They stood shouting and chanting while some were being carried away - defiant souls set on standing their ground. The police and soldiers were staving off physical and emotional opposition as best they could. Some broke down, overcome by the unbearable confrontation - kinsman against kinsman; Israeli evacuating Israeli from towns in the Gaza strip.
The scenes are reminiscent of the forced evictions in South Africa by police of black and coloured people from their houses. Yet, the circumstances are very different. Here in Gaza we have Israeli police and soldiers moving out Israeli citizens from foreign territory, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. In South Africa we had mostly white police and soldiers evacuating, rather less delicately, thousands of people of non-white race from "whites only" areas within the territory of South Africa. Even so, many defiant Israelis claim to be on their land - the promised land, promised by God to their forefathers, to Abraham himself.
If one turns to a religious, Biblical, basis for the prickly debate over Gaza, then the picture becomes much more muddled than when sticking to modern, international law. According to the Christian Bible, God promised land to Abraham and his descendants. But, who were the descendents of Abraham? He had two prominent sons, Izaac by his wife Sarah and Ismael by her slave, Hagar, who became his wife when Sarah was still barren.
It is commonly accepted that the Arab nations trace their ancestry to Abraham through Ishmael and the Jews theirs through Isaac. But there the picture turns rather nasty. Religious Israel claims that Isaac was blessed by Abraham to receive his inheritance and not Ishmael, even though Ishmael was Abraham's first-born. The reason why Isaac was blessed instead lies with Sarah, who decided that Hager and Ishmael were rather too much of a domestic threat and had to be sent off into the Negev. She convinced Abraham to do so. However, legend would have it that God protected Ishmael and Hager in the desert and Ishmael had a great number of descendants, whom we today know as the Arab nations - including the Palestinians. According to Jewish theology and tradition, Isaac became the officially blessed one and through his lineage we had King David and, so it is claimed, today's Jewish people.
So, in the greater Palestine, including the state of Israel, we have a battle of brothers. That is, if one takes the religious point of view. Of course, this view makes the conflict all the sadder. One would think that brothers, even half-brothers, should at some point see the folly of their fighting and stop it all. Let's embrace, not obliterate, each other.
But, there is modern, international law to speak the last word on Gaza. We are not ruled by religion any more, but rather by secular law. At least, that is the case as far as the United Nations are concerned. According to international law and a UN resolution, Israel is illegally occupying the Gaza and West Bank regions of Palestine. Withdrawal, however painful after 30 odd years there, is the only right thing to do. Unless, of course, one gives the settlers a choice to become Palestinian citizens, once Gaza becomes a fully independent part of the Palestinian state, and let them stay.
The option to stay were followed in South West Africa (Namibia), which took independence from South Africa in 1990, after many years of international pressure as well as a bloody anti-insurgency war fought at the north of the then South West Africa. At the end of World War I, South Africa received Deutsch West Afrika as a protectorate under the Treaty of Versailles. The region were promptly renamed to South West Africa. However, in 1969, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that revoked South Africa's rights to South West Africa and called for immediate withdrawal of South African governance and troops. After many years of pressure and eventual sanctions, South Africa did comply. On 21 March 1990 its citizens, born in South West Africa, became Namibian citizens at the stroke of a political pen. The circumstances are legally similar in Gaza. Yet, the Sharon government has chosen to evacuate its citizens at great emotional and financial cost.
One can only wonder if Palestinians would have accepted Jews as Palestinian citizens and if Jews would have accepted Palestinian rule in Gaza, were the settlers to stay. Perhaps then, the brothers would have found each other again and laid to peace their bitter differences. Alas, as is often the case, it is better for brothers each to have his own kingdom to rule over.
18 August 2005
14 August 2005
Hideous
The author is aghast, dismayed and bemused. And all these emotions are aimed at British Airways. It has been reported in The Times that BA had the impertinent insolence to let an undisclosed number of their flights depart with empty First Class and Business Class seats - that while 600 passengers were still stranded after the hideous experience of total service disruption of BA flights that started last Thursday and ended this Sunday - except for the 600 stranded travellers. The least these poor travellers deserved was to be pampered with an upgrade to Business Class or First Class. BA's high-handed response was that it is BA policy to keep passengers in the class of their ticket. What do you know - class is well and alive in Britain, now is it not? Just, in case some of us have forgotten that little detail, BA makes a quick point of reminding us. One would have thought that after the public relations fiasco of the past few day's BA would have at least had the common sense to do the right thing. Well, let them bleed.
Once upon a time, the author had great respect for BA, even preference. This weekend, that time has passed.
Shame on you, British Airways.
Once upon a time, the author had great respect for BA, even preference. This weekend, that time has passed.
Shame on you, British Airways.
09 August 2005
In the name of security
On the 5 August, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced his tough stance on terrorism. In his speech he was quite adamant about the new, bigger hammer that he intended to raise at the bigger problem of terrorism. Amongst the things he proposed, was a new act declaring illegal any justification of terrorism. Now the question that springs to mind is exactly what would be judged as justification of terrorism? Would broadening of the understanding for the motives behind modern-day terrorism be regarded as justification in some implicit manner - enough to trigger the wrath of the already agitated British Prime Minister?
It should be rather clear from the earlier postings on this WebLog that yours truly sincerely believes the bigger hammer will not solve the bigger problem as the Prime Minister apparently believes and hopes it would. In fact, I am of the conviction that actually attempting to understand the motives of the Islamic terrorist in particular is worth the while in terms of potential avoidance of senseless death and destruction in the future. Would such a view make me a target of Mr Blair's ire?
For one, to argue that lending an ear in a sincere attempt to understand is equal to justification of terrorism or at the least, falling into the intellectual trap of extremism, is as illogical as to argue that having a serious chat with a delinquent is tantamount to condoning his misendeavours. The saying goes that if the shoe fits, wear it. So, am I and others who share the same sentiments on the approach to potential terrorists at risk of wearing Mr Blair's shoe of punishable misconduct under his newly proposed anti-terrorism legislation? I am afraid not.
In fact, I am even more afraid that Mr Blair has turned towards the spiral of coercion of state violence. This spiral starts very subtly indeed, like a worm-hole. In London, state violence started rather abruptly with the shooting by the police of an innocent Brazilian. Normally, it begins with the special curbing of human rights - of course always only temporarily, with the inevitable option to extend. Restriction of public expression is one - Mr Blair is proposing such, of course very qualified, restrictions. Control powers put one steadily on course for the accelerated section of the worm-hole. Mr Blair is also proposing those.
So, perhaps I'll escape Mr Blair's ire but become the laughing stock of his likes for being one of the bleeding hearts who is in constant need of rescue from imminent disaster by the brave and brash that fight his military battles for him. To those I say: Who started the war in the first place? Neither I nor the likes of me, now did I?
Right, Mr Blair would like those of us, who make an attempt to understand, to believe that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian issue, or America's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No, if we were to believe Mr Blair, Islamic terrorists just like to blow up things, including themselves, mind you. Well, there is one simplistic world view from an eminent leader of a respectable Western nation.
Since the age of five, I have denounced the existence of Santa Claus, of my own accord. In similar vein, I reject Mr Blair's view of what motivates Islamic terrorists. Before 1948, when Israel unilaterally declared independence after Britain's blunderous exit from the Palistinian region, the level of Arab terrorism was almost negligible compared to what we have had since 1990. Between 1948 and 1990, there was a marked escalation of Islamic terrorism.
Unless the West sincerely sit down and listen to the objections and demands of Islamic voices, including extremists, we are not going to see the end of the spiral of violence. Violence breeds violence. The bigger hammer causes a bigger problem in this case; it does not solve the current problem.
"The promotion and protection of human rights is central to an effective strategy to counter terrorism. Inherent in this statement are two important and inter-related dimensions. Firstly, the need to ensure that measures designed to combat terrorism do not impermissibly limit human rights and fundamental freedoms and, secondly, the recognition that terrorism puts under threat the full enjoyment of civil liberties and human rights." [Human Rights and the Anti-terrorism Bill]
Terrorism destroys and therefore must be condemned. But the plight behind the acts of terrorism always deserves an ear. Greater understanding brings us closer to solutions. Let's stop shouting and start listening. We owe it to the victims on both sides and to our children.
True courage is not found in overwhelming firepower, but rather in humility. But then, Mr Blair and Mr Bush for that matter, should know this - they both claim to be Christians.
It should be rather clear from the earlier postings on this WebLog that yours truly sincerely believes the bigger hammer will not solve the bigger problem as the Prime Minister apparently believes and hopes it would. In fact, I am of the conviction that actually attempting to understand the motives of the Islamic terrorist in particular is worth the while in terms of potential avoidance of senseless death and destruction in the future. Would such a view make me a target of Mr Blair's ire?
For one, to argue that lending an ear in a sincere attempt to understand is equal to justification of terrorism or at the least, falling into the intellectual trap of extremism, is as illogical as to argue that having a serious chat with a delinquent is tantamount to condoning his misendeavours. The saying goes that if the shoe fits, wear it. So, am I and others who share the same sentiments on the approach to potential terrorists at risk of wearing Mr Blair's shoe of punishable misconduct under his newly proposed anti-terrorism legislation? I am afraid not.
In fact, I am even more afraid that Mr Blair has turned towards the spiral of coercion of state violence. This spiral starts very subtly indeed, like a worm-hole. In London, state violence started rather abruptly with the shooting by the police of an innocent Brazilian. Normally, it begins with the special curbing of human rights - of course always only temporarily, with the inevitable option to extend. Restriction of public expression is one - Mr Blair is proposing such, of course very qualified, restrictions. Control powers put one steadily on course for the accelerated section of the worm-hole. Mr Blair is also proposing those.
So, perhaps I'll escape Mr Blair's ire but become the laughing stock of his likes for being one of the bleeding hearts who is in constant need of rescue from imminent disaster by the brave and brash that fight his military battles for him. To those I say: Who started the war in the first place? Neither I nor the likes of me, now did I?
Right, Mr Blair would like those of us, who make an attempt to understand, to believe that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian issue, or America's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No, if we were to believe Mr Blair, Islamic terrorists just like to blow up things, including themselves, mind you. Well, there is one simplistic world view from an eminent leader of a respectable Western nation.
Since the age of five, I have denounced the existence of Santa Claus, of my own accord. In similar vein, I reject Mr Blair's view of what motivates Islamic terrorists. Before 1948, when Israel unilaterally declared independence after Britain's blunderous exit from the Palistinian region, the level of Arab terrorism was almost negligible compared to what we have had since 1990. Between 1948 and 1990, there was a marked escalation of Islamic terrorism.
Unless the West sincerely sit down and listen to the objections and demands of Islamic voices, including extremists, we are not going to see the end of the spiral of violence. Violence breeds violence. The bigger hammer causes a bigger problem in this case; it does not solve the current problem.
"The promotion and protection of human rights is central to an effective strategy to counter terrorism. Inherent in this statement are two important and inter-related dimensions. Firstly, the need to ensure that measures designed to combat terrorism do not impermissibly limit human rights and fundamental freedoms and, secondly, the recognition that terrorism puts under threat the full enjoyment of civil liberties and human rights." [Human Rights and the Anti-terrorism Bill]
Terrorism destroys and therefore must be condemned. But the plight behind the acts of terrorism always deserves an ear. Greater understanding brings us closer to solutions. Let's stop shouting and start listening. We owe it to the victims on both sides and to our children.
True courage is not found in overwhelming firepower, but rather in humility. But then, Mr Blair and Mr Bush for that matter, should know this - they both claim to be Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)