According to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing". Apparently, there is in fact some dispute as to whether Burke actually wrote, or said these words and that perhaps he has been misquoted. But I will not dwell on that for the moment............Personally I don't give a toss, because whoever came up with the notion is as right today as in they were in the eighteenth century perhaps even more so.
And so it goes in Israel today. Saturday night's horrendous attack on a centre for young gays and lesbians in Tel Aviv; resulted in the murder of Nir Katz 26 and Liz Troubishi 17 along with I believe fifteen wounded teenagers. some seriously. The gay and lesbian community is in shock and now has to contemplate a scary new reality. Demonstrations will be arranged and most likely well attended. Cafes and bars will echo as the chattering classes lament the horror of an attack which "defies belief.", asking how can this be?
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that this attack does not defy belief. As one looks at Israeli society today one cannot help but notice that it is sick and I am not talking about the non kosher type of flu which threatens the country in the coming winter. No this sickness has been developing over a number of years now. The main symptoms are cynicism, apathy and a feeling of powerlessness in the face of an ever increasing spiral of violence, hatred, crime, and corruption.
The murderous hate crime of Saturday night, although aimed at the gay community needs to be seen as a result of this sickness, one more, albeit extreme; example of the increasing violence on our streets which touches all of society, but which sadly, appears to be accepted by the majority of the population as a new fact of life, something which we are powerless to stop. And therein lies the problem.
A society does not lose its sanity or moral direction in an instant, it happens over time. Such is the nature of this sickness which unfortunately affects most of us. We are suitably outraged and horrified by events at the time, but hey, what can we do? For sure a depraved attack like that of Saturday night cannot be predicted. However when we see our society slowly descend into a violent abyss, and fail to act, then we should not be surprised when such events come to pass.
But what to do? Well, some say we get the society we deserve. Perhaps and then again perhaps not. Surely it is time for the "good people" (all things are relative) who make up most of society to take action, to say no..... this is not how we want to live. It is time for society to act in its own interests, to demand of itself and its leaders that the trend be reversed and the situation improved for all.
At the end of the day his comes down to personal responsibility. If we all take responsibility for our own behaviour with a view to improving ourselves, then surely our world cannot help but improve. When each and every individual member of society understands that there are consequences for all their actions and then acts to improves him or herself just a little then the effects will be felt throughout society. When each and every individual take personal responsibility then good things can happen. As the saying goes..."change your behaviour, change your results".
It is time for society to establish zero tolerance for violent behaviour in all its guises. Violence in schools has reached epidemic levels and must be stopped. Reports of teenage gang rape and sexual violence is now commonplace. Domestic violence and violence against women needs to be addressed properly. It must be abundantly clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. it must also be clear to all who would commit such acts that they will be caught and thqt their punishment will be severe indeed. Gangland violence which has caused so many innocent casualties of late must be dealt with. the streets must be made safe with criminals once more fearng the justice system. Violent demonstrations must be condemned and those who use such demonstrations for violence an intimidation must be appropriately punished. In addition political, religious or ideological leaders who encourage and incite such behaviour must be called to account.
It is time for people to shed the cynicism and apathy which permeates throughout society and to replace hatred and violence with tolerance and mutual respect. It sounds kitch, (I have a dream!)I know, but that is the cynicism talking.
To succeed will be hard indeed. It will require an iron will as well as huge investment both financially on the national level in education, social welfare and law enforcement along with a personal commitment from each and every one of us. The cynics will say it is a waste of time and effort. However failure to act will bring more of the same and in the end will have dire consequences for us all.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Football, Art and Reality
As a kid, I remember playing football in the street with friends. This was a staple of the long summer break. In those days there were not too many cars to disturb the game and the only real problem would be if we mistakenly kicked the ball into the neighbours garden. Safe to say that our neighbour was not a great football fan, or a fan of kids for that matter. He was a scary guy, well for a bunch of ten year old kids and once in his garden the ball was lost for ever.
Bill Shankly, the late great manager of Liverpool in the 1970s once said..." some people think that football is a matter of life and death...i assure you it's much more serious than that"
You may be or not be aware of the advert currently running on Israeli TV which depicts soldiers patrolling the separation barrier (wall, fence, whatever you choose to call it). The soldiers stop when a football flies over the concrete and a game (kind of) football ensues. The ball is sent over the wall and comes back, more soldiers are called to join the party.
There was a great deal of controversy regarding the advert with many calls for it to be cancelled as a racist advert depicting a ludicrous scenario. Well this week Palestinians in Beilin, a village very much affected by the barrier decided to test the theory of the advert. I should note that Beilin has been the scene of regular protests against the barrier by Palestinians and "left wing" Israelis.
A group of Palestinian men started a game of football beside the fence (where they were situated was actually fence not concrete). Anyway, they began playing with various degree of skill, "keepy ups" and the like. Eventually the acid test came and one of them kicked the ball over the fence in the direction of Israeli soldiers who were guarding the fence. The Palestinians then waited with baited breath to see if, just as in the advert a cross border (more accurately cross barrier) game if footy would ensue. After all as the advert says its "what we all would like" (excuse the paraphrasing). Well they did not have to wait long. Over the fence they flew...not a football but tear gas canisters. Yep the IDF replied in the true and tested manner, in front of the news cameras no less. In fairness the idea of standing guard at the barrier and finding a projectile, albeit a football flying over the fence in my direction may make me nervous. What if there is a bomb inside? What if my officer sees me kick it back? What if they are just trying to make fools of us. What if I kick it and don't get it over? What if, what if and what if?
And there we have it. It does not matter how the marketing men and women want to depict the situation and t does not matter how many what ifs we ask ourselves. The situation in reality is pretty dire. There will be no cross barrier football games or any other kind of games for that matter in the near future. The status quo remains no matter how much we want it to be otherwise.
The only game the army seems to be playing lately is a bizarre version of "cat and mouse"with settlers intent on building and rebuilding "illegal" outposts. The game has got pretty physical of late and most likely will become even more so.
I should say that I am a supporter of the barrier in principle. The massive reduction, near eradication of terror attacks in central Israel speaks for itself. However as the Israeli high court has pointed out, the route of the barrier needs to take into account the people on the ground. To them the consequences of the barrier are far greater than the loss of opportunity for a game of footy with Israel's finest.
So what can we learn from this recent attempt at reality imitating art (yes sometimes advertising can be described as an art form). Well, Israel needs to do what it can to ensure the security of its citizens, something that in my opinion the barrier does extremely well. However as a democracy (yeh I know, but nothing is perfect) we owe it to ourselves to ensure that while ensuring our own security, we do not destroy the lives of those on the other side. Love or hate them, they are and will remain our neighbours. We can hope and dream, however until we do something concrete (no pun intended) to address the status quo and change it, then such experiments are doomed to failure. The answer lies in brave politicians grasping the nettle and addressing the situation in a real and meaningful manner. This does not mean Israel alone. If the Palestinians want their "ball back", they are going to have to get their leaders to grasp their own nettles and do what it takes to provide their own people with, in fact all of us neighbours; a far better future. A future where the beautiful game is played without barriers and art and reality are far more in sync.
To quote Bill Shankly once more..."it's a great day for football, all we need is some green grass and a ball". Perhaps our leaders should take note.
Bill Shankly, the late great manager of Liverpool in the 1970s once said..." some people think that football is a matter of life and death...i assure you it's much more serious than that"
You may be or not be aware of the advert currently running on Israeli TV which depicts soldiers patrolling the separation barrier (wall, fence, whatever you choose to call it). The soldiers stop when a football flies over the concrete and a game (kind of) football ensues. The ball is sent over the wall and comes back, more soldiers are called to join the party.
There was a great deal of controversy regarding the advert with many calls for it to be cancelled as a racist advert depicting a ludicrous scenario. Well this week Palestinians in Beilin, a village very much affected by the barrier decided to test the theory of the advert. I should note that Beilin has been the scene of regular protests against the barrier by Palestinians and "left wing" Israelis.
A group of Palestinian men started a game of football beside the fence (where they were situated was actually fence not concrete). Anyway, they began playing with various degree of skill, "keepy ups" and the like. Eventually the acid test came and one of them kicked the ball over the fence in the direction of Israeli soldiers who were guarding the fence. The Palestinians then waited with baited breath to see if, just as in the advert a cross border (more accurately cross barrier) game if footy would ensue. After all as the advert says its "what we all would like" (excuse the paraphrasing). Well they did not have to wait long. Over the fence they flew...not a football but tear gas canisters. Yep the IDF replied in the true and tested manner, in front of the news cameras no less. In fairness the idea of standing guard at the barrier and finding a projectile, albeit a football flying over the fence in my direction may make me nervous. What if there is a bomb inside? What if my officer sees me kick it back? What if they are just trying to make fools of us. What if I kick it and don't get it over? What if, what if and what if?
And there we have it. It does not matter how the marketing men and women want to depict the situation and t does not matter how many what ifs we ask ourselves. The situation in reality is pretty dire. There will be no cross barrier football games or any other kind of games for that matter in the near future. The status quo remains no matter how much we want it to be otherwise.
The only game the army seems to be playing lately is a bizarre version of "cat and mouse"with settlers intent on building and rebuilding "illegal" outposts. The game has got pretty physical of late and most likely will become even more so.
I should say that I am a supporter of the barrier in principle. The massive reduction, near eradication of terror attacks in central Israel speaks for itself. However as the Israeli high court has pointed out, the route of the barrier needs to take into account the people on the ground. To them the consequences of the barrier are far greater than the loss of opportunity for a game of footy with Israel's finest.
So what can we learn from this recent attempt at reality imitating art (yes sometimes advertising can be described as an art form). Well, Israel needs to do what it can to ensure the security of its citizens, something that in my opinion the barrier does extremely well. However as a democracy (yeh I know, but nothing is perfect) we owe it to ourselves to ensure that while ensuring our own security, we do not destroy the lives of those on the other side. Love or hate them, they are and will remain our neighbours. We can hope and dream, however until we do something concrete (no pun intended) to address the status quo and change it, then such experiments are doomed to failure. The answer lies in brave politicians grasping the nettle and addressing the situation in a real and meaningful manner. This does not mean Israel alone. If the Palestinians want their "ball back", they are going to have to get their leaders to grasp their own nettles and do what it takes to provide their own people with, in fact all of us neighbours; a far better future. A future where the beautiful game is played without barriers and art and reality are far more in sync.
To quote Bill Shankly once more..."it's a great day for football, all we need is some green grass and a ball". Perhaps our leaders should take note.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Rabbi, The Minister and the need for a constitution
Jews and Arabs should live separately! Religious Jews and secular Jews should also live separately! Women should not serve in the Army! Parking should not be allowed in Jerusalem on the Sabbath!
Well lets see?
A couple of weeks ago, the IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronski stated that in his opinion women should not serve in the Army. A blatantly sexist remark and insult to thousands of Israeli women ho serve in the IDF. Forget the fact that in many areas of the IDF women play a crucial role. For sure the majority of women in the army fill support roles (to the chagrin of many feminists), however it is important to understand that the majority of men in the army also perform support roles. This fact does not make these roles any less important or the contribution of those who serve any less valuable. Ronski has an agenda and his agenda has little to do with the spiritual welfare of the IDF. The general policy of the IDF has always been that there is no place for politics in the army. The attempt to introduce religious and right wing doctrine through the back door, or more accurately the IDF rabbinical door, is cynical and represents a clear and present danger to the army and the country as a whole.
This week's statement by the Housing minister Ariel Atias that he intends to stop "the spread of Arab population" is nothing if not blatantly racist. He contends that Jews and Arabs must live separately. Further still he contends that religious and secular Jews must also live separately. No melting pot for the Shas minister, no multi cultural experiments, no live and let live no love thy neighbour. No! No! No!
No to the very ideals set out in David Ben Gurion's declaration of Independence
"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "
The statements sand behaviour of these high profile leaders from the religious community represent a clear and present danger to the state of Israel, a danger equal to that of any terrorist bomb or missile, maybe even greater.
Such statements embolden supporters with dangerous consequences...When religious men physically assault women on for refusing to sit at the back of the bus or because they do not like the way these women have chosen to dress, then the country is under threat. When right wing propaganda is distributed amongst IDF troops about to go into battle (left wing propaganda would be just as bad), the country is under threat. When a citizen of Israel, whether Jew, Arab, Muslim, Christan cannot live where he or she chooses, or other has his or her rights denied in any way, the country is under threat.
It is time to stand up to those who seek to change the very nature and fabric of the state.
Ultimatley it is high time that Israel establish a written constitution which will forever safeguard the key elements and values of the state as set out in our declaration of independence ..... "for the benefit of all its inhabitants".
Well lets see?
A couple of weeks ago, the IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronski stated that in his opinion women should not serve in the Army. A blatantly sexist remark and insult to thousands of Israeli women ho serve in the IDF. Forget the fact that in many areas of the IDF women play a crucial role. For sure the majority of women in the army fill support roles (to the chagrin of many feminists), however it is important to understand that the majority of men in the army also perform support roles. This fact does not make these roles any less important or the contribution of those who serve any less valuable. Ronski has an agenda and his agenda has little to do with the spiritual welfare of the IDF. The general policy of the IDF has always been that there is no place for politics in the army. The attempt to introduce religious and right wing doctrine through the back door, or more accurately the IDF rabbinical door, is cynical and represents a clear and present danger to the army and the country as a whole.
This week's statement by the Housing minister Ariel Atias that he intends to stop "the spread of Arab population" is nothing if not blatantly racist. He contends that Jews and Arabs must live separately. Further still he contends that religious and secular Jews must also live separately. No melting pot for the Shas minister, no multi cultural experiments, no live and let live no love thy neighbour. No! No! No!
No to the very ideals set out in David Ben Gurion's declaration of Independence
"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "
The statements sand behaviour of these high profile leaders from the religious community represent a clear and present danger to the state of Israel, a danger equal to that of any terrorist bomb or missile, maybe even greater.
Such statements embolden supporters with dangerous consequences...When religious men physically assault women on for refusing to sit at the back of the bus or because they do not like the way these women have chosen to dress, then the country is under threat. When right wing propaganda is distributed amongst IDF troops about to go into battle (left wing propaganda would be just as bad), the country is under threat. When a citizen of Israel, whether Jew, Arab, Muslim, Christan cannot live where he or she chooses, or other has his or her rights denied in any way, the country is under threat.
It is time to stand up to those who seek to change the very nature and fabric of the state.
Ultimatley it is high time that Israel establish a written constitution which will forever safeguard the key elements and values of the state as set out in our declaration of independence ..... "for the benefit of all its inhabitants".
Monday, June 8, 2009
A question of law
It is apparent that the rule of law in the "only democracy" in the Middle East is under threat. Hardly surprising some may say, when we have an ex president on trial for rape, an ex priminister under investigation for corruption, a foreign minister under investigation for corruption and so on and so forth......
Still, it is inconceivable that people take the law into their own hands in a democratic country. It is also essential that the law be applied to all citizens in equal measure
In the same week that twelve Israeli Arab Israelis were indicted for the alleged lynch of terrorist, Eden Natan Zada in Shfaram four years ago, prosecutors dropped charges against settler Ze'ev Braude, who allegedly shot two Palestinians during a dispute at a house in Hebron in December 2008. Apparently there is video evidence of Braude's actions.
On Saturday six policemen and a photographer were injured by Orthodox protesters demonstrating against the opening of a municipal car park in Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Seven Orthodox protesters were arrested. It has been announced that IDF officers working in the West Bank are to be provided with bodyguards for them and their families. Protection is to be provided following right wing demonstrations outside officers' homes and threats against them and their families.
These are just four current examples. There are many one could choose for the purpose of this discussion.
The incident in Shfaram followed a terror attack where Zada a nineteen year old soldier murdered four Arab Israelis on a bus. He was then subdued by local people and arrested by police after which a riot ensued and Zada was beaten to death. There are those who see no difference between the actions of locals and those of civilians in Jerusalem who shot a bulldozer driver who used his bulldozer for a terror attack. I myself tended towards such a position. The fact that Zada had already been arrested and handcuffed and was then beaten to death roughly an hour after the incident is apparently the reason for the indictments. As terrible and cowardly as Zada's cold blooded act of terror was, in a civilised society revenge is no excuse or justification for unlawful killing. I have every sympathy with the people of Shfaram and trust that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the event will be taken into account when it comes to sentencing.
I can also understand the feeling of frustration and accusations of double standards when prosecutors decide drop a case against a settler on the West Bank who has shot two unarmed Palestinians. Apparently there is video evidence of the crime yet there will be no prosecution. This is fodder for those who accuse Israel of double standards and racist policies. I have no idea if Mr Braude is guilty or innocent, however surely where two people have been shot and there is video evidence of the event, our justice system should demand that the case go to trial.
As for Orthodox Jews demonstrating on the "Shabos". I am not sure that this is what their god intended for them on the holy day of prayer. However as they live in a free and democratic country it is their right to demonstrate. It is not however their right to commit acts of violence on policemen or secular Jews who wish to live their own lives. The appeasement of such acts will only serve to embolden such behaviour leading to even greater chaos and violence on our streets.
The fat that IDF officers working on the West Bank now require protection in their private lives is a sad indictment indeed of where we have got to in regard to observance and upholding of the law. Intimidation from any quarter is unacceptable, whether it comes from right wing activists, settlers, ultra orthodox protesters or left wing activist during anti separation fence demonstrations. There are laws in this country which must be adhered to. If people choose to break these laws then there must be consequences and where appropriate punishment.
However the application of the laws must be without prejudice and must be seen to be applied to all citizens in equal measure. From issues of illegal construction whether in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Tel Aviv or the Sharon, the law must be applied in the same manner. When it comes to acts of terror or intimidation, it should not matter whether the perpetrators are Jews, Arabs or any other. The criminal acts must be seen for what they are with the law being applied accordingly.
For all its short comings, we do in fat live in a free democracy, which allows people to live their lives as they see fit, to voice there opinions without fear and to object and demonstrate their objection when feel the need. In my opinion this works in the favour of all despite the knowledge that there are those who would exploit these very freedoms in order to deny them to others.
Surely the state's ability to provide protection and security to all its citizens through the fair and impartial enforcement of its legal system is key to the development of a truly civil society.
Still, it is inconceivable that people take the law into their own hands in a democratic country. It is also essential that the law be applied to all citizens in equal measure
In the same week that twelve Israeli Arab Israelis were indicted for the alleged lynch of terrorist, Eden Natan Zada in Shfaram four years ago, prosecutors dropped charges against settler Ze'ev Braude, who allegedly shot two Palestinians during a dispute at a house in Hebron in December 2008. Apparently there is video evidence of Braude's actions.
On Saturday six policemen and a photographer were injured by Orthodox protesters demonstrating against the opening of a municipal car park in Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Seven Orthodox protesters were arrested. It has been announced that IDF officers working in the West Bank are to be provided with bodyguards for them and their families. Protection is to be provided following right wing demonstrations outside officers' homes and threats against them and their families.
These are just four current examples. There are many one could choose for the purpose of this discussion.
The incident in Shfaram followed a terror attack where Zada a nineteen year old soldier murdered four Arab Israelis on a bus. He was then subdued by local people and arrested by police after which a riot ensued and Zada was beaten to death. There are those who see no difference between the actions of locals and those of civilians in Jerusalem who shot a bulldozer driver who used his bulldozer for a terror attack. I myself tended towards such a position. The fact that Zada had already been arrested and handcuffed and was then beaten to death roughly an hour after the incident is apparently the reason for the indictments. As terrible and cowardly as Zada's cold blooded act of terror was, in a civilised society revenge is no excuse or justification for unlawful killing. I have every sympathy with the people of Shfaram and trust that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the event will be taken into account when it comes to sentencing.
I can also understand the feeling of frustration and accusations of double standards when prosecutors decide drop a case against a settler on the West Bank who has shot two unarmed Palestinians. Apparently there is video evidence of the crime yet there will be no prosecution. This is fodder for those who accuse Israel of double standards and racist policies. I have no idea if Mr Braude is guilty or innocent, however surely where two people have been shot and there is video evidence of the event, our justice system should demand that the case go to trial.
As for Orthodox Jews demonstrating on the "Shabos". I am not sure that this is what their god intended for them on the holy day of prayer. However as they live in a free and democratic country it is their right to demonstrate. It is not however their right to commit acts of violence on policemen or secular Jews who wish to live their own lives. The appeasement of such acts will only serve to embolden such behaviour leading to even greater chaos and violence on our streets.
The fat that IDF officers working on the West Bank now require protection in their private lives is a sad indictment indeed of where we have got to in regard to observance and upholding of the law. Intimidation from any quarter is unacceptable, whether it comes from right wing activists, settlers, ultra orthodox protesters or left wing activist during anti separation fence demonstrations. There are laws in this country which must be adhered to. If people choose to break these laws then there must be consequences and where appropriate punishment.
However the application of the laws must be without prejudice and must be seen to be applied to all citizens in equal measure. From issues of illegal construction whether in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Tel Aviv or the Sharon, the law must be applied in the same manner. When it comes to acts of terror or intimidation, it should not matter whether the perpetrators are Jews, Arabs or any other. The criminal acts must be seen for what they are with the law being applied accordingly.
For all its short comings, we do in fat live in a free democracy, which allows people to live their lives as they see fit, to voice there opinions without fear and to object and demonstrate their objection when feel the need. In my opinion this works in the favour of all despite the knowledge that there are those who would exploit these very freedoms in order to deny them to others.
Surely the state's ability to provide protection and security to all its citizens through the fair and impartial enforcement of its legal system is key to the development of a truly civil society.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Dear President Obama
Dear Mr President
I admire you oratory skills and your powers of persuasion. Were I an American citizen, I surely would have rallied to the battle cry of "Yes We Can" and voted for you. Further I must say that it takes real balls to stand up in Cairo and state that America's bond with Israel is "unbreakable". So to with your statement on the holocaust and those who would deny it. Big ones Mr President...huge!
I also admired your call for Israel to cease settlement activity and for a two state solution to be implemented. You have been attacked as being anti Semitic or anti Israel for these statements. personally I think these accusations are baseless, ignorant and hateful. Lets face it at least fifty percent, if not more of the Israeli population agree with this position.
If you will indulge me I do have a few concerns in regard to your speech.
Firstly I was rather concerned with your comparison of the Palestinian struggle to that of African slaves in America. I fail to see the comparison. Perhaps having had time to reflect on your speech you will understand why such a comparison would be deeply offensive to Jews, Israelis as well as generations of African Americans who's ancestors lived and suffered through the terrible crime of slavery. If I am not mistaken millions of Africans died as a direct result of the slave trade, not to mention those who ended up suffering the horrors of slavery. So you may want to rethink that one.
I noticed that your call on Israel to end settlements was quite specific. Although difficult indeed, one could see a scenario whereby such a thing could perhaps come to pass. As I said, more than half the population of Israel agree with you .
I just wish you had been as specific with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. Lets start with the Palestinians. You call upon them to "abandon violence". You continue that " Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." I felt that this is a strange thing to say for an American. If I am not mistaken America fought a war with the British in order to get its own independence. The Irish fought the British to gain theirs. Algeria fought the French, Kenya the Birtish and.....well you get the idea. As I see it, the problem is that in the modern world terror works. There is no shortage of ex terrorists turned statesmen running countries throughout the world and what would appear to be a lack of resolve to truly confront it over time.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating terror or supporting its use by the Palestinians. In truth I believe it does them far greater harm than it does to the Israelis. and ultimately only serves to undermine their position. I should also point out the terrible double standard in relation to terrorist acts committed in the US, Europe or Asia and those committed in Israel or against Jewish targets. I am pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement as I cannot be the only one to have picked up on it and I doubt that your cause is served particularly well by such errors.
Anyway, moving on....oh good luck by the way with Hamas recognising Israel. I am sorry to say that I cannot see it happening. Oh and with the Saudi plan. I agree it was a good start, however given the Palestinian absolute refusal to give up their so called "right of return", again I'm afraid I find it hard to imagine the Arab world doing it for them. I am sure they would have no problem in betrayng their Palestinian brethren. Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time. However one has to really question if the wider Arab world really does want the Israeli Palestinian conflict to end. If there was peace, then what would their people have to complain about. What would the UN Human Rights Commission have to focus on. It seems to me that the ongoing, Israeli Palestinian conflict serves the Arab world, or at least the powers that be in the Arab world extremely well.
This brings me nicely to some of the other issues you brought up in your speech. I understand this letter is quite long and will endeavout to be brief.
Again I commend you for raising some of the difficult issues.....
Democracy.......for my taste I must admit that it felt not a little patronising.....not to mention that to my knowledge your host is a brutal dictator who does not allow any serious form of opposition. So perhaps people may have been somewhat confused. As I write this I am trying to think of just one functioning democracy amongst the so called moderate Arab states who I understand you see as your allies. I must admit to struggling.
Extremisim.......Again well spoken. Such things need to be said. However I am sure you are aware that your ally Saudi Arabia turns out a veritable production line of extremist Wahhabi clerics who go out into the world to preach extremist ideology. I understand that Saudi money also funds the extremist Madrases in Pakistan.
Religious freedom.......Once more, great topic.....However again, if we take your ally Saudi Arabia for instance...sorry to keep harping on about them. They allow no freedom of religion. As a Christian does it not concern you that you and your co religionists would not be allowed to hold a service in Saudi Arabia and in fact wold be arrested for doing such a thing. If one looks at Hamas rule in Gaza, Christians are being systematically targeted by the regime and are in fear for their lives. Hamas are looking to Islamify Palestine, which bothers most Palestinians. On the West Bank to, the Christian population is being squeezed with many choosing to leave if possible.
Women's rights.....Yet once more a brave issue to raise, but again you may perhaps want to take a look at you so called allies' practices and attitudes towards women. I am not an expert on the subject, however it strikes me that women in the Middle East require more than brave words. I appreciate that there are cultural and religious issues to overcome and your desire to be diplomatic in that regard, however in addition to education and opportunity, you may have wanted to mention other important issues affecting women in Muslim society such as honour killings, forced marriage and slavery, but hey you made a good effort.
And there's the rub. You did indeed make a stellar effort and as usual your delivery was bang on. However your words seem to me, to be based in some kind of western liberal fantasy land. In my experience the Middle East is no such land. The harsh realities of life in the Middle East require a great deal more than nice words (however brave) and good intentions. We all know where such intentions can lead.
Mr President, if you are serious about peace in the Middle East and better relations with the Muslim world,.... for what it is worth..... these things will not come through appeasement and patronising attitudes, but through clear policies which make the necessary and specific demands of all parties....... yep including the Israelis.
The current expediency of "making nice" with Muslim dictators and tyrants who make a mockery of your vision and what I believe to be genuine desire to make real change; will not serve you or your country in the long term. It will only encourage entrenched positions and greater demands form the Arab world. Such behaviour in my opinion will also ensure that the status quo remains in the Arab world, where the people who deserve so much more from their leaders are caught between the tyrants and the extremists with no real hope of change.
Personally, I do not believe that you wish to sacrifice Israel to the tyrants or the extremists, however compromising Israel and its security to make ground with such forces I fear will backfire in the end. But hey you are new at this and I am sure you will get the hang of it in the end. I wish you all the luck in the world.
May your fantasies become our reality. In the meantime however excuse me while I live in the real world.
I admire you oratory skills and your powers of persuasion. Were I an American citizen, I surely would have rallied to the battle cry of "Yes We Can" and voted for you. Further I must say that it takes real balls to stand up in Cairo and state that America's bond with Israel is "unbreakable". So to with your statement on the holocaust and those who would deny it. Big ones Mr President...huge!
I also admired your call for Israel to cease settlement activity and for a two state solution to be implemented. You have been attacked as being anti Semitic or anti Israel for these statements. personally I think these accusations are baseless, ignorant and hateful. Lets face it at least fifty percent, if not more of the Israeli population agree with this position.
If you will indulge me I do have a few concerns in regard to your speech.
Firstly I was rather concerned with your comparison of the Palestinian struggle to that of African slaves in America. I fail to see the comparison. Perhaps having had time to reflect on your speech you will understand why such a comparison would be deeply offensive to Jews, Israelis as well as generations of African Americans who's ancestors lived and suffered through the terrible crime of slavery. If I am not mistaken millions of Africans died as a direct result of the slave trade, not to mention those who ended up suffering the horrors of slavery. So you may want to rethink that one.
I noticed that your call on Israel to end settlements was quite specific. Although difficult indeed, one could see a scenario whereby such a thing could perhaps come to pass. As I said, more than half the population of Israel agree with you .
I just wish you had been as specific with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. Lets start with the Palestinians. You call upon them to "abandon violence". You continue that " Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." I felt that this is a strange thing to say for an American. If I am not mistaken America fought a war with the British in order to get its own independence. The Irish fought the British to gain theirs. Algeria fought the French, Kenya the Birtish and.....well you get the idea. As I see it, the problem is that in the modern world terror works. There is no shortage of ex terrorists turned statesmen running countries throughout the world and what would appear to be a lack of resolve to truly confront it over time.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating terror or supporting its use by the Palestinians. In truth I believe it does them far greater harm than it does to the Israelis. and ultimately only serves to undermine their position. I should also point out the terrible double standard in relation to terrorist acts committed in the US, Europe or Asia and those committed in Israel or against Jewish targets. I am pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement as I cannot be the only one to have picked up on it and I doubt that your cause is served particularly well by such errors.
Anyway, moving on....oh good luck by the way with Hamas recognising Israel. I am sorry to say that I cannot see it happening. Oh and with the Saudi plan. I agree it was a good start, however given the Palestinian absolute refusal to give up their so called "right of return", again I'm afraid I find it hard to imagine the Arab world doing it for them. I am sure they would have no problem in betrayng their Palestinian brethren. Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time. However one has to really question if the wider Arab world really does want the Israeli Palestinian conflict to end. If there was peace, then what would their people have to complain about. What would the UN Human Rights Commission have to focus on. It seems to me that the ongoing, Israeli Palestinian conflict serves the Arab world, or at least the powers that be in the Arab world extremely well.
This brings me nicely to some of the other issues you brought up in your speech. I understand this letter is quite long and will endeavout to be brief.
Again I commend you for raising some of the difficult issues.....
Democracy.......for my taste I must admit that it felt not a little patronising.....not to mention that to my knowledge your host is a brutal dictator who does not allow any serious form of opposition. So perhaps people may have been somewhat confused. As I write this I am trying to think of just one functioning democracy amongst the so called moderate Arab states who I understand you see as your allies. I must admit to struggling.
Extremisim.......Again well spoken. Such things need to be said. However I am sure you are aware that your ally Saudi Arabia turns out a veritable production line of extremist Wahhabi clerics who go out into the world to preach extremist ideology. I understand that Saudi money also funds the extremist Madrases in Pakistan.
Religious freedom.......Once more, great topic.....However again, if we take your ally Saudi Arabia for instance...sorry to keep harping on about them. They allow no freedom of religion. As a Christian does it not concern you that you and your co religionists would not be allowed to hold a service in Saudi Arabia and in fact wold be arrested for doing such a thing. If one looks at Hamas rule in Gaza, Christians are being systematically targeted by the regime and are in fear for their lives. Hamas are looking to Islamify Palestine, which bothers most Palestinians. On the West Bank to, the Christian population is being squeezed with many choosing to leave if possible.
Women's rights.....Yet once more a brave issue to raise, but again you may perhaps want to take a look at you so called allies' practices and attitudes towards women. I am not an expert on the subject, however it strikes me that women in the Middle East require more than brave words. I appreciate that there are cultural and religious issues to overcome and your desire to be diplomatic in that regard, however in addition to education and opportunity, you may have wanted to mention other important issues affecting women in Muslim society such as honour killings, forced marriage and slavery, but hey you made a good effort.
And there's the rub. You did indeed make a stellar effort and as usual your delivery was bang on. However your words seem to me, to be based in some kind of western liberal fantasy land. In my experience the Middle East is no such land. The harsh realities of life in the Middle East require a great deal more than nice words (however brave) and good intentions. We all know where such intentions can lead.
Mr President, if you are serious about peace in the Middle East and better relations with the Muslim world,.... for what it is worth..... these things will not come through appeasement and patronising attitudes, but through clear policies which make the necessary and specific demands of all parties....... yep including the Israelis.
The current expediency of "making nice" with Muslim dictators and tyrants who make a mockery of your vision and what I believe to be genuine desire to make real change; will not serve you or your country in the long term. It will only encourage entrenched positions and greater demands form the Arab world. Such behaviour in my opinion will also ensure that the status quo remains in the Arab world, where the people who deserve so much more from their leaders are caught between the tyrants and the extremists with no real hope of change.
Personally, I do not believe that you wish to sacrifice Israel to the tyrants or the extremists, however compromising Israel and its security to make ground with such forces I fear will backfire in the end. But hey you are new at this and I am sure you will get the hang of it in the end. I wish you all the luck in the world.
May your fantasies become our reality. In the meantime however excuse me while I live in the real world.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
North Korea, Iran and the lessons we must learn
Last week was busy week on the Korean Peninsula, not to mention the corridors of power in Washington and at the UN. Following North Korea's nuclear test and subsequent missile test launches, people are angry....no let me correct my self, they are very angry, even very, very angry.
Condemnation has flowed thick and fast from a wide number of interested, ney concerned parties. The UN security council is considering its options. President Obama has signalled that such behaviour will not be tolerated. South Korea has retaliated by joining the Proliferation Security Initiative, whereby it will (at least in theory) stop and search North Korean ships it thinks might be transporting Nuclear technology. US Secretary of Defense Gates stated that the US "will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state". In regard to the transfer of nuclear know how he had this to say..."the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States and our allies. And we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action.".
One should point out that North Korean scientists were present when Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. They also work cloely with the iranians on their nuclear programme. Korea's past and current client list for nuclear and missile technology includes Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and Iran
So with all this anger, world condemnation, tough statements and threats of further sanctions, surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea must be quaking in its boots, desperately seeking to make amends and change its ways...right?
Well not exactly. In response to the responses North Korea as done the following. It has nullified the cease fire agreement of 1953, which ended the Korean war. It has stated that any attempt to stop and search its ships will be seen as an act of war which would result in harsh retaliation, as would any punitive actions by the UN. Regardless of its missile and nuclear capabilities, North Korea has the capacity to wreak havoc on its neighbour and adversary South Korea. It has somewhere around ten thousand artillery posts dug in along the 38th Parallel. Its missiles can also comfortably hit Japan. It has been reported that North Korea is now planning the test launch of an inter continental ballistic missile. I wonder what kind of harsh response that will evoke. Rumour has it that North Korea may be threatened with a stiff reproach from China. I am sure that'll do the trick.
So what can we learn from this debacle. Well apparently very little if the actions of the US and its western allies is anything to go by. The one country however which seems to be taking note and learning lessons is Iran. The only country to come out in support of North Korea's recent actions, Iran sees that there is every incentive in the world to go after nuclear capability. Lets think for a moment. Iran looks at its neighbours' situation. Afghanistan has no nuclear capability and was invaded in 2001. Iraq, again no nukes, invaded in 2003. For a country looking to develop influence and a power base across the Middle East and further afield, this does not look good. However when it looks at its ally and research partner North Korea, it is a different story altogether. North Korea does have a nuclear capability (perhaps only rudimentary), it flouts agreements and UN resolutions whenever it feels it expedient and continues development of its nuclear weapons programme. Well, as we all know, North Korea has not and will not be invaded.
Far from being angry, the world at large is to damn scared to really call North Korea on its actions. Fear of a conflict along the 38th Parallel has so grabbed the US, and its regional allies that it will do just about anything to avoid such a scenario. It is right to do so, however the manner in which the world is going about it is seriously flawed. The more they show fear the more North Korea feels it can push. If history teaches us anything it is that dictators and tyrants only respect strength and not fear. The world needed to stand up to North Korea before it had nuclear arms. Today in truth it may be too late to truly deal with the regime in Pyongyang and an uncomfortable compromise may have to be negotiated. if such a thing is possible.
So if you were Iran, what conclusion would you come to from the North Korean example? It is good to have nukes!!! If you have nukes, the world will not f**k with you. If you have nukes and a somewhat questionable agenda (in the eyes of the world), you can pretty much do as you please. So why not pursue them. It makes sense. IN fact it makes no sense not to.
For Iran it definitely makes sense to have them........... although ironically, there could be a scenario where it may not make sense to pursue them. The world has a window of opportunity to stop Iran's bid to attain nuclear status. Iran has to know that the price of pursuing nuclear capability is too great and as such it is not in its interests to continue with its programme.
The US, the UN and the world at large much make it crystal clear to Iran that their nuclear programme is not to be tolerated and that it must cease, that the consequences of continuing will be harsh indeed, not just in words and resolutions, but also in sanctions and if necessary action. The risk and potential cost of such a strategy is great, however the eventual cost of a nuclear Iran will be far far greater, both in terms of regional and world stability and ultimately in human life
One can only hope that the current crisis in Korea enables the world to understand that it cannot afford to allow a similar scenario to develop in the Middle East.
Condemnation has flowed thick and fast from a wide number of interested, ney concerned parties. The UN security council is considering its options. President Obama has signalled that such behaviour will not be tolerated. South Korea has retaliated by joining the Proliferation Security Initiative, whereby it will (at least in theory) stop and search North Korean ships it thinks might be transporting Nuclear technology. US Secretary of Defense Gates stated that the US "will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state". In regard to the transfer of nuclear know how he had this to say..."the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States and our allies. And we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action.".
One should point out that North Korean scientists were present when Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. They also work cloely with the iranians on their nuclear programme. Korea's past and current client list for nuclear and missile technology includes Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and Iran
So with all this anger, world condemnation, tough statements and threats of further sanctions, surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea must be quaking in its boots, desperately seeking to make amends and change its ways...right?
Well not exactly. In response to the responses North Korea as done the following. It has nullified the cease fire agreement of 1953, which ended the Korean war. It has stated that any attempt to stop and search its ships will be seen as an act of war which would result in harsh retaliation, as would any punitive actions by the UN. Regardless of its missile and nuclear capabilities, North Korea has the capacity to wreak havoc on its neighbour and adversary South Korea. It has somewhere around ten thousand artillery posts dug in along the 38th Parallel. Its missiles can also comfortably hit Japan. It has been reported that North Korea is now planning the test launch of an inter continental ballistic missile. I wonder what kind of harsh response that will evoke. Rumour has it that North Korea may be threatened with a stiff reproach from China. I am sure that'll do the trick.
So what can we learn from this debacle. Well apparently very little if the actions of the US and its western allies is anything to go by. The one country however which seems to be taking note and learning lessons is Iran. The only country to come out in support of North Korea's recent actions, Iran sees that there is every incentive in the world to go after nuclear capability. Lets think for a moment. Iran looks at its neighbours' situation. Afghanistan has no nuclear capability and was invaded in 2001. Iraq, again no nukes, invaded in 2003. For a country looking to develop influence and a power base across the Middle East and further afield, this does not look good. However when it looks at its ally and research partner North Korea, it is a different story altogether. North Korea does have a nuclear capability (perhaps only rudimentary), it flouts agreements and UN resolutions whenever it feels it expedient and continues development of its nuclear weapons programme. Well, as we all know, North Korea has not and will not be invaded.
Far from being angry, the world at large is to damn scared to really call North Korea on its actions. Fear of a conflict along the 38th Parallel has so grabbed the US, and its regional allies that it will do just about anything to avoid such a scenario. It is right to do so, however the manner in which the world is going about it is seriously flawed. The more they show fear the more North Korea feels it can push. If history teaches us anything it is that dictators and tyrants only respect strength and not fear. The world needed to stand up to North Korea before it had nuclear arms. Today in truth it may be too late to truly deal with the regime in Pyongyang and an uncomfortable compromise may have to be negotiated. if such a thing is possible.
So if you were Iran, what conclusion would you come to from the North Korean example? It is good to have nukes!!! If you have nukes, the world will not f**k with you. If you have nukes and a somewhat questionable agenda (in the eyes of the world), you can pretty much do as you please. So why not pursue them. It makes sense. IN fact it makes no sense not to.
For Iran it definitely makes sense to have them........... although ironically, there could be a scenario where it may not make sense to pursue them. The world has a window of opportunity to stop Iran's bid to attain nuclear status. Iran has to know that the price of pursuing nuclear capability is too great and as such it is not in its interests to continue with its programme.
The US, the UN and the world at large much make it crystal clear to Iran that their nuclear programme is not to be tolerated and that it must cease, that the consequences of continuing will be harsh indeed, not just in words and resolutions, but also in sanctions and if necessary action. The risk and potential cost of such a strategy is great, however the eventual cost of a nuclear Iran will be far far greater, both in terms of regional and world stability and ultimately in human life
One can only hope that the current crisis in Korea enables the world to understand that it cannot afford to allow a similar scenario to develop in the Middle East.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Edinburgh...Just say no to Loach!
Ken Loach is an intelligent film maker, an idealist and left wing activist? Well maybe? In regard to his films, it is a matter of taste. In regard to his intelligence and activism, well maybe one has to wonder about Ken Loach's motives.
Loach's move to boycott an Israeli grant to the Edinburgh film festival, the purpose of which was to enable Israeli director Tali Shalom Ezer to attend the screening of her film Surrogate, which I gather is a film about love and sex with no mention of the conflict. This fact notwithstanding, Loach sees the acceptance of this grant as an affront to the Palestinian nation. Loach is entitled to his opinion (if but totally misguided). His use of influence with the Edinburgh festival is a gross abuse of his position as well as a flagrant act of censorship. I wonder why as a supporter of Chechen independence he does not advocate the boycott of Russian films. What would have happened if certain people had objected to his interpretation of the Irish revolution in "The Wind That Shakes the Barley"?
Loach is just one more example of a so called left wing artist abusing his position in the pursuit of a political aim. His support for the Palestinian cause may be honourable, however his refusal to acknowledge that there are two sides to this particular conflict is laughable for a man of such supposed intelligence. While he supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations which actively work to undermine just about all the values and freedoms Loach apparently believes in so passionately, he wantonly ignores their treatment of their own people. The murder, kidnap and religious oppression of Palestinians and Lebanese by these organisations is an acceptable price for Loach and his comrades. In truth it is Loaches patronising neo colonialist attitude to the Palestinians and the greater Arab world which is shameful. Loaches hatred of Israel borders on anti semitism. His desire to censor the Edinburgh film festival is shameful. The festivals capitulation to this bigotry is even more so. Loach does not speak for the film industry as a whole. he speaks for himself and a bunch of left wing misfits whose rabid hatred of Israel undermines just about everything they claim to stand for and most of all the legitimate rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and dignity.
The festival needs to have the strength of conviction to say no to intimidation, no to censorship and no to Mr Loach!
Loach's move to boycott an Israeli grant to the Edinburgh film festival, the purpose of which was to enable Israeli director Tali Shalom Ezer to attend the screening of her film Surrogate, which I gather is a film about love and sex with no mention of the conflict. This fact notwithstanding, Loach sees the acceptance of this grant as an affront to the Palestinian nation. Loach is entitled to his opinion (if but totally misguided). His use of influence with the Edinburgh festival is a gross abuse of his position as well as a flagrant act of censorship. I wonder why as a supporter of Chechen independence he does not advocate the boycott of Russian films. What would have happened if certain people had objected to his interpretation of the Irish revolution in "The Wind That Shakes the Barley"?
Loach is just one more example of a so called left wing artist abusing his position in the pursuit of a political aim. His support for the Palestinian cause may be honourable, however his refusal to acknowledge that there are two sides to this particular conflict is laughable for a man of such supposed intelligence. While he supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations which actively work to undermine just about all the values and freedoms Loach apparently believes in so passionately, he wantonly ignores their treatment of their own people. The murder, kidnap and religious oppression of Palestinians and Lebanese by these organisations is an acceptable price for Loach and his comrades. In truth it is Loaches patronising neo colonialist attitude to the Palestinians and the greater Arab world which is shameful. Loaches hatred of Israel borders on anti semitism. His desire to censor the Edinburgh film festival is shameful. The festivals capitulation to this bigotry is even more so. Loach does not speak for the film industry as a whole. he speaks for himself and a bunch of left wing misfits whose rabid hatred of Israel undermines just about everything they claim to stand for and most of all the legitimate rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and dignity.
The festival needs to have the strength of conviction to say no to intimidation, no to censorship and no to Mr Loach!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)