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

Wondering Who to Support in the Ottawa Occupation

Well, if the answer is not totally obvious this might help.

The Voice of the Occupiers

The Voice of the Occupied

 

No more need be said.

 

Much Ado About Truckers and Building a Canadian White Supremacist Fascist Movement

So what is going on with the truckers. They are calling it a protest. But it is not like any protest I have ever been involved in.

Protests are designed to attempt to make change. While they may be aimed at getting governments to change their policies, gaining public support to pressure government is always an aim of legitimate protests. To get the public’s attention of course you need to get he media’s attention and that usually is done by means of a large protest or some form of disruption.

The truckers are in an excellent position to do that. Large transport trucks take up a lot of space, one truck can taker the space of 100 marching protesters, so they can easily make a protest appear to be larger than it actually is. And trucks can be disruptive. You want attention, block the streets and clog traffic. So do that for a day or weekend and you have the media’s attention and you can get your point across.

Of course the truckers argument against the government protecting the health of it’s citizens is a hard sell to the general public.

So while you might need some disruption to get peoples attention you do not want to alienate the public whose support you are trying to gain.

So blasting neighbourhoods with noise, shitting on peoples lawns, attacking them as they go about their daily business and otherwise harassing and terrorizing them is not what a protest is about. Neither is openly displaying signs and symbols of hate a tactic used to gain the general public’s support. That is aimed at a much smaller target audience.

So what is going on. This is clearly not aimed at gaining public support. Nobody thinks they are that stupid. Something else is going on here.

We have bullies using tactics that appeal to other bullies. I believe it is clear that this is a recruiting move aimed at the worst elements of our society, bringing them together to form some sort of comradeship and solidarity. And one cannot discount the usefulness of this as a dry run for something even more nefarious than terrorizing citizens, but a rehearsal for actual insurrection.

Any actual truckers involved are just being duped and used as pawns in something very dangerous. What we are seeing is just one component of the building of a white supremacist fascist movement in Canada aimed at destroying the very fabric of our society.

Are Foreign Funded Canadian Charities Soft on Child Terrorists

Analysis by the Canadian Press shows that the three of the top four Canadian charities that received the most foreign funding were Care Canada, World Vision Canada and the Canadian UNICEF Committee, all known for helping starving children, many in war torn areas. Many of these children were victims of war and some were likely to have been child soldiers, often forced into battle by captors and even by their own parents. It is reasonable to expect that some of the foreign funders of these Canadian Charities, and even the Canadian doners, consider these children to be victims rather than the terrorists that the Harper government considers them to be. 

So is this perhaps the real root of the Harper government's concerns about foreign funding of Canadian charities, that the charities may be aiding child soldiers which they consider to be terrorists (but which the rest of the civilized world considers to be victims).

In the United Kingdom Peaceful Protest Is Now Terrorism

From Democracy Under Fire:

Here’s one example of the intimidation of peaceful protest by the young that is happening all over Britain. Nicky Wishart is a 12-year-old self-described “maths geek” who lives in the heart of David Cameron’s constituency. He was gutted when he found out his youth club was being shut down as part of the cuts: there’s nowhere else to hang out in his village. He was particularly outraged when he discovered online that Cameron had said, before the election, that he was “committed” to keeping youth clubs open. So he did the right thing. He organized a totally peaceful protest on Facebook outside Cameron’s constituency surgery. A few days later, the police arrived at his school. They hauled him out of his lessons, told him the anti-terrorism squad was monitoring him and threatened him with arrest.

The message to Nicky Wishart and his generation is very clear: don’t get any fancy ideas about being an engaged citizen. Go back to your X-Box and X-Factor, and leave politics to the millionaires in charge.

Original Source: Johann Hari - The Independent

Who Are Terrorists Anyway

To me, terrorists were always people who targeted innocent civilians going about their daily lives. So how does a 15 year old child soldier accused of killing an American soldier in a battle become referred to as a terrorist.

But my definition of terrorism (and genocide) includes dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations. However, my definition does not take into account that it's not terrorism if the good guys do it and only the losing side ever commits war crimes.

The Right Wing on Child Soldiers and War Resisters

The right wing believes that a fifteen year old child soldier (according to the United Nations definition) accused of killing an American soldier (based on questionable evidence) in a war zone should be treated as a terrorist.

The right wing also believes that American soldiers taking refuge in Canada after refusing to fight in an illegal war, where they might be required to kill innocent civilians, should be returned to the United States to face punishment.

Go figure.

Three Simple Reasons Why Israel Is Not A Terrorist State

1. They are the "good guys".

2. "God" is on their side.

and most importantly

3. They are on the "winning" side.

Osama and Katrina as Agents of God

Well, I’ve been doing it again - channel flipping and stopping on the religion channel (VisionTV). Last evening I heard a preacher going on about how Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks are god’s punishment for the United States godlessness:

Will the United States continue to experience more Katrina-like hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Will we continue to experience the attacks of terrorism. My friends, history in the Bible has demonstrated over and over that when nations reject the god of creation they will be judged.

At the end of the show I was directed to the website for Tomorrow's World - Magazine and Television program. And what did I find there.

Highlighted at the top of the page was an article entitled: The Plain Truth About Homosexuality. I will not repeat it here except for a short excerpt that struck me as “amusing”.

What do they seek to accomplish? Jesus Christ said, "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). What are the actual "fruits"—the results—of the homosexual lifestyle?

Trust me the rest of the article is not amusing, but filled with pseudo science and pure and utter hate propaganda.

There is more interesting stuff to be found on this website, such as references to the mainstream churches this organization shares the channel with:

Martin Luther's earliest New Testament translations include many illustrations picturing the "Whore of Babylon" as the Roman Catholic Church. Describing this widely understood interpretation, Roland Bainton tells us: "Fallen Babylon is plainly Rome" (Here I Stand, p. 258).

Countless Protestant books, pamphlets, and tracts make that same identification today. They brand the Roman Catholic Church as the "great Whore" of Revelation 17.

But, it must be admitted, most Protestant denominational writers have stopped making this identification. After publishing those editions of the Bible, and pamphlets and tracts, they suddenly came to the embarrassing realization that they were telling on themselves!

For the corrupt Roman "mother" church has given birth to harlot daughters! If the clear, consistent principles of scriptural identification are to be honestly applied, the Protestant churches are "harlot daughters" of a paganized, apostate Rome!

They came out of her in protest. But, as we have clearly seen, they retained most of her pagan doctrines and concepts. They are still following Rome's example of mixing in the politics and wars of this world. And we have seen abundant Protestant testimony that they recognize she is their "mother" church!

This program is on Basic Cable. If I want to get basic Canadian Network television as well as Newsworld I have to buy this package and pay for this garbage and this hate.

Why am I forced to pay for the “Superstition Channel” with my Basic Cable, but if I want any of the educational or science channels like Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel or History Channel I have to buy another package.

Does nobody monitor the garbage these religious organizations are promoting. Are there no standards as to who is allowed on the Basic Cable channels that we have to pay for to get Canadian Network television.

I am beginning to think that we really need an investigation into just what is on Vision TV. Even if they keep the worse stuff off the channel and on their websites should these organizations really be given prime space on Basic Cable television.

The Border on CBC

I watched the first episode of The Border last night and I was impressed. It was hard to watch because even though you know it’s fictional you know it is also based on reality. The reality in the case of government anti-terrorism activities is that you do not know who the bad guys are. It is hard to cheer for the “good guys” when they may be railroading some innocent Canadian because of ethnicity or religion.

Of course this is television so everything is going to be simplified and exaggerated but nonetheless it was a compelling story with compelling characters. One might question whether the episode’s hero going against his Ottawa bosses was realistic, but then I wake up and read about Linda Keen this morning. These people do exist and they make great real Canadian heroes.

The show ends after vindicating the innocent Canadian by reminding us that real terrorists are out there and we have to fight terrorism while respecting all Canadians civil liberties and human rights.

Now to find out more about the “rogue American agent” in next week’s episode.

Should The Peace Movement Align Itself With Forces Involved in Armed Struggle

An article by Don Butler, CanWest News Service in the National Post on May 8, 2007 reports that:

“Canadian activists were out in force at a recent conference in Cairo that sought to forge closer links between the international anti-war movement and Islamic resistance groups, including several on Canada's terrorism list.

About 20 Canadians attended the March 29 to April 1 Cairo Conference, the largest delegation from Canada in the event's five-year history. According to one report, it was also one of the largest delegations from outside the Middle East.

In total, as many as 1,500 delegates from the Middle East, Europe, South Korea and the Americas attended. Many of the Canadian delegates were from the Canadian Peace Alliance, the country's largest umbrella peace organization, and some of its 150 affiliated groups, said peace alliance coordinator Sid Lacombe, who attended the conference.”

We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In many ways terrorists are like war criminals, they are never on the winning side.

Indeed, by the current definition of terrorist put forth by the United States and adopted by most “western countries” I have financially supported a terrorist organization in the past. It was the National African Congress whose leader Nelson Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed the American revolutionaries, whom the United States celebrates as national heroes, would be considered terrorists by the current definition.

So we are not going to try and judge who is or is not a terrorist but simply look at whether the peace movement should be allied with any groups that believe armed struggle is necessary or appropriate.

There are a couple of simple answers.

● The peace movement believes in peace, not war. It should not be supporting violence of any kind.

● There will not be peace as long as there is oppression and the peace movement must support all struggles against oppression.

While the second option may be true, it may be impractical. How do you decide which struggle to support without allying yourself with actual terrorists. Do you support anyone who declares themselves anti-imperialist or do you have a bunch of hard core left wingers around the table arguing the fine points of ideology to decide who is a freedom fighter. Either approach is going to limit considerably the ability to build a mass public anti-war and peace movement.

That is not to say that there is not a place for solidarity movements with oppressed peoples. The question is whether it is appropriate to consider them part of the peace movement and whether doing so limits the broad public support of the peace movement,.

The first option my seem naive, in that it may seem to assume that armed struggle is never necessary or appropriate. But actually it does not. It just says that it is not appropriate for the peace movement to support armed struggle.

The first option is the only option capable of building a mass publicly supported peace movement. As that movement grows the ability to find alternatives to armed struggle increase exponentially. It is the role of the peace movement to build that momentum and find new ways to bring people together.

While the idea of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Muslims, building a peaceful Middle East together may seem hopelessly naive, at one time the idea of blacks and whites building a new South Africa together seemed equally as naive. And yes the armed struggle played a role, but inevitably peaceful reconciliation became the only alternative. We are seeing the start of that same process now in Northern Ireland.

The peace movement must be devoted to peace, not war.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968), "Strength to Love".

Should Canadian Forces Be In Afghanistan

This is not as simple a question as “Should Canadian Forces be in Iraq ?”. The Iraq war is a unilateral violation of international law based on a web of lies, including the claims that Iraq was involved with 911 and that Iraq had those evil “weapons of mass destruction” that only the “good guys” are allowed to have. Apparently the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory is now passé.

On the other hand, Afghanistan was being used as a training ground for Al Qaida and was clearly linked to international terrorism. The Canadian Forces role in Afghanistan is also linked to reconstruction and development, even if there is some controversy surrounding that role. But the Afghanistan mission is also tainted by it’s connection the “United States War on Terror” that is inextricably linked to the Iraq War and the United States historical foreign and miliary policy of simply acting in their own interests without regard to human rights or international law.

Setting that aside, the question is answered much more easily by looking at what role for the Canadian Forces best serves Canadian values, and where the Canadian Forces can be most effective. The Afghanistan mission is a heavy burden that prevents the Canadian Forces from being deployed in missions that better serve traditional Canadian values and foreign policy.

Canada is the country that invented peacekeeping. Modern day peacekeeping is not a watered down version of military combat but a role that requires all the traditional skills and risks of the military with added diplomatic and development roles.

In the First and Second World Wars we fought countries - the country, military and civilian, was the enemy, and civilian casualties, whether intended or “collateral”, were not a significant factor. In today’s warfare we are often in the middle of conflicts between armed groups where we are trying to win the trust of the civilian population so that we can work with them in reconstruction and development projects. Often separating “friend” from “foe” is the biggest challenge. Canada has the opportunity to build a highly combat trained military that is also educated in these more subtle areas.

The Afghanistan conflict clearly requires many of these skills. However it is tainted by its link to the “United States War on Terror” and its burden prevents Canada from acting in other areas, and from acting where no one else is capable or prepared to act.

Recently we have seen the world paralysed by some of the worst acts of genocide and humanitarian crises in places like Rwanda and Darfur. The world stood by, unable or unwilling to act, as millions suffered unspeakable abuse and death.

This is where Canada should act. Wee need to develop the will and the capability to act when no one else will - to engage in “unilateral humanitarian military intervention”. To do this a number of things have to happen. First is the need to develop a nationwide public and political will to act.

It will mean accepting the need for Canada to act unilaterally which will require a major foreign policy shift. To act unilaterally and retain international credibility is the challenge. Fortunately we do not have the kind of foreign policy history that plagues the United States. For Canada to be able to undertake this role with credibility requires pursuing a foreign policy based on the interests of international peace and development, rather than purely self-interest, which is what drives American foreign policy, and it means distancing ourselves from American foreign policy and unilateralism, in particular the “United States War on Terror”.

It means removing the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan, because of its links to the “United States War on Terror” and because it drains our resources that are needed to respond to international humanitarian crises when no one else will.

Unilateral intervention requires unilateral capability. It means we need to have the independent military capability to perform all combat and other roles, capability in terms of equipment, troops and training, and the capability to get our forces to where they are needed quickly, particularly in situations when thousands of people are being abused and killed everyday that nobody acts. We need to build these capabilities if we e to fulfill this role.

The best way to achieve a peaceful and conflict free world is to reduce economic inequity and human rights violations that have become commonplace. Canada can do that at home by setting an example of how the world’s peoples can live together in harmony, and abroad by following policies designed to reduce international inequities.

However there are times when the world should not stand by, times when someone needs to act

October Crisis 1970 (October 22, 1970)

This column preceded the Lambda Fifth Column series.
Click on the image to read the column.