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

Remembrance Day and Righteous Wars

When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s Remembrance Day was a very solemn occasion. There were still a lot of World War II veterans participating and even some from World War I, as well as veterans from the Korean War (sometimes referred to as a “police action)”.

World War II is probably seen as the most righteous war ever in the minds of the public. World War I, on the other hand, they had little understanding of, besides it being fought for King and Empire. But remember back then the veterans who fought in both World Wars did not fight as Canadians but as British Subjects, Canadian citizenship not being established untill 1947. Empire was important back then, as anyone who went to school in the 1960s in Ontario can attest. As for the Korean War it was fought against the “evil commies”, so again, seen as a just war.

Later came Lester Pearson and peacekeeping, and another group of veterans seen as being on the right side of history.

However in more recent years the righteousness of the wars and conflicts Canada has been involved in has been more ambiguous leaving Remembrance Day seemingly playing a less important role in Canadians’ minds and lives.

Guns – What Are They Good For

War

The Wikipedia section on the history of guns makes it clear that the history of guns and war are clearly intertwined, guns being developed primarily as a means to kill people in warfare.

Indeed even with the advent of weapons of mass destruction, the infamous WMDs, guns are still the weapon of choice in warfare. These guns are often being fired by the poor and disadvantaged against other poor and disadvantaged in wars started by the wealthy and advantaged.

Hunting

People have been hunting successfully without firearms for survival and sport since man started eating meat. Nonetheless the use of hunting rifles to kill game is a long established and accepted part of many societies. But, no one needs a military assault rifle to hunt for sport or survival. Spraying bullets at everything around hoping to hit something or mowing down a whole herd in one push of a trigger is not sport.

Sport Shooting

Shooting as a sport is also a thing, from biathlon in the Olympics to target shooting with handguns. No harm is done here as long as the guns are safely stored at the shooting range.

Criminals and Police

Criminals have discovered that guns can be a useful tool of their trade and the police have responded. In some countries the police responded cautiously with beat police and detectives remaining unarmed and special armed response units established. Other countries decided to start an arms race with the criminals, with ordinary police armed to the teeth and and special (SWAT) units armed like military assault units. We will leave it to your reading of current affairs to determine which response resulted in more or less gun violence and deaths.

Mass Murder

The easy availability of military style assault weapons has made mass murder a much easier undertaking than in the past. Internationally, the numbers of incidents of mass murders compared to the availability of such weapons speaks for itself.

Protection and Vigilantism

While some believe that they need guns to protect themselves and to deal with criminals, most civilized societies believe that should be the role of the police. There is a a belief, primarily in one country, that an armed populace is a safe populace and the more people with guns the safer a society is. Unfortunately the facts internationally indicate the opposite, particularly when it comes to gun violence and the deaths from it.

What Should We Do

So what should Canada do about guns and gun violence. Fortunately we are not saddled by a foolish Second Amendment but consider gun ownership to be a carefully regulated privilege as most civilized countries do.

While hunting rifles can be used in crimes, and no doubt are occasionally, they are not the main problem.

The big problem with gun violence lies with handguns and assault rifles which no ordinary citizens have a need for. This is one situation where there are simple and effective solutions. No one outside of the military and certain special police units need assault rifles. They should simply be prohibited. As for handguns, there is really no need for civilians to have them either but since they can be easily controlled for sport shooting purposes by restricting their use and storage to approved shooting ranges they should be allowed with those restrictions.

Government simply needs to ignore the imported ideas of the American right wing and provide the solutions the majority of Canadians agree with.

Beliefs That Will Destroy The World

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.