? After the death of Moses and the selection of Joshua as the new Prophet of the congregation things didn’t quite go according to the script and it all centres around a simple concept: disobedience. “Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD, “Who takes counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; …” (Isaiah 30:1, NKJV). When the reputation of the children of Israel spread through the land the Gibeonites decided that the best way to survive was to avoid having to fight. They managed to convince the congregation and the leadership – including Joshua – to make a treaty [a covenant] with them, swearing it on the name of the Lord God of Israel. The result of this treaty is that the Gibeonites would serve as wood-cutters and water bearers for the Temple (they were slaves), but they were allowed to live.

Unfortunately, things did not go so well for the children of Israel. The Babylonians decided that slavery was an equal-opportunity career and thus, the Babylonian Captivity. Seventy years of … lets call it character building (2 Chronicles 36:1-21). Of course, the Jews were allowed to return to the Holy Land and they began the work of rebuilding the Temple, but that is not the end of the story (of course); rather than adhering to their covenant with the Lord, by not marrying anyone who was not of the twelve tribes, the disobedient Israelites took wives out of the pagans living amongst them (see Ezra 9)

As easy as it is to take the scriptures and point out all of the ways in which the Israelites disobeyed the word of God in regards to their inheritance, it is more important to examine the ramifications of those acts and what the reality of that situation is – for all of us – today. Whatever happened in the time before the Babylonian captivity is, as they say, ancient history. Nothing can change the fact that the children of Israel were carried away from their homes as slaves, just as nothing can change the fact that western imperialists carried millions of African slaves away from their homes to the “new world” and mistreated them for centuries. If there is any doubt that institutional racism still exists one need only look at the current presidential election (which has not even left the level of the primaries) to see the acrimony aroused as a result of racial issues (and gender); for this we should all be ashamed.

The only true solution to the Jewish/Palestinian “question” is to step back from our passions and allow reason to prevail; we must not allow ingrained prejudices to be freed to bubble up to the surface when we know they are inherently wrong, we must rise above the pettiness of racial divisiveness that makes us cringe when we see that our neighbour does not look as we do. For far too long we have lived lives of complacency, lives of disconnection from each other that permit the perpetuation of violent reactions against the people and things that do not adhere to our own way of life. There is no excuse for such barbaric behaviour; by these actions, by demonstrating that they are unable to live in peace with each other, the Zionists demonstrate that they have not learned anything from the lessons of history save for the worst, most despicable portions. The responses of violence from the Palestinians, of course, are no better, and may not be excused for any reason. Violence begets violence, and “an eye for an eye” will, in the end, leave us all blind.

Every act of inequality, every racial slur and every violent action perpetrated against our fellow man diminishes each and every one of us collectively. As neighbours in this continually shrinking world it is far past the time to put aside our differences and begin the process of living together in peace. If our neighbours do not go to our church, or synagogue, if they happen to go to a mosque, or if, God forbid, they don’t go to any house of worship at all, then so be it; let them go where they would, in peace. If that is such a difficult proposition for someone than I have another, even simpler solution: get off the planet and leave it to those who are able to live in peace with each other. The cost of war fostered by human ignorance and stupidity is far too great to be allowed to continue.

New Extremist State: Israel at Work

Hate is a terrible thing; it festers in one’s spirit, leading to the commitment of dreadful acts. We are not born with hate in our hearts, nor do we gravitate to this most unnatural of human emotions, children must be taught to hate. The evidence of this is easy to see in any playground populated by pre-schoolers who have not been influenced by the political, religious or other biases of their parents. When there are other children present in the playground the children will play together, even when not having been introduced. Why is this? Why should children be capable of doing something that adults seem so incapable of accomplishing?

The reason is simple, and it is something that adults need to re-learn: while older children will become judgemental as they are introduced to the “adult” world, the innocent pre-schooler has yet to develop the ability to judge others. When does this change? When parents begin defining a child’s place in society it sets the course for the ingrained prejudices that will rule the mind of the growing child; by limiting who they are able to play with, who they are allowed to visit after school, and all of the other influences that go into the rearing of a child a child learns what is “good” and what is “bad” and establishes a demarcation zone within their mind in which all things to be hated are placed.

Having lived in neighbourhoods that have been very multi-cultural I have seen, with my own eyes, the truth of how beautiful it is to see children playing together in peace: a rainbow of colour, laughing and running around, totally absorbed in the very real business of having fun. I have also seen the obscenity of a parent physically dragging their child away from a sandbox because they shouldn’t be playing with such “dirty” children. It wasn’t difficult to understand that the parent was addressing the brown skin of the Lebanese children, and she even gave me a nasty glare as she passed me, errantly assuming that one of the “dirty” urchins in the sandbox was mine. As a response to this ignorant individual I gave her a greeting of “good afternoon” … in German … with a click of my heels and a slight bow of my head. Somehow it seemed appropriate to bestow as much of a Nazi salute as I would give, without raising my arm.

Hatred is what allowed the Nazis to thrive, survive, and drive across the continent, killing with impunity. Their hatred against anyone who did not fit into their paradigm of the “master race” was fanatical beyond comprehension, leading to the attempted extermination of not only the Jews but the Gypsies, homosexuals, people with disabilities and scores of others who fell into the category of “unter menschen”. The “sub-humans”, individuals that the Nazis deemed unworthy to share the world with, were gathered up, shipped off and slaughtered. Their rights were taken away, subjugated as slave labour they fed the war machine the weapons used to kill other innocent lives until their usefulness wore out due to sickness, exhaustion or through the mere malice of the concentration camp guards who killed with impunity.

While the Holocaust ended in 1945 the lessons learned by the horrors of the hatred perpetrated by Hitler and his henchmen have not been passed down through the generations of surviving Jews into the land that was supposedly created as a haven from another holocaust. According to an article that DesertPeace posted there is a law in the State of Israel making it a criminal offence to call any act of the Israeli government a “Nazi act” of aggression. The most recent outcry coming from the extermination of an entire Palestinian family while they slept in the middle of the night on the 15th of February. Three children and their mother died when the Israeli Air Force used precision munitions to assassinate their father, Ayman Al Fayeq, who was suspected in “acts of terror”.

I was born of Jewish parents and am aware that at anytime I can travel to Israel and claim the “right of return”, but I have not done this nor do I plan to do so: in fact, until my brother, Ishmael ibn Ibrahim is granted the same “right of return”, I shall not set foot in the land that has become a model of Zionist Fascism. I am not constrained by the laws of Israel so I shall say what DesertPeace cannot: the actions of the Israeli government are no better than those of the Third Reich. They use terror tactics to control weaker individuals, they control every avenue of economic advancement of people living within the land who are not Jewish, often preventing them from earning a living by closing the checkpoints that Palestinians must pass through in order to travel from their homes to their places of employments, and they impose punishments upon people without having had the benefit of a trial.

Ayman Al Fayeq and his entire family were slaughtered by the IAF in the middle of the night. How can this possibly be acceptable? Even if Al Fayeq was a terrorist, what could his children have done to warrant being immolated by a bomb in the dark of night? The Nazis did similar things to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Lodz Ghetto, through the travelling Einsatzgruppen, and other terror forces that made the Third Reich notorious for their inhuman treatment of non-Aryans. How is this different from what the Zionist Fascists are doing in Israel?

The land was given to us by God. We cannot divide the land. We must protect Israel. It is very easy to fall upon the old scriptures that promise the land to the children of Israel, forgetting that they immediately fell into disobedience and disobeyed the instructions that the Lord provided for the people before they took possession of the land. Inconvenient, and yet … what does it mean? First, you cannot go back in time and erase the mistakes of two thousand years with genocide today. The argument about not dividing the land that God has given as an inheritance hinges upon the first issue: since this present state of Israel is NOT that which was given to the children of Israel, there is no injunction against giving land to the Palestinians, though I still contend that living together is the best solution.

Defending the land must be proportional to the force being used by the attacker. You do not respond to a stick with snipers, you do not fire artillery at unarmed demonstrators … unless you are in Israel. When Hezbollah launched Katyusha Rockets, weapons that do not have sophisticated navigational equipment and rarely hit their targets with full effect, Israel has regularly responded with precision bombing and artillery far beyond the proportion of the original attack, striking the neighbourhood from which the rockets were launched. Given that the IAF has munitions that are capable of striking within 9.6 metres of the designated target (standard JDAM available for the F-16, used in the slaughter of the Fayeq family) it would seem reasonable that the IAF might start resorting to the "surgical strikes" that the USAF has been employing since the development of these precision guided munitions to such great effect in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

If the Israeli government does not want to have their actions and policies likened to those of the Nazis all they have to do is start acting more like humans and less like the monsters that they have modelled themselves after; take the lessons of history and apply them now, before it is too late.

Cultural Protection or Xenophobia?

France has a problem, and it isn’t going to get any smaller before it gets any better. In a move that smacks of the “Language police” in Quebec, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has moved to shut down France’s multilingual TV news service, France 24, announcing on Tuesday his plans to replace the channel with a new, French-only version. [You may read the complete article on CBC Arts here.]

What is the big deal? Well, on the surface it doesn’t seem like such a great tragedy, until you examine the issue under stronger magnification, at which time you discover that France 24 broadcasts diverse programmes in several languages including French, English and Arabic. There were plans for the addition of a Spanish service some time in 2008 which have now been abandoned in favour of Sarkozy’s plan for “France Monde”, which will broadcast only in French.

In a country that is, much like Canada, multi-cultural in its social makeup, the provision of television programming in languages that are spoken by the population can only makes sense. By not providing such services the government is displaying an overt act of alienation and is demonstrating their disdain and overt hostility to those who are perceived as not being “truly” French for whatever reason happens to be in vogue at the time.

Protectionism does not protect culture, it crushes the spirit of those living within the confines of the system being “protected”; it has been tried several times in the twentieth century, each time failing miserably. In the former Soviet Union “western” music, art and literature were labelled as “bourgeois”, with the artists, composers and writers being encouraged to adhere to the ideal of “Socialist Realism” in order to celebrate the wonderful benefits that the Revolution had endowed upon each citizen. The result, unfortunately, was less effective than Stalin and his successors would have liked: composers such as Shostakovich managed to escape the strictures of the Officials by applying relativistic programs (stories) to their works – after the fact – thus avoiding the scrutiny of the censors.

The most profound example of this “musical relativism” in action can be seen (and heard) in the “Fifth Symphony” of Shostakovich which was composed in the turmoil following the withdrawal of his “Fourth Symphony” after it was being prepared for its premiere. The 4^th was described as being “too bourgeois” and Shostakovich was warned to not continue composing “absolute” music (music that is without a program, something like the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 7^th, or 8^th symphonies of Beethoven). In response to this Shostakovich added an intriguing “dedication” at the beginning of his 5^th Symphony: “A Soviet artists response to just criticism”, and in one fell swoop he created “musical relativism” by snubbing his nose at Stalin with a piece that was “absolute” to the Nth degree, and yet … it fulfilled the requirement of being “realistic” because Shostakovich said it was, and thus it was so.

The Chinese had the “Cultural Revolution”, attempting to eradicate all western cultural influences through any means possible – including the burning of books, works of art, musical instruments, and the occasional artist that wouldn’t change their ways (but who’s counting). Obviously that worked well … oh, I forgot … it didn’t.

North Korea … ok, that may have worked, but look at the nation: who really wants the “culture” of North Korea? I can guarantee that there won’t be any connections to this article from that nation – access to the internet is so strongly controlled (if someone can actually afford a computer, let alone food), that the ability to read a dissenting opinion is something that just does not exist.

Then there is Israel, a nation trying its best to control the spread of dissenting opinions, even when said opinions come from 79 year old Holocaust survivors. A disturbingly compelling interview with Hedy Epstein, the dissenter in question, was posted by DesertPeace (note the new address) here, and is well worth reading. By using violence and intimidation tactics against their own citizenry, not to mention those who are visiting from other nations, Israel has demonstrated that they lack even the most basic humanity, preferring to terrorize an innocent old woman in the hopes that they might persuade her from telling the truth about what is going on in the occupied territories.

I have to ask the question, what is French President Nicolas Sarkozy afraid of? Why does he fear the possibility of the people becoming better informed? Perhaps there is a connection to this attitude and Sarkozy’s near fanatical love of all things American (save for, apparently, the “freedom of the press” guaranteed by the Constitution). This love for America, if taken to an extreme, could lead to a fear of having dissenting opinions being broadcast into the nation, particularly when one of the languages being broadcast is the tongue of his “best friend’s” arch enemies. Broadcasts in Arabic, of course, could include coded messages for sleeper-cells operating in France, awaiting their activation codes … oh bother ….

Didn’t that sound ridiculous? Of course it did … but, I’m willing to wager that someone in Sarkozy’s office had to mention that possibility; another name for it is racial profiling, and it is not only a racist thing to do, it is utterly useless in tracking down the real terrorists.

Sarkozy has shown his hand and it is an ugly one; if France continues on this course of overt discrimination against individuals who do not speak French government entrenched xenophobia will become the policies under which things operate rather than exceptions to the rule. In this day, when wars are being fought over whether or not people can set aside their differences and live as neighbours, in peace, it seems exceptionally sad that a nation with as long a history as France should choose this time to take such a turn away from decency back towards the Vichy government of occupied France.

New Year’s Wishes: a Lump of Coal in your Stocking?

A Seasonal Missive from the CrazyComposer
Cartoons © by Ben Heine
A recent comment to submitted to this blog (posted here only recently due to a moderation error) asked my opinion on the content of a particular website relating to “a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East conflict”. I have neglected to respond to the question, though the intervening time has given me a great deal to think about. Before addressing the issues raised in the website, however, there are some other things that I would like to say (well, it is my blog): The end of the year is always a time that arouses mixed feelings for me as I reflect on the things that have been accomplished, the many things that have not been done (for whatever reason), and the numerous other things that have been added to the list of things that I now want to do at some point in time. This is also the time that is used to reflect upon the events that have taken place in the world; what news has emerged as the most significant of the year, what individual(s) have had the most influence on our world … for better or worse.

Thus, the question regarding my thoughts on a website relating to Jewish/Palestinian relations seemed more than appropriate as it fit in perfectly with the seasonal reflections that my mind has been making; near existential musings, perhaps, on the state of our species and its ability to drag itself out of the mud and mire in which it is so firmly entrenched. The discussion of politics and political issues is one that can become deeply frustrating for me (quite quickly, at times, as it would seem my patience for the level of human idiocy is growing shorter and shorter with the passing of days), particularly when those involved refuse to allow themselves to see any other side of an issue merely because it represents an ideology that is foreign to their own political beliefs. This is especially apparent when it comes to the issues surrounding the “Jewish” state, also known as Israel, and the “Palestinian” question … or the “occupied territories”, or whatever other term has been used from time to time.


Let me be quite blunt about my position relating to Israel from the beginning, before even referring to the site in question and anyone else’s comments: if you are incapable of living in peace next to someone who is not of the same ethnic background, religion or political persuasion, you should move to another continent, shave all of your body hair off, cover yourself in honey and roll around in a nest of fire-ants. You should only dress in pink taffeta, and have the word “idiot loser” tattooed upon your forehead. The idea that we are unable to live next to people that are different from us, today – in the 21st century – is beyond anachronistic; it is a reflection of the most closed-minded, racist, bigoted, xenophobic idiocy that has ever inhabited this planet. If this is a description of a Jewish Israeli, too bad; if it describes a Palestinian, tough: when you point a finger at one person there are several pointing back towards you, so there are NO innocents in this conflict when people pre-judge their neighbours.

Ignorance kills; period. End of statement. While ignorance is near the top of that list, nationalism that is allowed to overrun an individual’s ability to reason is another thing that leads to death; such vehement belief systems are found within the supporters of Zionism and the fundamentalist supporters of the Palestinian movement. If this seems extreme, that is too bad; I’ve been listening to stories about the “war” going on in Israel since I was born, since the Israelis captured Jerusalem in 1968. If anyone honestly believes that this can be resolved by anything less than a fundamental shift in human behaviour. In order to promote such a change I propose a United Nations Joint Resolution: Be it resolved that all parties in Israel/Palestine shall live peacefully or they shall be deported to Albania (I hear it is lovely at this time of year … not). Any use of force or violence of any kind will result in an immediate deportation and fines against the government of no less than $1,000,000 (U.S. funds), to be paid to the families of victims/survivors.

I certainly doubt there would be too many “repeat offenders”.

The main premise of the author’s comments, from what I have gleaned from the reading, is that the peace process is doomed to failure, essentially, for the simple reason that the Zionist cause is honourable and just while the Arabs (also known as the Palestinians in this little saga) are completely untrustworthy, inherently dishonest, and predisposed to being deceptive when it comes to matters relating to negotiations.

From the outset the author has established that they do not believe that a lasting peace between the Jews and Palestinians (though he stubbornly refers to them as “Arabs” or, on rare occasions, “Palestinian Arabs” throughout the text) is not only impossible, it is “unusual, immoral, and illegal”. The only thing unusual about the author’s comments is that they so thinly veil the racism and hatred that the author possesses for the non-Jewish individuals making claims on the “Holy Land”. When reading things like “Peace process is highly unusual … illegal … immoral …” amongst many other completely meaningless straw-man arguments that are based on the acrimony aroused by generations of stubbornness making communication and reconciliation impossible.

The issue of peace in the middle-east, especially in Israel, always seems to come back to the subject of the land and the myriad issues that arise from the various parties involved. Is it possible to placate every side with one, all encompassing solution, a resolution that will satisfy the Zionist positions while also placating those of the Palestinians? Anyone that believes that it is, that the vitriol of centuries – nay, millennia – may be resolved after some discussions has allowed themselves to become enamoured by the seductive idea that “peace on earth, good will towards man” is something more than a line in a cleverly composed Christmas carol.

There truly is problem with the peace process, but unlike what the author of “We need a respite from peace” has written, it is not about what the Arabs/Palestinians bring to the table; it has everything to do with the process itself and the inherently flawed philosophy that has been invested into the very nature of the Holy Land and its relationship to Jews, Christians and Moslems. Any people proclaiming to be members of any of the aforementioned faiths who then use violence in order to advance their cause are, quite simply, hypocrites; they are anything but what they claim to be, and are certainly not representatives of the three faiths that call that piece of real estate the Holy Land.

We view the three religions as mere labels to apply to people regardless of the actions that are carried out in the names of those religions. Millions have been killed in the name of “God” (or “Allah”) while at the same time it is asserted that “Yahweh is merciful” and “God is love” and “Allah is benevolent” in classes for young believers in each faith. The problem is not that this teaching is flawed (this isn’t a polemic on the primacy of one faith over another, nor will I entertain such questions – my position should be apparent from previous posts), it lies in the fact that fundamentalism breeds fanaticism and fanaticism breeds minds that are perfectly prepared to be taken advantage of by ruthless individuals bent on promoting their own agendas, regardless of the costs in human lives.

I remember when a particularly vicious terrorist attack took place in Israel when I was a child, living in Sudbury. My parents tried to explain the situation to me as best they could, but the savagery of the situation made even their astute comments seem unable to fully explain the situation. It all boiled down to this, my father ultimately said; “how can you stop someone that is prepared to kill themselves in order to advance their cause?” It didn’t seem to matter whether or not you supported the claims of the Palestinians or disagreed with the policies of Israel; could you do so and agree with the tactics of the terrorist elements acting on behalf of the Palestinians?


No; violence does not bolster any position, it undermines the moral grounds of every argument and diminishes the legitimacy of any claim that may have existed. Violence begets violence and breeds mistrust, hatred, and a myriad of other negative things that work in opposition to true peace. More than anything else violence breaks the human spirit which then seeks something else to fill the void created by the legacy of violence.

There is only one way in which the Holy Land can experience the fruits of a genuine peace process, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the pale counterfeit that has been plaguing the region since the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. True peace will only come when the land is forgotten and people are given the priority that they deserve, the dignity that all humans are entitled too, regardless of their race, religion, or creed. When people are able to accept the differences that have driven them apart and decide that they can live beside each other in peace, there will be true peace; until then the process is an utter waste of time.

A recent example of the curse of fundamentalism has been provided through the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The subsequent suicide bombing (by the same deranged individual) left many others dead and injured. Do not forget that there are other places in the world where “peace process” is a concept arousing desperation and acts beyond anything in which any sane individual should be engaged. Can anything profitable ever come out of this sort of violence; is it not possible to imagine that there is at least one qualified individual in all of Pakistan to replace Bhutto as the leader of the PPP?

Who was responsible for this act of ultimate inhumanity? There are some that are already saying that al-Qaeda is to blame, raising the question as to who had the most to gain from this vicious act. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who had the “most” to gain from this and other despicable acts; supposed gains made through violence are rendered as worthless as lead, tainted by the blood shed for them. It is easier to see that everyone loses when violence is used: we lose our dignity as humans, we abdicate our morality, and our spirits are diminished in the process.

If there is one comment the author of “Respite” has made that truly demonstrates the futility of the argument espoused by the Zionist fundamentalists it is the following: “Peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever aborigines happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.” What the writer of those comments forgets, as many of their predecessors have and, alas, as many of those who follow in their footsteps shall inevitably do so as well, is that this is not an intellectual exercise in the realm of theories; we are dealing with real, living people here, people that have not been eliminated through a war of conquering or a subsequent genocide (how terribly inconvenient for Israeli). The people that Israel has to contend with have been living in the land for as long as the land has been promised to the Children of Israel. Is it the fault of the Palestinians that the forefathers of the modern Israelis were incapable of obeying the commands of the Lord?

The Old Testament tells us that the Children of Israel were commanded to “cleanse” the land, before taking possession of it, which they did not do; they decided that their way was better than that of the Lord God Almighty. By deciding to follow their own devices the Children of Israel cut themselves off from the promises of the Lord, opening themselves up to the troubles that have befallen them for the past several thousand years.

What I am saying is that you cannot now decide to commit the genocide that you failed to commit when you were brought to the Promised Land. Above all else we must learn lessons from history, lest we allow ourselves the curse of repeating the mistakes and tragedies of the past. History tells us that there is indeed a tradition of the vanquished peoples of the world becoming enslaved and extinguished, but that is not something that should be exalted, it should be observed with the solemnity that hindsight allows the learned pupil to provide insight and wisdom, that those mistakes need not be repeated by future generations.

By stating that the peace process is “unusual” for the reason that vanquished peoples do not live side by side with those who defeated them is tantamount to endorsing genocide; it is a comment that demonstrates that the Zionist movement has learned nothing from the lessons of history. It demonstrates that the Zionist movement has taken nothing from the ravages of war that nearly led to the vanquishing of the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century; is this the type of history that the Jews should be trying to perpetuate against another people? Should Jews not be fighting to the death to live in peace with others, knowing the awful price that nationalism exacts when taken to extremes.

If anyone should have learned about the importance of setting aside differences in the name of being able to live together in peace it is the survivors of the Holocaust: a people that were nearly wiped off the face of the earth by the xenophobic racial purity theories espoused by the Nazis. What is the difference between the near-genocide perpetrated against the Jews (Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, disabled, and numerous others) and the ongoing atmosphere of apartheid and attempted genocide that has been enacted against the Palestinians over countless years?


I have met survivors of the Camps, both Jew and non-Jew, and there has always been a common denominator amongst these remarkable individuals: they share a desire to see a world without war, a world where everyone can live together in peace. This is something that they would gladly give up their lives to achieve. The violence perpetrated over the “Holy Land” is the worst example of historical ignorance, of a people refusing to learn lessons that cannot afford to be explained more than once. Even little children know that there is nothing to be gained from hatred, when will the Zionists and other fundamentalists grow up and follow their lead?