Is There Hope For Palestine

 I wrote this in November 2007 on the hope for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

The solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept.

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation. (Source)

Considering the current circumstances, conventional wisdom would suggest hope for any solution may have been set back for decades, or centuries, unless the backlash from the rest of the world (apart from the United States), along with that of the Israeli people leads to the establishment of a progressive pro-Palestinian Israeli government, and by Pro Palestinian I mean one committed to the right of Palestinians to live and a Palestinian state to exist. Then maybe such a two state solution can become reality. After enough time to build trust it would ideally lead to a European Union type alliance between peoples that are natural partners, having lived peacefully together in the past and being genetically related . My preference, but who am I to say, would be for a single multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular state, because I believe religious based states are always a bad idea.

One might wonder if Hamas’s actions were based on a strategy of desperation, thinking that a massive terrorist attack would result in the expected disproportionate genocidal Israeli response, and hoping for a backlash from the rest of the world and the Israeli people, leading to change of government and policy in Israel. In effect, a sacrificing thousands of Palestinian lives (as Hamas certainly understands the power imbalance) in the hope of creating the conditions for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state as a result.

It has been difficult for people to say out loud one of the statements above, not because the facts do not justify it, but because most of the world does not want to believe it

The Thing About Religious Fundamentalists

The thing About religious fundamentalists is that they expect you to base your life and your belief system and morality on religious texts written three thousand years ago, before:
 
- The Renaissance (15th and 16th Centuries CE)

- The Scientific Revolution (1543-1687 CE)

- The Enlightenment/Age of Reason (17th & 18th Centuries CE)

- Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (1859 CE)

- The Discovery of DNA (1869 CE, genetic role 1943 CE, double-helix structure 1953 CE)

- The Information Age (1970–present CE)

- Even before The Dark Ages (5th to 10th Century CE) and the life of their saviour Jesus Christ (4 BCE – 30/33 CE).

Wisdom requires knowledge, yet they would have people establish their moral framework and live their lives as if all human learning and knowledge of the last two thousand years did not exist.

How Should We Judge Historical Figures

Should historical figures be judged by the best things they have done or the worst. Should they be judged by the standards of today or of their time. Should some things like slavery or genocide be considered evil no matter when they may have occurred. These are legitimate questions to to ask and the answers likely differ according to the circumstances.

Let’s take two examples. One of someone who a few years before the American civil war publicly stated that:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. Source

And what of someone who freed the slaves, even if it just was to “save the union”.

And what if that was the same person. Should he be vilified or celebrated. History has already made a judgment on that question.

The second example is someone whose main claim to fame was to be the first leader of a new country, coincidentally during the same decade as the previous example, but whose administration was plagued by scandals and was responsible for implementing policies of genocide aimed at that country’s indigenous peoples. Celebration or shame ? History is just making that judgment now.

Primitive vs Civilized Societies

As someone born in 1950 and raised and educated in a Eurocentric culture I learned early that civilized societies are intellectually, socially, and technologically superior to primitive societies. This despite the fact that the indigenous peoples of this land I was born on have for centuries had their own distinct languages, long tradition of passing down oral history, sophisticated social structures, and technologies well suited to the land they live on.

Reflection on actual facts indicates the reality is that the real difference between civilized and primitive societies is that one is based on trying to conquer nature while the other is based on living in harmony with it and only one by it's very existence threatens the future of the human species.

An Atheist Celebrates a Secular Christmas in a Multicultural Canada

So why would a non-Christian celebrate Christmas.

Well first of all from a religious point of view Jesus Christ is not just the Christian Messiah but also considered to be an important prophet amongst both Muslims and Jews so there is no reason they cannot celebrate his birth, while not recognizing him as the Messiah.

From a non-religious point of view there is a lot of controversy over whether Jesus Christ really existed, but even as a fictional character the types of values he represented are very humanistic and often in conflict with the views of religious authorities in his and our time.

But religion is not the main reason for Canadians to celebrate the Christmas holiday season, that has expanded to encompass both Hanukkah and other religious holidays that occur at this time (depending on the seasonal calendars of various religions) not to mention Festivus.

Christmas holiday celebrations are part of our Canadian heritage, being brought over by early settlers and added to and adapted by newer immigrants. But what makes Christmas really Canadian is it's role as a celebration of winter, and the choice of a date near the Winter Solstice (when the actual birthdate of Jesus Christ is uncertain) is not coincidental as the Christians timed their celebration to coincide with existing seasonal celebrations. Christmas is also a celebration of family and a time to think and care about the less fortunate.

While this is a time of giving it unfortunately also includes the Holy Trinity of Capitalist Excess - Black Friday, Cyber Monday and Boxing Day/Week.

This is also the time when Christian zealots, who claim Canada is a Christian country, carry on about the "War on Christmas", as if somehow the overwhelming attention paid to Christmas isn't enough. What there really is, is a "War on Diversity" by these zealots that get outraged whenever anybody refers to "seasons greetings" or "the holidays" as a means of including those celebrating other holidays at this time of year, as they see any recognition of the diversity of our society as an attack on Christmas.

While Canada may have been a "Christian country" at one time, it was not originally a Christian country (pre-Euoropean settlement) and is not now a Christian country but a secular society with freedom of religion and a diversity of religious and non-religious people.

Christmas is part of Canadian history and cultural traditions and it can belong to and be celebrated by all of us as a religious or secular celebration according to our own choice.

Previously on the Fifth Column:

Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings

Have A Holly Jolly Season of Cultural Diversity

Much Ado About The Wrong Thing - Canadian Forces DisIntegration

As a political scientist and somewhat of a historian I prefer our system of government based on a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. I also appreciate the role that our historical links to the United Kingdom play in our multicultural society, including their role in our political and justice systems.

Therefore I am not particularly upset about including "Royal" in the names of the Canadian Air Force and Canadian Navy. But that is not the point, however much Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party would like to direct the debate to that minor issue, by using references to Canadian history.

The point is to start to undo the integration of the Canadian Forces. The forces were integrated for two reasons, one operational and one more symbolic, but of operational impact.

Operationally the goal was to obtain efficiencies by having one command structure and developing one set of priorities and to eliminate competition between the three services, Army, Navy and Air Force.

Symbolically the goal was to have our servicemen all identify with each other through the Canadian Forces, rather than simply with one service.

It's not about being Royal. It's about being separate services rather than one combined Canadian Forces all working together with one loyalty to Canada.

Obama Gets it Right on Palestine

President Obama understands what I wrote three and a half years ago, that ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict depends on recognizing that "the solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept".

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation.

Hard line Israelis, and their even harder line supporters in the United States, may not want to accept anything other than a solution dictated by Israel but the rest of the world knows, and President Obama understands, that Middle East Peace will require compromise, and while the hard liners may not want peace the rest of the world does.

"Nigger" is Not a Nice Word

"Nigger" is definitely not a nice word. But there is a reason for that and it has to do with what it represents and the history behind it. It reflects an attitude that is tied to the history of oppression of Black Americans, including, segregation, slavery and lynchings. This is a history that should not be forgotten. Removing the word from that history and from literature that reflects the attitudes of that time is not true to that history and does the remembrance of it a great disservice.

Generation Inspired - Let Capitalism Fail

No comment required.

However, I cannot help but comment as I watch this and think about how we are supposed to react to the international response to the economic crisis and the measures being taken to save capitalism from collapse. What is happening is exactly what Karl Marx predicted except that he did nor foresee the use of a form of socialism for the rich to save capitalism. As governments world wide use austerity measures against workers to bail out the banks and corporations that have exploited them for years we are supposed to sit back and take it because there is no alternative.

But, there is an alternative. Let history happen. Let capitalism fail and build a new society from the ashes of the old.

The Most Evil Danger of Religion

Most of us know good people who are religious and we know some good things have been done in the name of religion. Indeed Canada would not have Medicare, public pensions or most of it's social programs if it was not for CCFers and New Democrats inspired by the Social Gospel.

However we also know that any rational understanding of history finds that way more evil than good has been done in the name of religion that and religion is the tool invariably used to get good people to do evil things because "god is on our side".

It is not any specific religious doctrine or act in the name of "god" that is the most harmful thing about religion. Rather it is the religious mindset. It is the religious mindset that allows people to reject facts and reason. It is the religious mindset that allows people to believe something just because they choose to, or because someone like Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler or Glenn Beck tells them to. It is faith, belief with no rational basis, that is the foundation of all religion and which makes it so dangerous.

Out With The Old and In With The New

If ever there was a time to celebrate that it is today !

Computer Nostalgia

I was working away at my slide scanning project when I came across this photo of my wife at our desk working on our first computer, an Osborne 1 in June 1983.(click on images to enlarge)

Hate and Freedom of Thought

We all hate hate, but does that justify compromising our most fundamental of freedoms.

René Descartes postulated “I think therefore I am”, reasoning that thought is the very essence of our being.

Freedom of thought is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Freedom of thought is meaningless without the freedom to express one thoughts, thus freedom of thought and expression are interlinked in one statement in The Charter.

Popular ideas do not need protection. The very point of protecting freedom of expression in the constitution is to protect the expression of unpopular ideas. After all today’s heresy may be tomorrow’s science, as history has taught us. And it is those that espouse hate that would love to control what other people think and say. We know better.

The irony of combating hate with restrictions on freedom of thought and expression is that it is these very freedoms that are the best protection against hate. The very worst expressions of hate are those that are institutionalized by governments or corporate media. The best defence against such hate is the freedom of ordinary people to challenge it with logic and reason, without restriction on their freedom of expression.

Take, for example, government censorship and control of information and mandatory versions of history. The truth does not require being made “mandatory” or “official”. It can stand on it’s own. Such mandatory versions of history are virtually always false (with one unfortunate exception which is a subject the Fifth Column will examine separately in the future) and often used to promote hatred by authoritarian regimes.

Government restrictions on freedom of expression to fight hatred can also have perverse effects. Should we make it illegal to insult religion in order to combat hatred on the basis of religion. That is actually not such a huge leap of reason and we have seen what can happen when that leap is taken.

Much has been made of the use of the Internet to disseminate hate but the Internet is the best thing that could happen to the spread of hate. The old way was a lot more work for the hate mongers but a lot more effective. They would target susceptible individuals, often alienated or disaffected youth, and would then befriend them and provide them with an onslaught of controlled information via pamphlets and meetings and oratory. They would only see one side of the picture and this would all be done out of public scrutiny.

With the Internet we all can see the message of hate they are spewing and, more importantly, the target audience using the Internet to access hate messages has unfettered access to all of the counteracting anti-hate information on the web. More often than not the hate mongers will simply end up preaching to the converted, something us bloggers understand all too well.

The only restriction that should be put on freedom of expression is against promoting or counseling others to commit illegal acts that involve violence or cause harm to others and that is where the reasonable limits provision of the Charter comes into play:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Freedom of expression is too precious to compromise, even with the best of intentions, for the best of intentions can go awry. Allowing the government to decide what are acceptable thoughts for people to express is a very dangerous idea.

We must not let the hate mongers intimidate us into compromising our fundamental freedoms but instead we must take the attitude of Voltaire who wrote: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write”.

Racism in the Context of Time

Was the man who said this a racist:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about the social or political equality of the white and black races - I am not ... in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people.

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

I will leave you to ponder these words over the weekend.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Complexity and Simplicity

The complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be seen in it’s long history, yet it’s solution is a basically simple one.

The conflict started before the creation of the State of Israel following the Second world War (which was no doubt influenced by the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi regime).

Israel was created by the major powers stealing land from the Arabs and Palestinians which led to immediate war and conflicts which have continued ever since. These wars have led to Israel unilaterally stealing more land from it’s neighbouring countries leading to continuous Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

At the moment the Palestinians are divided. Following the death of Yasser Arafat, a moderate Mahmoud Abbas, from the Fatah movement, was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority. Following that the more militant Hamas movement won the Palestinian Parliamentary elections, while Abbas remained President. Conflict arose between the two movements leading to Hamas officials being ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian President Abbas issuing a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force.

On the Israeli side there is conflict between those who believe Israel should exist in it’s original borders and these who believe in permanently annexing the lands taken from the Palestinians after the creation of the State of Israel.

At times the idea of peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems futile. But one only has to look to Northern Ireland and South Africa to see that the seemingly impossible is possible. In both these cases peace came about because both sides had the courage to talk to each other, rather than invoking the convenient excuse of “not negotiating with terrorists” even if each side considered the other to be terrorists. Who would have thought that black and white South Africans would come together to build a new country,

There is only one ultimate solution and it is essentially a simple one and the sooner both sides accept this the sooner a lasting peace can be established.

The solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept.

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation.

The beauty of this solution is that it provides something that is acceptable to the moderate majority on both sides and thus reduces the ability of extremist to rally support, That is not to say that both Israelis and Palestinians will not have to deal with the extremists within their own ranks. The Palestinians have already shown they are willing to do that and without having to fight an external enemy at the same time, they can be more effective.

It also means Israelis and Palestinians will no longer have a need to fear each other and be enemies but can work towards being partners in the Middle East.

It is as simple (and as complicated) as that.