So, you're not voting: Voting and Civil Disobedience cont.

So, you're not voting.

You don't think your vote will matter.
You don't trust government.
Picking the lesser of two evils is still evil.
You don't like either candidate.
You are an Independent, not a R or a D.


What are you waiting for?

You will leave it to the majority?
Others to "remedy the evil"?
Are you "content to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it?"

If you think you are being cheated out of your vote,
are you content to simply say so, and do nothing?

You are not going to vote for anyone?

"How far can private feelings go without affecting public good?"

Voting is a right. It is a vital tool for the people, not a demand from the government.  In fact, some self-interested faction will be more than happy that you don't vote, it gives you less power.


Are we a nation with a conscience?

"The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue."

The public has all but forgotten Public Virtue, and has been plagued with apathy for some decades. 

How damaged is our democratic republic that only about 5% of our population choose our candidates? that barely 40% of people vote in midterm elections, and in general elections we're lucky if 60% of voting age citizens do?

Thoreau scolded those,

 "who were more interested in... (fill in the blank)...than humanity; and those who are not prepared to do justice to... (fill in the blank) ...cost what it may."

Can we justly weigh right and wrong?  

"All voting is a kind of gaming with a moral component," a questioning of right and wrong.

It is not a matter of who you like better, it is a matter of protecting justice.


Can your vote matter?

Thoreau lamented that he could not end slavery with his vote.

He said that, "voting for the right is doing nothing for it."

If there weren't such a huge difference between Repubs and Dems, I may agree more with those who choose not to vote, but there is a HUGE difference between them, and one party is much more likely to protect US citizens equally.

He was asking people, a person, any one to raise their consciousness to defeat slavery saying that one good person can leaven a whole bunch. Citizens in Thoreau's time were two steps ahead of us, because they understood responsibility and respect (which, it seems self-evident, are per-requisites to raising ones consciousness).

We have a responsibility, not to a party or a president, but to each other and for ourselves...to protect, at the very least, our system of governance- the best elected officials available; and at the very most, our collective freedom and safety.

We must respect the ideal of freedom and the inherent requirement of equality under the law. At the very least this allows us to fight for our own freedom and equality and at the most it allows us to fight for all others.

Thoreau did not see a pathway to make any difference with his vote...here, we are many steps ahead of Thoreau's time. Since his time, blacks, women and teenagers have all gained the right to vote. More people than ever have an effective tool-our vote- to affect the outcomes of the War on Terror and the growing need for civil equality under the law.

Thoreau says, "don't cast your vote merely..."

and I have the need to say,

"Merely cast a vote!"

Thoreau quotes Confucius in Civil Disobedience, saying,

 "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame."

Can we reflect on our nation, our culture, and our leaders?

I will add a quote from Confucius,

“By three methods we may learn wisdom:
first, by reflection which is noblest;
second, by imitation, which is the easiest;
and third, by experience, which is the bitterest.”

The grand opportunity everyone has on Nov. 4th is to:

Do the very least- vote

To ensure the very most -equality and justice for all.

"The progress from tyranny to democracy is the porgress toward true respect for the individual."

We are always working toward a more perfect union, where all men and women are treated justly with respect.

Do not be, "biased by obstinancy," but, "do only what belongs (to you) and to the hour."

Vote!

 

 

"It is truly enough said that a corporation State has no conscience; but a corporation State of conscientious men is a corporation State with a conscience" 

 

 

Make a great day...and get ready to VOTE!

-Kathryn 

Reflecting on Civil Disobedience

I recently posted an article with 50 reasons to vote,

#21-“A wise man will not leave what is right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” – Thoreau

Boy did I get it for that one.

"# 18. “The ballot is stronger than the bullet.” - Abraham Lincoln"

 They are both pretty ironic.  ...how bout

"# 39. To ensure representatives who are:

“…the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” – James Madison, Federalist #10"

There is a tragic sense of irony when comparing our current state of patriotism and values to that of the people who were high on the sense of accomplishment that came by freeing themselves.

If we had to, could we free ourselves now?

Do you have the constitution to stand up for those who suffer injustice?

Would we have the sense to ponder the right questions and act on the right answers?

Let us take another look at Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and critique it, a bit from his own time, but mainly from our present culture. 

First, Thoreau's objects of political discontent were aimed mainly at slavery and the US/Mexican War, which he saw as an oppressive occupation.

At first glance do we have situations to compare this to?  I argue that we can still see the specter of slavery as racism, and that the specter of imperialism that haunts us can be seen in SAP's (structural adjustment policies attached to IMF and WB loan programs), a pattern of regime change as a foreign policy and our dogmatic loyalty toward the state of Israel.  

His sentiments were this:  

One is a man first, with capabilities of  knowing right from wrong.

People should be made of a sturdy character, able to stand up for 'the right thing.'

If men are moral and just, there is no need for government.

If a government is unjust, it is the duty of people to practice civil disobedience.

Let's take it from the top of Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau (1849):  


Thoreau starts with a famous saying,

"Gov't is best which governs least" and takes it to the extreme saying,

"Gov't is best which is not at all."

His meaning is not that we should not have a government, but an idealistic belief that ALL men can exercise a sense of moral justice and righteousness, and when ALL men can do this IN UNISON, under the banner of peace and love, people will need no gov't.

Of course, people don't act this way, and it is unrealistic to imagine such a thing happening.

So, Thoreau explains a line over which we should not cross one another- a limit to freedom that is informed by some innate 'knowing' between right and wrong.

Maybe this is the same thing as Justice Ginsberg saying that freedom and justice are knowing where one's arm ends and another's nose begins; or the same line called injustice, talked about by Simone Weil, that starts the moment someone says, "They are hurting me."

Thoreau posits that sometimes there is an immediate need to voice opposition to some unjust action being robotically, methodologically, taken out by a government- a gov't out of control, acting on autopilot as a function of our republic governance.

Thoreau does not blame this mire on leaders not responding to the will of the people, but rather, on their self-interested actions with which they lead the country.

He blamed the Mexican War on,

"...comparatively few individuals using the standing government as their tool."

Thoreau blames the those who profit from slavery for keeping it alive by abiding by rules that returned slaves to their owners, even if they had escaped to the north.  He blames a self interested faction and the masses who are too easily goaded. 

This point was addressed more than half a century earlier in Madison's Federalist #10, which I quoted in the recent post, On Being a Republic, 

Madison wrote: ...to prevent tyranny of the masses or factions...

"It may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

In any case, the prescription for both is enshrined in 'the people' or even 'a person' who is of free will and free mind to make expectations known and stand up against the immoral actions of their own government- whether caused by mass acceptance or a small faction of people.

There were two main instances Thoreau showed his discontent, or disobedience: by refusing the church tax and the poll tax.

Could you imagine being taxed by the Church today?  In fact there is a growing voice of some citizens calling for the Church TO pay a tax, because they are becoming too involved in government.  The church doesn't tax us today, but they are crossing the lines, arm and arm with the Republican party, between a personal sanctuary and a voice raised for a theocracy. 

Should we pay any allegiance to a political authority claiming their G-d comes before the law? or that just laws can only be deciphered by their G-d?  Of course not.

New conservatives are increasingly equating their G-d with a singular morality, and accusing those who do not believe in their G-d as, well, you try and make sense of it.

Listen to Thoreau's argument for why the tyranny of his gov't had reached a critical point of inefficiency, which was great and unendurable:

"...when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.  What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army."

And he goes on to say,

"There are thousands who are in the opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both."

 Thoreau delineates the line of resistance again, he says that if a law "requires you to be the agent of injustice to another" then disobey the law, "at once."  His belief being that reform through normal channels is too slow, possibly lasting more than a man's life.

Hear! Hear!

Certainly for those instances in which our government, by habit, or by corruption become the harbinger of injustice, incremental debate CAN take a lifetime, think of the rights of any man or woman, even our country's founders.  How many lifetimes is it taking for minorities to gain the right to vote, or to be treated equally, as our constitution declares is the natural right of men.

In considering the quote from Civil Disobedience, which I included in my 50 reasons to vote,

 #21-“A wise man will not leave what is right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” 

I argue that, though Thoreau is, in context, lamenting the ineffectiveness of a vote in the face of an injustice not affected by the vote, he is not appealing to the people to NOT VOTE, he instead says,

"Cast your whole vote.  Not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence."

Thoreau talks about a vote against slavery not counting until the one who cannot cast it does...well we have already come a long way since the mid 1800's in that regard...the voting rolls are not only propertied white men anymore.

He also laments,

"No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America." 

...but there was one coming...

Those propertied white men fought their own battle to be free, as did slaves, women, and 'others' afterward, all upon the promise of liberty and equality...and the battle continues still.  

next time:  More on voting and civil disobedience.  

Make a great day! 
Kathryn


extra: a tale of racism from my neck of the woods...


and it just so happens, Israel's Netanyahu pulls some more doublespeak propaganda just today: 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/netanyahu-us-criticism-israeli-settlements-against-american-values/



















 

...on parties

What about parties?

Parties are nowhere in the constitution, and the fear Madison had about small factions is what our current two party system brings us.

Madison envisioned a 'variety' of parties,

"Does (the proposed federal constitution) consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority?"  

President Washington, among others, warned of what is happening now, because of the vengence inherit in 'the spirit of parties':

 "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Ah, the glory of centuries old men...we can't go back, we must go forward.

I think the populace has an inkling of Washington's notion.  Only 25% of the population describe themselves as Republican and only 31% Democrat.  47% of Americans identify themselves as independent.

So, where does this leave our political system, which has been institutionalized within the Republican and Democratic parties?

Parties are set up with local, state and national chapters.  They choose who runs for office, manage and finance campaigns and develop positions and policies that all of the US are forced to choose from.

Why do we use the two party system, even though it is not part of our constitution and even though we were warned of the dangers we now face?

"...because, it works."  Said Ann Lewis, the head of Dems in the 1980s on a panel for Columbia U.  "Because it has been successful." Said another on the panel.

Parties are not in the constitution, but have evolved out of need, said another.

However, all the panel agree that the electoral college, the seemingly arbitrary delegates and electors, institutionalized within parties are cause for worry.  "A disaster waiting to happen?" they are asked...most agree-Yes.

The threat they point to is the ability of parties to control who is selected as candidates apart from public votes, or to decide the outcome of pres. elections apart from public votes.  The only assurance they wont? ...a sense of good ol justice...the hope and faith that delegates and electors will do the right thing.

Are you laughing or crying?

There are independent candidates and third parties.  However, unless the views or members of these parties are co-opted by Dems or Repubs, they don't go very far.

The power structure of our political system definitively lies within political parties, and the structure systemically keeps non-traditional leaders out.  According to Kira Sambonmatsu, the 'old boys club' keeps outsiders out, because those in power support those in their network (i.e. golfing buddies), and push their friends to the top above others.  This old boys club system is in dire need of retirement.

...and maybe it is on its way.

Parties are no longer a need, but a threat, disenfranchising voters and pitting US citizens against each other.

Parties are no longer successful, as more individuals are empowered with the freedom to vote (minorities and women), but choose not to join a party.


Check out the campaign being run by the Independent Voter Project, who seek to bring top two voting to the US, and end partisan primaries. 

Similar electoral reforms have been successful in CA and will be voted on in Oregon in November.

If one considers that only 25% of US citizens identify as Republican and 31% Dem, and then factor in that less than 20% of eligible voters showed up to vote in 2012 primaries (one of the lowest ever)- about 5% of US citizens choose who we are voting for. 

Outliers have been successful in the past.  Most notably, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Angus King from Maine (though I can't say I would support this bunch...I had never heard of King before researching this post, but I would not vote for the other three...no way.)

Keep a lookout this year and in coming years for a shift in the way the US votes, and the persuasion of those who are running.

The most touching reason to vote that I've come across lately is- Hope.

On being a Republic

I have had some people say to me...

"We don't live in a democracy!  We live in a Republic!"  

 Yeah, we live in a Democratic Republic.

"Democratic Republic- a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." source

But, wouldn't it be better if everyone directly voted on where tax dollars go, new laws, and when to go to war?

No.  No it wouldn't.

Adopting a direct democracy would be akin to governing by polls.  I've ranted about this before. 

Leaders don't lead through polls...or they shouldn't.

The main reason that we have a republic, as framed by James Madison in the Federalist paper #10: ' to prevent instability, injustice and faction'

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

1.) To prevent tyranny of the masses or factions.

"It may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

2.) a natural organizational factor of having a democracy with over 300,000,000 people.  It is natural to elect representatives.  The process of funneling individual points of views through an elector is to 'refine and enlarge the public view.'

Madison explains how our bicameral congress balances local community interest with regional community interest:

"By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."

3.)  Individuals are not often afforded the knowledge to make well informed decisions, so we presumably elect those who can make those decisions for us. 

Americans, notoriously, are under educated in political matters.



There are a few assumptions Madison makes, extreme considerations about the threat of tyranny...that is- if tyranny of the masses or tyranny of factions succeed with their

'vicious,' 'unjust,' 'oppressive,' 'prejudiced,' 'corrupt,' 'sinister,' 'wicked,' 'mischievous,' 'passionate,' 'violent,'

schemes, in "which one party may...disregard(ing) the rights of another or the good of the whole." 

His assumptions may have been true in his day, but are these assumptions true today??

1.)  Representatives, chosen by a large number, are checked by the scrutiny of many people, guarding against, 'unworthy candidates' and the 'vicious arts' of politics.

2.)  'People will choose the most attractive merit and established characters.'

3.)  That representatives will be,

"the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

4.)  Extending the sphere of representation will lead to more parties.

" Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."

Next post:  What about Parties?

A Modern Courting Guide

I was going to write about 'Being a Republic' today, but...

Let's talk about something more intrinsic to the happiness and freedom of a human being- Love.

Specifically, how will we talk to our children about love, sex and relationships?


Sometimes I remark that 'hippies ruined everything', generally when referencing our hedonistic culture. 

Now, I know, I know- that the hippie generation made much progress- important progress, like environmental legislation, civil rights for minorities and equality for woman.  (Though, I reserve, there may be a distinction between people who were active in the movements, and who were free riders.)

The sexual revolution was a triumph over biology, letting women schedule or even refrain from having babies.  Very important on so many levels. 

Unfortunately, what was also lost were the protections to human relationships that societal structures like courting upheld.

I have two kids, a 4 year old boy and a 2 year old girl.  I will be teaching them abstinence and courting.  Not The Duggers kind of courting, but a more modern kind... a simple, empowering guide. 

Re-introducing a modern tradition of courting in society might result in stronger, longer friendships, a more civil society and an increase in lovers being matched more harmoniously.

So, what is this courting I am talking about?


1.)  Flirt with a purpose.

Showing interest in someone is a very personal, intimate move.  Flirting indicates a first move.  Once it is made, there is expectation, anxiety and questioning.  Flirting can go somewhere, or nowhere, but either way there will be an intimate process involved. 

The human heart is not something to play games with.  Showing interest carries a heavy responsibility
to be respectful and sensitive about the others integrity and emotions.  In fact, showing respect and care should be a top quality of a mate.   

2.)  Test social compatibility

Once one is committed to moving into a more intimate world with another- it's time to test.  Can the two
have fun and respect each others actions in social settings?
 
Specifically, I will be encouraging my kids to spend group time at places that encourage  interaction and
discussion.  

3.)  Test personal compatibility

If the two can get through a group setting with respect and admiration for the other person, the next step
is one on one time.

Again, I will recommend to my kids to have one on one time in a place that
encourages openness and personal interaction.

Step 3 is where the first kiss might take place.  

If two can get through these first three stages- it's off to the races!  Have fun any way that calls...except...

4.) Sensual contact 
 
The more sensual contact a pair has, the more they are under the spell of powerful chemicals meant to bond a couple.

If step four comes before 1-3, a couple may find themselves battling the confusing 'feelings' of
attachment, while 'knowing' that something just isn't right.

Oh well!  The drugs of sex- serotonin, oxytocin and amphetamines will take care of that little unhappiness.  For how long?  ?????

I have no problem talking to my kids about sex.  I prefer them to be well informed, embarrassment be  damned.   It is the mystery of love, the fairy tale of love, the 'not knowing how to do it' that can be the dark space that our kids jump through when they finally make the decision to have sex.  I want to illuminate that moment for them as much as I can, though there will always be a mystery. 

So what of sensual contact?  I don't believe my kids will refrain from sensuality, so I will offer them guidelines.  Kissing is great!  Kiss kiss kiss!  Making out is fine too.

5.)  Multiple partners

I don't want my kids getting stuck in the emotional trappings of some one's obsession.  I want my kids to feel in control of their bodies, their emotions and their love lives. 

If the guidelines are adhered to above, there will be nothing too engaging to prevent a little love adve;nture with many persons in the same time frame. There is no claim being made.  There is no expectation of sex (which itself seems to lend itself as a contract of bondage). 

Courting is the practice of setting boundaries for oneself and for others in reference to ones self.  

A modern tradition of courting can be the foundation for a community of people who understand freedom through respect, love and individual liberty. 

The pros:

More fooling around, more partners (this I think will be a great motivator)

Self-respect, self-knowledge, practicing self-restraint

Engaging those we connect with the most in a respectful inquiry of deepening friendship- without the destructive process of emotionally and physically divorcing the person after casual sex.
 
Possibly better matched couples through a careful search among thousands of options. 

The con:

Less sex

When to have sex

I don't know!  That's a personal decision.  The guide above gives enough practice in self awareness, that if they are carried through, give me the confidence to allow my kids deal with that moment privately, themselves, as it should be.


 Some advice from the oldest sex therapist.  -"we need connection beyond sex."

Terror from the Middle East

Let us recap up to 1967 for a sec...

1.) Colonialism is in decline, but not exactly history yet

2.)  Britain tries to recede from the ME, but is still caught up in colonial treasures like the Suez Canal in Egypt and oil interests all over the ME.

3.)  Israels Zionist movement has succeeded in creating a Jewish state, and in 1950 claimed Jerusalem as their capital against the will of other ME actors, and without any diplomatic finessing of the Palestinians who owned and lived on the land. 

4.) Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced, many were massacred, and by 1967 all were in refugee, occupation camps or under the discriminating eye of Israeli leaders in the the state of Israel.

Now let us define terrorism:  

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Why use terrorism as a tactic?

When people have no way to address grievances, when people are threatened by a larger force that they cannot legitimately fight back against, the only tool is terrorism.

Groups in the ME had no way to protect themselves from a new aggressive neighbor.  Military strengths were not matched, there was no sympathetic ear in the international community, and for Palestinians no legitimate path to address their grievances---this is why they chose terror.

Also, as a people without a state, any violence they create is considered an act of terror.  If the Palestinians would have had a state they could have legally fought against Israeli occupation and defense issues. 

1968...
20 years after a Jewish state is established by the international community and  
hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced without representation.  

The first legitimate organization of the Palestinians is created.  The PLO, or Palestinian Liberation Organization vows to fight Israel and purports that Israel is not a legal nation state.

Excerpts from The Palestinian National Charter 1968...

" The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination."

"Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland."

 "The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle."

"The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support."

 "The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.

1972...   
5 years after Israeli's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights
22 years after Israel declared Jerusalem their own capital- against 
     international agreement and opinion. 
24 years since the state of Israel was declared by the UN
54 years after the Zionist National Congress starting emigrating to Palestine

The terrorist group, Black September, took and killed 11 Israeli hostages at the Munich Olympics.  The act was named 'Iqrit Bir'im' after two Christian villages taken and destroyed by Israeli forces in 1948.

The month of the Black September: The PLO and its factions vs. Jordon 

The group Black September was named after the month of conflict between the PLO, Palestinian factions and Jordon.  The number Palestinian refugees in Jordon was comparable to the number of proper Jordon citizens, and the refugee camps were, in effect, a state within a state.  The PLO was based out of their refugee camps in Jordon.

PLO military operations with Israel threatened Jordan's security (they could not defend themselves against Israeli retaliation), the leadership in Jordan became an enemy of the PLO.

September of 1970 was rife with fighting and death for Jordan and the Palestinians.  Jordon ousted the PLO that year, and they moved to Lebanon.

The presence of Palestinians in Lebanon added to tensions between Christians and non-Christians in the Lebanese civil war and later in 1978 led to conflict between Lebanon and Israel.

In 1981 Egypt's Anwar Sadat, who was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for peace negotiations with Israel, was assassinated.   

Assassinations between Syria and Lebanon have been riddled with tension between support for terrorist organizations that vow to protect the Palestinian  cause (Syria) and those who are moving forward, looking toward the West and ignoring the 'Palestinian refugee problem' (Lebanon). 

Why were Palestinians targeting other ME leaders?

The PLO was created by the Arab League for the purpose of defending Palestine and defeating Zionism.  According the Arab Leagues founding documents all Arab nations including, TransJordon, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria were supposed to back each other against outside interests that threaten independence and sovereignty in the newly created ME states. ME states quickly came to find that fighting with Israel was against their interests, not just because they would have to engage in war with Israel, but because the US, in particular, pressured nations to favor the West instead of their own agreements.

Cowing to extra-national interests outside of the Arab League was against the League's agreement   Many wars, assassinations and terrorist activities can be traced back to this issue of Israel and Palestine.

Such actions whittled away at what could have been a strong economic and cultural alliance.

Reflecting on now and the future

I can't help but wonder what fruits we would have from the Middle East if the specter of colonialism had not continued into the 20th and 21st centuries with the Israel/Palestine conflict.  

The zeal of the forces loyal to the defense of Palestine are at once rooted in a sense of justice and terror.

The road has been long, and the past has been muddied.  As acts of violence are stacked upon acts of violence, it is almost impossible to see a just impetus for the hatred that gushes out of Arab lands for the West and western allies.

Yet we must see.  If we want to tackle the ubiquitous threat of terrorism in the ME, we must see that there has been a grave injustice done to a people- the people of Palestine.

If the Palestinians had garnered support from religious and freedom seeking allies, as they had expected, in the beginning of their struggle, the Palestinian's grievance would have been clear.

However, the persistent ignorance and ignoring of the 'Palestinian problem' has led a people who were prepared to fight for a just cause to a mixture of people who: want to fight for justice; people who can manipulate the cause for power and use violence as a mean of intimidation and coercion; and people who simply kill out of a sense of desperation, helplessness and vengeance.  

The further we get from the truth, the more impossible it is to sort out the trouble with just causes and solutions... once the Palestinians are 'gone', as in, completely subdued into second class citizenship in other countries or killed- the Palestinians will have nothing to gain but vengeance.  They will keep fighting, as the sore that has been ripped in their histories, their families, their dignity and their souls burns and burns for generations to come.

If the world cannot address the 'Palestinian problem' while there is still a just solution (recognition of crimes, reparations, an international Jerusalem and sovereign Palestinian state)...how will we quell the system of terrorism the 'Palestinian problem' has spawned? 

As bad, the example we set in not condemning the illiberal actions of our greatest ally, Israel, is....well, an illiberal one...as in we give credence to militarism, might makes right, and the subjugation of 'others' for the special privileges of the elite.

Also, we have followed suit in violating international law, with our unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and the surge of illiberal policies (especially the Patriot Act) and attitudes (anti-civil rights/theocratic) that flowed from US government and progressive movement of conservatives to the right after 9-11.

Is there a point of no return on the ME and the US?  When will it be too late to change course onto a new path of reflection and mediation of  future civic and civil disasters?



Next week:  On being a Republic

Make a great day.
Kathryn

Interesting articles I came across:

Interview with Saudi ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan about Bin Laden and 9-11

Story of Iqrit and Bi'rim citizens still looking forward to returning home.  













 

Israel, Terrorism- The Six Day War

What were you doing the summer of 1967?


This is what was happening to Palestinians:

"Israel established a military administration to govern the Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Under this arrangement, Palestinians were denied many basic political rights and civil liberties, including freedoms of expression, the press and political association. Palestinian nationalism was criminalized as a threat to Israeli security, which meant that even displaying the Palestinian national colors was a punishable act. All aspects of Palestinian life were regulated, and often severely restricted. Even something as innocuous as the gathering of wild thyme (za‘tar), a basic element of Palestinian cuisine, was outlawed by Israeli military orders." Source

1967 was the year of the Six Day War, fertilized by an arms race between  Israel and Egypt and competition in the region over water resources and freedom of navigation.  

As I have mentioned in posts earlier this week, clashes between Zionist immigrants and native Palestinians had been happening a bit since the immigration of Zionists in the early 1900's.  The worst clash happened during the Arab Revolt against British colonialism and Zionist immigration in 1939, in which over 5,000 Arabs died against Israeli and British forces.

The same year Britain abandoned it support for Israel in the MacDonald White Paper, and supported an independent authority for Palestine.

Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs dates intensification of terrorist attacks starting in 1952, four years after the war of Israeli Independence or to Arabs, The Catastrophe, created over 700,000 refugees.

There are now about 5 million Palestinian refugees, the largest refugee population in the world, mostly from the Wars in 1948 and 1967.

The Suez Crisis
In 1954 Britain released the Suez Canal to Egypt as part of Egypt's independence.  Egypt promised to compensate owners and allow all access to the canal.  In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and closed the canal to Israel.  Egypt's actions prompted a Military response from Israel, Britian and France.  Britain and France had been owners of the canal as part of their course in colonialism.   

Israel was successful in capturing the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and receded from Sinai a year later. 

Pressure from Russia and the US ended the war.

It is noteworthy that this war is considered one "the single most important event in the history of African independence" because it gave hope to many Africans for resistance to British and French colonialism.

It also set the scene for The Six Days War.  

The Six Day War
Egypt militarizes Sinai, and closes the Straits of Tiran to Israel.

There were a couple of issues that combined to bring Egypt, Syria and Jordon,  once more, against Israel.  

According to MERIP, the Soviet Union is responsible for providing false information to Syria about Israel building up forces on the Syrian border.  According to this source, Syria requested assistance from Egypt, which is why Egypt starting building up forces in the Sinai Pinisula.

There was also a water issue over the Jordon river basin, which started in 1964, and came to a head in 1967 as Israel attacked Syria and Jordon's Headwater diversion plan, aimed at diverting water before it reached Israel's National Water Carrier System meant for the coastal plains and Negev Desert.  

In any case, as forces built up around Israel, it made a pre-emptive strike on Egypt's air force.  The pre-emptive strike proved successful and Israel 'won' the war.

Israel took the Palestinian territories previously held by the Arab states (since the 1948 wars) and the Sinai Peninsula as spoils of war (not fashionable after WWI).

The International community requires Israel to release the land and return to it's previous 1967 borders with UN Resolution 242.  Israel does not comply.


Map from Wiki


Terrorism increases as Palestinians are denied land and rights
Terrorism from Palestinians increased as:

Israel took over more land;
more Palestinians became refugees with no representation or right to a home;
and Palestinian homes and land were confiscated.  

Some lands have been and are given to Jewish developers and the Jewish National Fund, which stipulates land can only be bought and used by Jewish people and not Arabs- even Israeli Arabs.



The Situation as I see it so far...

There are structural causes for these conflicts.
The main structure is colonialist ideology.

1. Israel's plan for the area of Palestine has always been colonial.

2. Britain and French influences were being voluntarily and forcefully dismantled as the acceptance of colonialism waned. 

The above points 1 and 2 conflict, and this is an interesting conflict that continues to this day.

Whereas colonial influences leave the Arab world, and Israel enters copying colonial patterns. 

The colonial patterns Israel uses are losing popularity and authority worldwide just as Israel starts its mission.  

3.  Britain left Palestine with no official state in existence.

The specter of colonialism left Arab nations to occupy Palestinian territories in 1948.  Israel gained statehood through the UN in 1949, but there was no ratification for a state of Palestine.

As Palestinians had no voice, and were occupied by other Arab states, Israel had no Palestinian leader to negotiate with and instead acted as a colonial power negotiating with other colonial powers- all without regard to the plight or rights of self-determination of Palestinians. 

Another structure is Zionism

This is the ideology carried out by Israeli authorities which believes:

1.  G-d gave the land to Jewish people, and their mission is to create a wholly Jewish state.

This ideology has driven policies to occupy and develop all the land they can as their advantage allows, which has:

     Prevented Israel from conceding Jerusalem as an international (as originally envisioned) or as a shared
     city  (as part of a two state solution...and a sticking point for Arabs);

     Encouraged war crimes by a compelling spirit to take land

2.  'Others' are less than the Jewish people. 

This has led to anti-civil rights policies carried out by the state of Israel including:

Restriction of land to only Jewish people
Different gov'ts for Jewish and minority peoples
Different schools for Jewish and minority peoples
Imprisonment of millions of Palestinians whose movements are restricted inside camps
Official imprisonment of 1 in 4 Palestinian men, or over one million people imprisoned in Israeli jails.
Indiscriminate killing of Arabs in the state of Israel and the camps.  
Admonition of the entire world and UN concerning human/civil rights violations

As Israel took over 'protectorship' of Palestinians, they were denied free movement, freedom of association and many other basic civil and human rights.  

Refugee populations are mostly in Egypt, Syria, Jordon and Lebanon, and have spurred many more wars in the larger ME and also terrorist attacks on the Western allies.


The first case of a suicide bomber surfaced in 1993. 


More on this in coming posts...

Make a great day.

-Kathryn