Sunday, May 26, 2013
Radicalisation: a problem, not a solution
As radicalised Muslims unleash terrorist acts in the West, we now see the radicalisation of right-wing groups in the West.
Following the horrendous and grotesque murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, far-right wing groups responded violently, torching mosques and attacking Muslims who were not responsible for, and did not condone, the murder of Lee Rigby.
Radicalised Muslims blame the brutality of the West for their actions. Yet, many Westerners don't believe that the West is as brutal as claimed. In fact, many believe that the West is 'good', while Islam is 'bad'. Many Westerners fear the Islamisation of Western nations, yet don't understand or appreciate that the West's colonisation and brutal occupation of other nations has led to the situations that we have today.
Many Westerners refuse to accept that it is the actions of the West that have led to the radicalisation of some Muslims, while justifying the radicalisation of the West in response to radical Islam. If people are saying that it is ok for the West to respond with violence to the violent actions of a minority of Muslims, are they also saying it is ok for radicalised Muslims to respond violently to the aggression of the West?
Most Muslims were horrified when they heard of the Woolwich murder, as they were with the Boston bombings, London bombings, September 11 and so on. There was worldwide outrage in Islamic and non-Islamic communities to each of these events.
But where is the outrage in the West, when non-Westerners are killed by terrorists?
Where was the outrage in the West when the US sponsored Saddam Hussein in the 1980s as he massacred the Kurds? Where was the outrage in the West when the US used depleted uranium in Iraq resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians? Where was the outrage in the West, when hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed or injured by the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Where is the outrage in West regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Decades of Western financed brutality in Palestine is fueling the rage that drives most Islamic terrorists. Where is the outrage in the West, when Israel deliberately targets civilian populations, killing thousands of Palestinians? Where is the outrage in the West when Israeli settlers shoot dead Palestinian children and are not punished for it? Where is the outrage as these crimes against humanity, these war crimes, are not just perpetrated, but done so with the blessing of Western governments and MOST churches! When do Christians stand up and say that it is not acceptable for Zionists to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing in the name of God because of misconstrued scripture?
Of course, it is not acceptable for terrorists to target civilians in Israel, the US, Britain, Bali or any country. Islamists must find peaceful ways to get their message across otherwise there will be a radicalisation of civilians in the West leading to even more violence against innocent people. In addition, the West must end the brutal occupations and invasions of Muslim countries and stop sponsoring Israeli aggression.
It is understandable that people are angry and want revenge for horrendous crimes such as the Woolwich murder, BUT ... using this and other incidents to justify violence against Muslims gives legitimacy to all terrorists who feel their actions are justified by injustice. Anger must be channeled into more productive and conciliatory actions. All people, of all walks, religions, and political persuasions, must stop reacting violently if we are to see an end to violence.
In the words of Buddha:
'Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule'.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Religion of Peace & Love?
The followers of which religion killed millions during the last century?
This week the whole world has followed the terrible bombings in Boston and the incredible after-math as the two alleged perpetrators were captured and one of them killed. The big question of course, is 'why?' Why would anyone deliberately target innocent people? Regardless of their reasons, there is no justification for their actions.
However, terrorists will often target innocent people because they see their targets as responsible for the crimes of the larger group to which they may belong, such as their religion, ethnicity or nationality. It is collective punishment ... and it isn't just the domain of terrorists.
Even before it became apparent that two Muslim men were the suspects in the Boston bombings, right-wing media and organisations, including some Christian groups, were blaming Islam in general. As far as they're concerned 'all Muslims are terrorists because the religion calls for it'.
It is with the greatest hypocrisy that they blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.
There are a number of memes abounding on the internet which sarcastically ask the question 'Islam - Religion of Peace?' and then detail crimes by Muslims and blame the entire religion.
Well, if we are going to raise the issue of religion, allow me to quote the bible:
'Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone'.
One of the reasons that terrorists have targeted citizens of Western nations, and Christians in general, is because they have judged all citizens for the crimes of some Western governments. Many of these governments profess to be following Christian values, so by extension Christians are also blamed for their actions. And yes, these governments have and are committing crimes, either directly or through funding and material support of despotic regimes.
Many of these critics of Islam, will blindly support the military actions of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. So I have to ask, 'Christianity - a Religion of Peace?'
Most people will argue that military actions undertaken by their government are not in the name of Christianity. Well, not all terrorism committed by Muslims is undertaken in the name of Islam. Yet Western governments sworn in with their collective hands on the Bible, have committed gross atrocities. The actions were often undertaken in the name of Democracy and Capitalism; political ideals which are worshipped with almost religious fervour by some and certainly embraced as 'Christian' values by fundamentalist Christians.
Guess the Religion of Peace:
Personally, I'd love to say the answer is fundamentalist Christianity ... or Democracy ... or Capitalism. But I can't because to apply the same rule that some people are applying to Islam means that the answer is simply 'Christianity'. Feel like justifying it? Feel like saying it wasn't in the name of Christianity? Muslims know how you feel.
I haven't bothered mentioning Hitler in the above list, so to avoid accusations of paralipsis, I'll point out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian. We all know that Hitler was responsible for the genocide of tens of millions of people. 'I believe today that I'm acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I'm fighting for the Lord's work', so said Hitler. Of course, Hitler was stopped by numerous Armies comprised of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Communists and pretty much every other people group. But he was a Christian, nonetheless.
There is no justification for killing civilians, regardless of whether it is in the name of religion or a political ideology.
There is certainly no justification for getting holier than thou and believing that one religion is better than another. If you believe in God and believe it is ok to kill members of another religion, ethnic group or nationality, YOU are the terrorist.
The memes that have been proliferating the internet sarcastically calling Islam the religion of peace, do nothing but spread fear and racism. It is disturbing that Christians who supposedly have been taught to love everyone would wallow in such hatred.
Instead of retaliating with an eye for an eye, perhaps it is time to take some more sage advice from the Bible:
'How can you say to your brother, "Brother let me take the speck out of your eye", when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eyes'.
'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
Salaam, Shalom, Peace!
--0--
Other articles
This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:
This week the whole world has followed the terrible bombings in Boston and the incredible after-math as the two alleged perpetrators were captured and one of them killed. The big question of course, is 'why?' Why would anyone deliberately target innocent people? Regardless of their reasons, there is no justification for their actions.
However, terrorists will often target innocent people because they see their targets as responsible for the crimes of the larger group to which they may belong, such as their religion, ethnicity or nationality. It is collective punishment ... and it isn't just the domain of terrorists.
Even before it became apparent that two Muslim men were the suspects in the Boston bombings, right-wing media and organisations, including some Christian groups, were blaming Islam in general. As far as they're concerned 'all Muslims are terrorists because the religion calls for it'.
It is with the greatest hypocrisy that they blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.
There are a number of memes abounding on the internet which sarcastically ask the question 'Islam - Religion of Peace?' and then detail crimes by Muslims and blame the entire religion.
Well, if we are going to raise the issue of religion, allow me to quote the bible:
'Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone'.
One of the reasons that terrorists have targeted citizens of Western nations, and Christians in general, is because they have judged all citizens for the crimes of some Western governments. Many of these governments profess to be following Christian values, so by extension Christians are also blamed for their actions. And yes, these governments have and are committing crimes, either directly or through funding and material support of despotic regimes.
Many of these critics of Islam, will blindly support the military actions of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. So I have to ask, 'Christianity - a Religion of Peace?'
Most people will argue that military actions undertaken by their government are not in the name of Christianity. Well, not all terrorism committed by Muslims is undertaken in the name of Islam. Yet Western governments sworn in with their collective hands on the Bible, have committed gross atrocities. The actions were often undertaken in the name of Democracy and Capitalism; political ideals which are worshipped with almost religious fervour by some and certainly embraced as 'Christian' values by fundamentalist Christians.
Guess the Religion of Peace:
- detonates two atomic bombs killing 250,000 people - AFTER surrender had already been offered by Japan
- provides funding and material support for:
- genocide and war crimes against Palestinians - 1.5 million civilian victims killed since 1948 and more than 1 million displaced)
- genocide of Palestinians in Lebanon at the hands of Christian Phalangists - more than 3500 civilians killed
- genocide of Muslims and Christians in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein - more than 1 million killed
- terrorist attacks on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan at the hands of the Mujahideen and 'extremists' recruited and trained by the CIA
- genocide of Communists and others in Indonesia at the hands of President Suharto ('one of our closest friends', according to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) - over 1 million people killed.
- genocide of Socialists in Chile - more than 3,000 killed, 80,000 imprisoned and 30,000 tortured at the hands of Augusto Pinochet.
- calls all Muslims terrorists - there have roughly been 10,000 victims killed by 'Islamic' terrorists, while there is a total of more than 3.5 million killed in just the above activities alone by people claiming to be Christian.
Answer: Christianity
I haven't bothered mentioning Hitler in the above list, so to avoid accusations of paralipsis, I'll point out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian. We all know that Hitler was responsible for the genocide of tens of millions of people. 'I believe today that I'm acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I'm fighting for the Lord's work', so said Hitler. Of course, Hitler was stopped by numerous Armies comprised of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Communists and pretty much every other people group. But he was a Christian, nonetheless.
Following terrorist attacks, many people are understandably angry and want vengeance. They feel justified in bombing and invading the nations of others. For instance, following 9/11 the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, while many in the West, including some Christians, celebrated and boasted about their superiority. Conversely, given the millions killed by the West, there are many who are angered, some of whom feel justified in either killing or celebrating the killing of Western civilians.
What is the difference between civilians killed at the hands of 'Islamic' terrorists or those killed at the hands of 'Christian' war machines? Not much. Both are killing innocent civilians and justifying it.
Ok, so the 'Christian' war machines generally do not mobilise in the name of Christ, although many pray before going into battle, but interestingly, Muslim terrorists are generally not doing it in the 'name' of Islam, but because they feel aggrieved. For instance, the decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine has led to a lot of animosity against Israel for perpetrating it and the United States for funding it. Palestinians are not attacking Israel in the name of Islam; they are attacking in self-defence and anger.
What is the difference between civilians killed at the hands of 'Islamic' terrorists or those killed at the hands of 'Christian' war machines? Not much. Both are killing innocent civilians and justifying it.
Ok, so the 'Christian' war machines generally do not mobilise in the name of Christ, although many pray before going into battle, but interestingly, Muslim terrorists are generally not doing it in the 'name' of Islam, but because they feel aggrieved. For instance, the decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine has led to a lot of animosity against Israel for perpetrating it and the United States for funding it. Palestinians are not attacking Israel in the name of Islam; they are attacking in self-defence and anger.
There is no justification for killing civilians, regardless of whether it is in the name of religion or a political ideology.
There is certainly no justification for getting holier than thou and believing that one religion is better than another. If you believe in God and believe it is ok to kill members of another religion, ethnic group or nationality, YOU are the terrorist.
The memes that have been proliferating the internet sarcastically calling Islam the religion of peace, do nothing but spread fear and racism. It is disturbing that Christians who supposedly have been taught to love everyone would wallow in such hatred.
Instead of retaliating with an eye for an eye, perhaps it is time to take some more sage advice from the Bible:
'How can you say to your brother, "Brother let me take the speck out of your eye", when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eyes'.
'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
Salaam, Shalom, Peace!
--0--
Other articles
This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:
- Bacon and eggs - Pork wars and Christianity
- Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
- Was Muhammad a pedophile?
- The light of love and a bushell of bigotry
Saturday, March 16, 2013
RIP Rachel Corrie
On 16 March 2003, American peace activist, Rachel Corrie was killed when run over by an Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) bulldozer which she was trying to stop from illegally demolishing a Palestinian house in the Rafah Refugee Camp, Gaza. The following is a brief history of the event and inspirational footage of a speech Rachel gave in Grade 5 which described her commitment to human rights.
Rachel had gone to Palestine as a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to participate in non-violent protest against the illegal Israeli occupation. On the day of her death, Rachel and seven other ISM activists confronted an Israeli Defence Force bulldozer that was about to demolish the house of a local pharmacist, as part of the illegal practice of 'collective punishment'. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory to, collective punishment is a war crime.
Rachel, wearing a bright orange, high-visibility vest and using a megaphone, was standing in front of the dozer in an effort to prevent it advancing on the house. She had climbed up a pile of dirt so that she was above the level of the blade, looking directly into the cabin. The Israeli soldier deliberately drove the bulldozer towards her. Rachel was pushed backwards, falling down the pile of dirt which collapsed on top of her. Despite screams from other people to stop, the Israeli soldier continued and dragged her for 10 or 15 metres, crushing her. Rachel was run over twice, suffering a fractured skull, punctured lungs and crushed ribs.
The Israelis claimed it was an accident, that the soldier didn't know she was there, even though the stand-off had been going on for three hours, there were other soldiers present outside of the dozer who could have warned the driver, and Rachel was in a high-vis vest and communicating by megaphone. The Israeli Defence Force investigated the incident and, not surprisingly, cleared itself of blame. In 2005, Rachel's parents sued the Israeli government, but in 2012 and the matter was thrown out.
No justice has been done and as usual, Israel has gotten away with murder. All of this, while the United States continues to poor billions of dollars into funding Israel, knowing that much of it is funds Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine through activities that breach the Fourth Geneva Convention and dozens of United Nations resolutions.
Rachel Corrie's life and message should not be forgotten. Her dedication to defending human rights is an inspiration to all of us.
In 1990, ten year old Rachel Corrie gave this incredible speech. The words are powerful and they should inspire each of us to action to overcome poverty and injustice.
I’m here for other children.
I’m here because I care.
I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.
I’m here because those people are mostly children.
We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them.
We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable.
We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us.
We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.
We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.
My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.
My dream is to give the poor a chance.
My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there. If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.
A letter from Rachel to her mother
The following is a letter that Rachel wrote to her mother on 27 February 2003, only weeks before her death. It describes the horror of what Palestinians experience every day, and the frustration for Rachel knowing that the world looks on and ignores the genocide and gross human rights violations perpetrated by Israel.
Love you. Really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again – a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby – one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.
This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses – the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses – right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.
I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed – the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here – recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people’s vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can’t.
If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours – do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed – just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.
You asked me about non-violent resistance.
When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family’s house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I’m having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can’t believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn’t completely believe me. I think it’s actually good if you don’t, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I’m much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I’m doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above – and a lot of other things – constitutes a somewhat gradual – often hidden, but nevertheless massive – removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities – but in focusing on them I’m terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here – even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon’s possible goals), can’t leave. Because they can’t even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won’t let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can’t get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don’t remember it right now. I’m going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don’t like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside.
When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.
I love you and Dad. Sorry for the diatribe. OK, some strange men next to me just gave me some peas, so I need to eat and thank them.
Rachel
RIP RACHEL CORRIE, 10 April 1979 - 16 March 2003.
For more information, or to become involved: www.rachelcorriefoundation.org
Rachel had gone to Palestine as a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to participate in non-violent protest against the illegal Israeli occupation. On the day of her death, Rachel and seven other ISM activists confronted an Israeli Defence Force bulldozer that was about to demolish the house of a local pharmacist, as part of the illegal practice of 'collective punishment'. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory to, collective punishment is a war crime.
Rachel, wearing a bright orange, high-visibility vest and using a megaphone, was standing in front of the dozer in an effort to prevent it advancing on the house. She had climbed up a pile of dirt so that she was above the level of the blade, looking directly into the cabin. The Israeli soldier deliberately drove the bulldozer towards her. Rachel was pushed backwards, falling down the pile of dirt which collapsed on top of her. Despite screams from other people to stop, the Israeli soldier continued and dragged her for 10 or 15 metres, crushing her. Rachel was run over twice, suffering a fractured skull, punctured lungs and crushed ribs.
The Israelis claimed it was an accident, that the soldier didn't know she was there, even though the stand-off had been going on for three hours, there were other soldiers present outside of the dozer who could have warned the driver, and Rachel was in a high-vis vest and communicating by megaphone. The Israeli Defence Force investigated the incident and, not surprisingly, cleared itself of blame. In 2005, Rachel's parents sued the Israeli government, but in 2012 and the matter was thrown out.
No justice has been done and as usual, Israel has gotten away with murder. All of this, while the United States continues to poor billions of dollars into funding Israel, knowing that much of it is funds Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine through activities that breach the Fourth Geneva Convention and dozens of United Nations resolutions.
Rachel Corrie's life and message should not be forgotten. Her dedication to defending human rights is an inspiration to all of us.
In 1990, ten year old Rachel Corrie gave this incredible speech. The words are powerful and they should inspire each of us to action to overcome poverty and injustice.
I’m here for other children.
I’m here because I care.
I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.
I’m here because those people are mostly children.
We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them.
We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable.
We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us.
We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.
We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.
My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.
My dream is to give the poor a chance.
My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there. If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.
A letter from Rachel to her mother
The following is a letter that Rachel wrote to her mother on 27 February 2003, only weeks before her death. It describes the horror of what Palestinians experience every day, and the frustration for Rachel knowing that the world looks on and ignores the genocide and gross human rights violations perpetrated by Israel.
Love you. Really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again – a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby – one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.
This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses – the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses – right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.
I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed – the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here – recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people’s vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can’t.
If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours – do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed – just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.
You asked me about non-violent resistance.
When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family’s house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I’m having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can’t believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn’t completely believe me. I think it’s actually good if you don’t, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I’m much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I’m doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above – and a lot of other things – constitutes a somewhat gradual – often hidden, but nevertheless massive – removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities – but in focusing on them I’m terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here – even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon’s possible goals), can’t leave. Because they can’t even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won’t let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can’t get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don’t remember it right now. I’m going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don’t like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside.
When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.
I love you and Dad. Sorry for the diatribe. OK, some strange men next to me just gave me some peas, so I need to eat and thank them.
Rachel
RIP RACHEL CORRIE, 10 April 1979 - 16 March 2003.
For more information, or to become involved: www.rachelcorriefoundation.org
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Zionism - the Crusades continue
During the Middle Ages, European Christians invaded the Middle East and waged war against Muslims in the name of God. Christian support of the modern state of Israel is a continuation of the Crusades as Palestine is ethnically cleansed.
The modern state of Israel was created when European Jews relocated to the Holy Land through the 20th century, particularly following its official creation by the UN in 1948. Following the passing of resolution 181 on 29 November 1947, Israel immediately began expelling and massacring Palestinians. It amounted to genocide and ethnic cleansing ... and it continues to this day with the blessing of most Christians who believe that the creation of Israel is fulfillment of biblical scripture and enough to justify crimes against humanity.
For centuries, Jews and Muslims lived in the Middle East in relative harmony. During the Middle Ages, Christians waged crusades by invading the Holy Land and attacking Muslims in an attempt to claim Jerusalem for Christianity. Most of the violence in the Middle East has been the result of European invasion.
In Europe, Jews suffered persecution and pogroms. Most of the violence in Europe has been the result of European racism and lust for power and territory. It's Europe that has been hell-bent on death and destruction, not the Middle East.
The support of modern Zionism by much of Christianity is a continuation of the Crusades as militant and fascist Christianity attempts to purge the Holy Land of Muslims and claim the land for God. Ironically, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Since 1948, Israel has aggressively expanded its borders beyond those established by the United Nations. Israel is continuing to breach the Fourth Geneva Convention through its illegal occupation of Palestine, resulting in dozens of UN resolutions being issued against its genocidal and ethnic cleansing activities. Yet, Israel continues to belligerently ignore the resolutions while Christians justify or ignore the atrocious human rights violations.
Israel claims that other nations have had fewer, if any, UN resolutions passed against them. However, this is to distract from the human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel. The UN has issued resolutions against numerous countries who have had to comply through either facing the International Criminal Court, UN inspections, international sanctions or peace-keeping forces.
Iraq faced UN sanctions over its supposed lack of cooperation regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Yet, even after Iraq complied with the UN inspectors, they were invaded and bombed, supposedly for failing to comply with UN resolutions.
The United States has unquestioningly supported Israel while condemning other nations which do far less. The US led the invasion of Iraq on the false premise that it had failed to comply with UN resolutions and was harboring and developing WMD. Even before the US-led invasion, international experts were advising that Iraq did not have WMD. Eventually, the USA conceded that no WMD had been found. Yet a decade on and US forces still occupy the country.
Based on the treatment of Iraq by the USA and the UN, Israel should have been invaded and bombed decades ago. Israel is correct that it is treated differently to other nations because it gets away with far more than any other nation.
Following 9/11, the world recoiled in horror as US President, and self-proclaimed Christian, George W. Bush declared a 'crusade against terrorists'. The world feared this would lead to a 'clash of cultures' between Christianity and Islam. Bush tried to explain that it wasn't a war against Muslims, yet his actions didn't reflect that as the USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan while providing billions in aid for Israel to continue its ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Israel's arrogance is its greatest weakness. The world is becoming more and more aware of Israeli atrocities and the outrage is growing louder and louder. Israel claims to represent all Jews, yet many of its own people in both Israel and abroad are turning against the Israeli government and demanding Palestinian state-hood, Israeli withdrawal of settlements and tearing down the apartheid wall. The international community is calling for Israel to be held accountable for its actions and the United Nations is investigating Israel's breaches of the Geneva Convention.
On 29 November 2012, exactly 65 years after Resolution 181 passed, the United Nations voted to give Palestine 'non-member' status, which effectively recognised Palestine as a nation state. Of the 188 member nations, 138 voted for Palestine, while 41 abstained and only 9 voted against it. It was a massive kick in the teeth for Israel who complained that the 179 nations that did not vote with Israel to oppose Palestine (including the 41 abstentions) were anti-Semitic. The nations weren't anti-Semitic, they had finally stopped being bullied by Israel.
The writing is on the wall. Unless Israel ceases their human rights violations in Palestine, they will eventually find themselves the subject of international sanctions and most likely an appearance or two in the International Criminal Court.
Yet, they continue to unleash violence against the Palestinians, displacing, shooting and bombing civilians, as well as preventing them from accessing their own farmlands, jobs, hospitals and schools because of the hundreds of checkpoints and the expansion of the apartheid wall through Palestinian territory. When Palestinians fight back, Israel demonises them, however, under international law Palestine has a right to defend themselves from Israel's illegal aggression.
Saladin (who fought against Christian Crusaders in the 12th century) said, 'I warn you against shedding blood, indulging in it and making a habit of it, for blood never sleeps'. Israel has embraced violence as a means of purifying the Jewish state of non-Jewish occupants. Violence begets violence. There won't be peace between Israel and Palestine until Israel ceases the genocide. Israel's aggression and the US funding of it, will continue to feed the development of anti-Israeli and anti-US militants.
Most disturbing is that Christians continue to support Israel's genocidal and ethnic cleansing policies, while claiming that Muslims should move on from the Crusades because they ended centuries ago.
The Crusades have not ended, they have evolved into Christian Zionism.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Gun Control and the Second Amendment
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' - Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America. (1)
This is the Second Amendment which the pro-gun advocates claim will be infringed if gun-control legislation is passed in the United States.
Gun advocates often quote only a portion of the Second Amendment, '... the right of the people to keep and bear arms ... '. Yet, before arriving at this one phrase, the Second Amendment has a preamble that establishes the context and intention of the Amendment. The Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is dependent on the necessity for a Militia, and a 'well-regulated' Militia at that.
A militia is a civilian army. At the time the Second Amendment was passed, the United States Army was very small and relied on the use of militia to aid in its defence. The Second Amendment clearly states 'being necessary'. Today, the USA has one of the world's largest and strongest defence forces as well as a large contingent of civilian militia in the form of the National Guard. The arming of every citizen in the country is not necessary to the security of the nation.
One of the arguments used by pro-gun advocates is that the arming of civilians is necessary in the event of a tyrannical government. Just what is a tyrannical government in their eyes? Listening to many of them, it is a government that would regulate access to guns. So are such advocates also traitors if they declare their intention to overthrow such a 'tyrannical' government? In most countries, that would amount to treason.
Another argument is self-defence. Given that the United States is one of the most violent countries in the western world (2), it is understandable that many of its citizens live in fear. However, arming civilians is not the answer. It merely means that criminals have a soft-target if they wish to illegally acquire a weapon. They know that they can mug someone or burgle a house and the chances are they will score a free firearm. I would challenge anyone to pull a weapon in time if they are taken by surprise. How many would see a king-hit coming or even have time to pull out a gun in such a situation?
Of course, the old chestnut, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is logically weak. People using guns kill people and they tend to kill more people than those using other easily obtainable weapons, such as knives or baseball bats.
As a stark contrast, on the day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, a man wielding a knife attacked children at a school in China. He injured 22 children and 1 adult. There were NO fatalities. (3) The outcome would have been very different if he was also armed with an assault rifle as the shooter at Sandy Hook was.
The pro-gun lobby has blamed both violent video games and mentally ill people for the mass murders. Most people who play violent video games will not feel the urge to go on a real-life rampage. Of course there are always those who are disturbed enough to kill, whether they play violent games or not. Nonetheless, blaming violent video games or mentally ill people is an admission that the rifles should be controlled, considering the number of violent video games out there and the levels of mental illness. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in four people over the age of 18 suffers from a mental disorder, equating to approximately 57.7 million people. (4) Having a mental illness does not mean a person will become a murderer. However, with the prevalence of mental illness, surely the logic is not to arm people who may be inclined to commit violent crime, but instead to provide public funding of mental health programs.
There are even those who claim that the violence is related to prayer being banned in schools. Prayer has not been banned in schools. Public schools are not allowed to organise prayer, however students are free to pray under the 'free exercise' clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1). The Government cannot prohibit individual prayer as long as it is not disrupting other students. If Christian students are not praying in school, then this is not the fault of the government. Additionally, why aren't these people praying for the safety of their children at school instead of inventing fallacious arguments to justify the provision of firearms to mass-murderers?
More guns does not equal less crime. America has more civilian-owned guns than all of the developed countries in the world, and has the highest rate of murder by firearms of any country in the developed world. (5)
Many of the recent mass shootings in the USA have been done by gunmen using assault rifles, such as Aurora, Oregon Shopping Mall and Sandy Hook Elementary School. However, the largest mass shooting, Virginia Tech, was done with two semi-automatic pistols.
While there have been a number of Supreme Court cases which have upheld the rights of individuals to 'bear arms', the US government must regulate the access to these arms given the carnage that has eventuated from access to guns, particularly from people using semi-automatics and assault rifles. No civilian has a need for an assault rifle.
Regulation does not violate the Second Amendment and is, in fact, a requirement of the Second Amendment. Given the level of gun-related murders and assaults, firearm regulation and its enforcement is well overdue.
The Second Amendment was meant to protect the security of the United States of America, not to arm civilians against each other.
References
1. United States Government Printing Office. 'Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America'. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf
2. Healy, Kieran (Sociologist at Duke University). 'America is a Violent Country'. 20 July 2012. Accessed 9 January 2013. http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
3. Bodeen, Christopher. 'China School Attack: Knife-Wielding Man Injures 22 Kids, 1 Adult Outside Primary School'. The Huffington Post, 14 December 2012. Accessed 9 January 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.html
4. United States Government. National Institute of Mental Health. 'The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America'. Accessed 9 January 2013. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
5. 'Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country', The Guardian online, 22 July 2012. Accessed 9 January 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Do-gooder v Do-nothing: Activism v Apathy
The most dangerous people in the world are those too apathetic to speak up against injustice and evil. They take the 'Doris Day' approach to the suffering of others: 'que sera sera' - 'Whatever Will Be Will Be'. They are the 'do-nothings' and they give evil victory through their inaction:
Why are the apathetic more dangerous than the perpetrator? Evil has manifested itself since time immemorial and while there are people in the world, there will be people who perpetrate it. Evil resides in the heart of humanity, so it important that we as a society ensure that evil is controlled and not given licence. The apathetic give evil licence through their silence, which in turn encourages and empowers evil-doers. Silence is complicity and the do-nothings are complicit in the worst crimes against humanity because of their inaction.
Sometimes it is easy to identify injustice and tyranny, while similarly nefarious activities masquerade in a cloak of decency, 'justified' in the name of democracy, capitalism, or God. It's almost as if the right marketing can legitimise evil, making it harder to identify the perpetrator as evil. Yet no matter how evil is presented, it is still evil and the perpetrator and the do-nothing are guilty of it.
Albert Einstein stated, 'The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it'.
These days people who speak up for the rights of others are labelled as 'do-gooders'. The term being used as an insult to imply that such people live in a Utopian fantasy world. Is it Utopian to expect that everyone is entitled to justice, respect and freedom from tyranny and evil?
The do-nothings criticise do-gooders, believing that social justice threatens their freedom. Yet, what sort of freedom allows injustice and tyranny? The apathetic criticise those who stand up for others, while doing nothing themselves to defend the victims.
The do-nothings take the 'Doris Day' approach to life: 'que sera sera - whatever will be, will be', as if they have no control over what happens in the world. This approach is for the lazy, cowardly or those who don't understand the power that they wield. Do-nothings are driven by fear and hate. They certainly don't care for others. Leo Buscaglia stated, 'I have a feeling that the opposite of love, is not hate - it's apathy. It's not giving a damn'.
Desmond Tutu once said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality'.
For centuries 'do-gooders' have campaigned against injustice in its various forms, whether it be human rights abuses, slavery, apartheid, equal rights.
What have the do-nothings achieved, other than to benefit from the actions of others? A prime example of this is those who oppose unionism while benefiting from all that unionists have achieved, such as the end of child labour, and all they continue to achieve, such as pay-rises. Many do-nothings complain about refugees coming to their country while doing nothing to end the issues that have caused the refugee crisis in the first place. In fact, many of those crises have been caused by wars that the do-nothings have tacitly supported through their inaction.
Plato said, 'the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself'. This has been paraphrased as, 'those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber'. Government must be held accountable, so it is imperative that every member of society be active in the political process. At best, the do-nothings facilitate the rise of inferior politicians; at worst, they facilitate tyranny.
The history of the world resounds with the results of successful activism by 'do-gooders'. For instance:
'all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'.
Why are the apathetic more dangerous than the perpetrator? Evil has manifested itself since time immemorial and while there are people in the world, there will be people who perpetrate it. Evil resides in the heart of humanity, so it important that we as a society ensure that evil is controlled and not given licence. The apathetic give evil licence through their silence, which in turn encourages and empowers evil-doers. Silence is complicity and the do-nothings are complicit in the worst crimes against humanity because of their inaction.
Sometimes it is easy to identify injustice and tyranny, while similarly nefarious activities masquerade in a cloak of decency, 'justified' in the name of democracy, capitalism, or God. It's almost as if the right marketing can legitimise evil, making it harder to identify the perpetrator as evil. Yet no matter how evil is presented, it is still evil and the perpetrator and the do-nothing are guilty of it.
Albert Einstein stated, 'The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it'.
These days people who speak up for the rights of others are labelled as 'do-gooders'. The term being used as an insult to imply that such people live in a Utopian fantasy world. Is it Utopian to expect that everyone is entitled to justice, respect and freedom from tyranny and evil?
The do-nothings criticise do-gooders, believing that social justice threatens their freedom. Yet, what sort of freedom allows injustice and tyranny? The apathetic criticise those who stand up for others, while doing nothing themselves to defend the victims.
The do-nothings take the 'Doris Day' approach to life: 'que sera sera - whatever will be, will be', as if they have no control over what happens in the world. This approach is for the lazy, cowardly or those who don't understand the power that they wield. Do-nothings are driven by fear and hate. They certainly don't care for others. Leo Buscaglia stated, 'I have a feeling that the opposite of love, is not hate - it's apathy. It's not giving a damn'.
Desmond Tutu once said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality'.
For centuries 'do-gooders' have campaigned against injustice in its various forms, whether it be human rights abuses, slavery, apartheid, equal rights.
What have the do-nothings achieved, other than to benefit from the actions of others? A prime example of this is those who oppose unionism while benefiting from all that unionists have achieved, such as the end of child labour, and all they continue to achieve, such as pay-rises. Many do-nothings complain about refugees coming to their country while doing nothing to end the issues that have caused the refugee crisis in the first place. In fact, many of those crises have been caused by wars that the do-nothings have tacitly supported through their inaction.
Plato said, 'the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself'. This has been paraphrased as, 'those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber'. Government must be held accountable, so it is imperative that every member of society be active in the political process. At best, the do-nothings facilitate the rise of inferior politicians; at worst, they facilitate tyranny.
The history of the world resounds with the results of successful activism by 'do-gooders'. For instance:
- workers rights achieved through left-wing agitation in the 19th and 20th centuries, bringing an end to child labour in many countries and providing workers with the 40 hour week, overtime, leave entitlements, sick-pay.
- Mahatma Gandhi undertook non-violent civil disobedience to end discrimination and racism in South Africa, British rule in India, tyranny, human rights abuses and poverty. Gandhi opposed mixing religion and politics. He also opposed the British-led partition of India which had resulted in massacres and the displacement of millions of people and worked to help the victims of this violence. India was eventually granted its independence because of the work of Gandhi and others like him. Gandhi has inspired millions of non-violent activists throughout the world.
- the suffragette movements in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in women being granted the right to vote in a number of nations, including the USA, UK and Australia and inspired women's rights movements decades later, that resulted in equal rights for women.
- civil rights movements in USA, resulting in equal rights for African-Americans.
- aboriginal rights in Australia, which resulted in indigenous people being given the right to vote, recognition of land rights and overturning the principle of 'terra nullius' (land without a people).
- the trade union movement, Solidarity, in Poland, led by Lech Walesa, resulted in the Gdansk Agreement between striking workers and the government, and eventually to free parliamentary elections that saw Lech Walesa became President of Poland.
- ending of apartheid in South Africa, resulting in freedom for 20 million indigenous South Africans and the election of prominent anti-apartheid activist, Nelson Mandela, as President of South Africa.
- the U.N. vote for Palestine on 29 November 2012 because of the agitation by millions of human rights activists world-wide, resulting in de facto recognition of Palestine after decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Israel.
- letter-writing campaigns by Amnesty International which have resulted in the release of thousands of political prisoners across the world.
- the Protestant Reformation movement led by Martin Luther, which ended the 'indulgence' system in which Christians bought their forgiveness of sin by paying the church. It also resulted in the bible being translated into local languages, rather than only in Latin. Essentially, this brought Christianity to the masses, rather than concentrating it in the hands of the Pope and priests who were using it for their own corrupt means.
- the Magna Carta which was demanded by feudal barons to limit the power of the King. This led to our modern system of Constitutional Law and various Bills of Rights.
- Jesus, a Palestinian Jew who spoke out against corruption in the temples, giving ordinary people the power to communicate directly with God rather than by paying priests for the privilege. His activism resulted in a religion dedicated to love, peace, forgiveness and caring for the poor and downtrodden.
The world will never be perfect, however this should not stop us from speaking up when we identify exploitation or tyranny in the world. It may be like putting out bush-fires, with some burning while others are being doused, however, it is better that some fires be put out than the whole world burns.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Conservative logic and foreign aid
Conservatives are very vocal about the amount of money 'wasted' on Foreign Aid, regardless of whether it is for humanitarian or developmental purposes. The logic behind this opposition is that there are needs in our own country that should be met first. So far, this logic actually has some merit. There are needs in our own country which should be met. However, the logic falls apart the moment that said Conservative opposes addressing those needs, for instance, through social security, or socialised health, housing and educational programs.
The logic develops an even greater flaw when said Conservative is more than happy to see trillions of dollars wasted on illegal and expensive wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan which have dragged on for a decade and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Additionally, the borrowing of over a trillion dollars to fund these wars has greatly contributed to the economic demise of the United States.
The logic is fatally flawed when Conservatives support providing billions of dollars to Israel to commit war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as killing and maiming civilians by attacking them with white phosphorous and depleted uranium, or continuing the construction of illegal settlements which breach the Fourth Geneva Convention, let alone the ongoing construction of the apartheid wall which imprisons Palestinians and prevents them from accessing hospitals, schools, jobs and their own farmland.
This is not logical.
Wealthier nations should be providing foreign aid AND social security to assist in making people's lives better, rather than funding the destruction of people's lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)