Minority report

Since the notorious Kinsey Report of the 1950's, it has been accepted that roughly 5% to 7% of humans are homosexual. Further, the report suggested that up to 37% of males have homo-erotic experiences. The question immediately arises: How is homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom, with which humans share a significant section of our genome?

Observation of homosexuality in animals was recorded as far back as 200 years ago. However, because of the controversy, the social order of the day enforced censorship on these findings. In a word, the topic became the science that dares not speak its name.

Today, some enlightenment is dawning upon Mankind in the area of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Consequently, the study of animal homosexual behaviour has again been rekindled and the results are quite staggering to say the least.

In short, it would appear from scientific observations that homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent in the animal kingdom. Far from being a minority phenomenon as accepted amongst humans, homosexuality can be the norm - together with heterosexual behaviour. Finding an explanation within the framework set by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter altogether. Beyond any doubt, homosexuality is somehow sustained in the animal kingdom and therefore must play a beneficial role to have survived the process of natural selection.

Since humans share at least 98% of our genome with other mammals and sexuality is a rather primary function in all species, one could conjecture that the sexual trends of mammals may also be present in humans in one form or another. Conversely, according to Wikipedia, "[r]esearchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals. Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans."

In light of the above, the moral arguments against homosexuality that often support the bigotry against homosexual and bisexual people have little ground beyond religious considerations. Certainly normality cannot be the premise. Subjective and perilous at the best of times, the concept of normality would rather seem to be supported in favour of homosexual behaviour by the above research findings of sexual behaviour in animals closely related to humans.

A brief glance at human history and culture shows how at different times and in different cultures the free expression of homosexuality was more or less prevalent. Most famous for the free expression of homosexuality and homo-eroticism were the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If homosexuality was not a feature of the inherent human sexual behaviour then a more liberal culture would hardly have evoked such behaviour on such a broad scale. Moreover, the persistence of homosexuality under duress of persecution is a stronger argument for the inherent inclination to some degree of homosexuality in humans.

At the very least the truth about human sexuality is likely that sexual orientation is variable in the same individual according to circumstance. There may even be evidence to suggest that it is quite natural and advantageous also to form strong, enduring same-sex bonds and partnerships as opposed to exclusively heterosexual partnerships. And to take this argument to its extreme, the institution of marriage - that holy cow of the major religions - suddenly seems not so fundamental and solidly founded as we have been indoctrinated to believe.

In the end we still do not understand the evolutionary role of homosexuality, yet we cannot refute the prevalence of homosexuality in several species, including ourselves. Chances are that monogamy and marginalizing of homosexual tendencies are rather unnatural behaviour for the human species.

It remains to be seen whether scientific and therefore biological honesty will translate into human cultures open to bisexual as well as homosexual behaviour in the sexually active population.

[Detailed discussions follow in comments to this post.]

Further reference:
Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, ISBN: 0312192398, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
To reproduce or not to reproduce, that is the question!

Ms Beetroot and the salid stand

The government of South Africa has moved from denial to betrayal regarding their handling of the AIDS epidemic in the country. Gregg Gonsalves of the AIDS Rights Alliance of Southern Africa slammed the government's lack of leadership in this tragic epidemic, according to Allafrica.com.

The Minister of Health, Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, also known in media circles as Ms Beetroot, appears unperturbed and defiant at the strong condemnation of her handling of the AIDS epidemic. Ms Tshabalala-Msimang reckons the country is doing well, reports News24. Indeed.

With 5.5 million people HIV positive and about 1000 dying per day of AIDS, South Africa is doing very well, isn't it? The report on AIDS in SA by Avert.org makes for chilling reading. From 1994 when the ANC came to power until today, the prevalence of HIV in pregnant women has increased from 4.3% to 30.2%. During the same time, the government has gone through several phases of denial.

First, the president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, demonstrated immense difficulty in accepting established medical evidence that the HI virus is the cause of AIDS. Instead, the president flirted with rogue medical reports that other factors such as poverty and malnutrition are causes of AIDS. In doing so, Mr Mbeki demonstrated the common statistical confusion of false correlation.

While conducive conditions will correlate with a certain outcome, such conditions are not synonymous with causality. While poverty is often conducive to contracting the HIV virus and in turn poverty as well as malnutrition are conducive to developing AIDS from the HIV virus, it does not follow that poverty and malnutrition cause AIDS. Apparently, this train of logic has proven beyond the capacity of the president.

Second, the current Minister of Health, Ms Beetroot, to use her common media-title, has embarked upon a crusade to bolster agriculture by propagating a policy of traditional African remedies, such as olive oil, garlic and beetroot to address the AIDS condition. Perhaps the president should offer Ms Beetroot a post in the Department of Agriculture.

At the Conference on AIDS held in Toronto last week, the South African stand at the exhibition comprised of some posters and a display of wilted agricultural products, resembling a salad stand according to IOL. The condemnation from both South African NGO's such as Treatment Action Campaign and international figures like UN special AIDS envoy Stephen Lewis, was venomous.

It would appear as if the South African government has entrenched itself in an African vs. Western war of ideas. With a stubbornness that defies common sense the government peddles on while the grim realities of AIDS marches on relentlessly through the South African society and economy.

As the Minister defends her position with the smugness of a cat on a sofa, the victims of AIDS wilt with the beetroot on the salad stand.

Soldiers

They were bold and buoyant on their return from southern Lebanon. Some sang the songs that soldiers sing. They appeared victorious, weary and relieved but when asked about the actual achievement of the war, some were despondent and not at all exuberant.

Everywhere there was utter destruction in Lebanese cities, towns and villages. Contrary, no Israeli cities or towns have been demolished or damaged to the extend that Lebanon has suffered. The infrastructure in Israel has been left mostly intact. In Lebanon, a power plant, an oil depo, an airport, multiple bridges and roads have either been damaged or destroyed.

Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)

[Source: BBC]

Much gloating and bellowing followed today from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. If anything, they seemed to have been handed an unintended windfall: The mood in Lebanon now seems firmly towards Hezbollah. The two captured Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, are still captive. Hezbollah, the proclaimed target of the destruction, seems to be rather well and alive, if somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, the sickening reality for the Lebanese seems to be lost on these leaders.

Last night, the Israeli Prime Minister made an hour long speech of belligerent spin in the Knesset, rationalising and justifying the futile escapades of the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. Between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the USA, there were a common factor of unconvincing posturing over the whole sad affair.

To all but the US White House and the Israeli majority, the war was senseless, unnecessary and a total disaster for the region. There are no winners and 1.5 million losers. In the mean time, the UN is struggling to bring aid to the desparate refugees who are streaming back to their devastated homes. The country is in need of serious restoration. The schisms of old seem deeper than ever.

In 1981, a song was released that today reflects grimly upon the situation:

Soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I don‚’t sing
they blow their horns
and march along
they drum their drums
and look so strong
you‚’d think that nothing
in the world was wrong
soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I won‚’t sing
let‚’s not look the other way
taking a chance
‚’cause if the bugler starts to play
we too must dance
[ABBA]

The question is: How will you dance?

Brother, where art thou?

Brother, can you hear me?
Brother, do you hate me?
Brother, will you kill me?
Why are we fighting?

Brother, can we make up?
Brother, have I hurt you?
Brother, may I hold you?
Why am I dying?

Brother, where art thou?

On and on and on

It has to stop now. Those were the words of Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs. In an interview with BBC World today, Jan Egeland expressed his dismay and exasperation with the current spiral of violence in Lebanon.

A million Lebanese have been displaced within a month. More than 100 000 Lebanese are in desperate need for humanitarian assistance but are out of reach due to collapse in logistic infrastructure after Israeli bombing raids. Ongoing bombing and threats of bombing obstruct UN aid workers from reaching these Lebanese. A thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed so far - 30% are under the age of 13. Israel has lost 122 people, mostly soldiers, to this war. Each party is able to stop the carnage, at the drop of a hat. Yet it goes on.

Mr Egeland summarised the dire situation as no-win for either party. Every day prolonged fighting means more deaths on each side, more civilians killed. If it has to come to blows, each side should think first and then bomb - not vice versa as it appears to happen.

Wholesale destruction of houses and domestic infrastructure together with many civilians is brutal, according to Mr Egeland. In the same breath, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are similarly deplorable. For armed militia to hind amongst the public is appalling. For the UN Security Council to churn on the details for so long while these atrocities continue, is a disgrace. Therefore, the fighting should stop and it should stop now. The only solution is a political solution, addressing the fundamental issues. [Israel has created a generation of hatred]

The UN Human Rights Commission has voted today to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses in Lebanon. In a counter move, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre appealed to the same body to investigate Lebanon for complacency in allowing Hezbollah to rearm with rockets.

On and on and on it goes. Tit for tat. Accusation is met with counter accusation. Each side turns the facts to suit it own agenda and narrative.

"On and on an on, keep on rocking baby, 'till the night is gone..." [ABBA]

A momentary lapse of reason

How short is the memory of mankind. Whatever the cost of our mistakes, we do not seem to learn from history. Today, the death toll in Lebanon stands at 925 civilians, one quarter children. In Israel, 58 soldiers and 36 civilians have been lost to the conflict, which also illustrates the stark asymmetry of the current tit for tat. [1]

Bombs are never smart, whatever the military would like us to believe. Whatever Israel claims or aims to achieve, the facts on the ground grimly expose as folly. Similarly, the Hezbollah adventure has reached unbearable levels of insanity. For those of a cynical disposition, perhaps it is a classic if highly ironic case of David vs Goliath. Yet, peppering civilians in Israel with crude, unguided rockets that fall and maim at random cannot be judged a valid military assault or defense by any civilised measure. [2,3,4]

Nothing of lasting value for peace and justice is gained by any side in this conflict. If anything, the forces of extreme militancy on all sides and therefore the hopes of further hell in the Holy Land, which stretches beyond the borders of Israel, have everything to gain from this conflict.

The 1967 war, the 1973 Yom Kipur war, the Lebanese occupations of 1978 and 1980, have not achieved any lasting peace or created an improvement in the relations amongst the conflicting parties in the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased, distrust has become entrenched, mutual fear ingrained and ultimately, hatred has snuffed out any flicker of understanding and tolerance. More wounds, bigger pain, greater losses are the fruits of this folly.

"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", said Ghandi. Yes, but even worse is the blindness of those who still have eyes but refuse to see. A momentary lapse of reason has brought us to the edge of a perilous precipice. Who will have the courage to open our eyes and lead us away from disaster?

The value of a life

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 3 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

In the current war of attrition that is being fought in southern Lebanon, the UN official count of dead Lebanese civilians stands at 548 confirmed deaths. On the other side of the Lebanese border, 19 Israeli civilians have been killed in rocket strikes by Hezbollah. The stark difference in civilian deaths on each side of the border brings into question who poses the biggest threat in this conflict: Israel or Hezbollah. These numbers also cast a dark veil of suspicion over the tactics of Israel and the mentality that underlies these tactics.

The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon has so far been similar to the US tactics during the second invasion of Iraq: Maximum force through air strikes. This strategy is fraught with gross misjudgement and consequent heavy civilian loss. It reeks with blatant hypocrisy that borders on reckless. Why hypocrisy? Because Israel, a member of the UN and by implication a consignee of the UN Charter of Human Rights, makes a farce of Articles 1 and 3.

As stated at start of this post, all humans are regarded equal and therefore have equal right to life and dignity. Lebanese civilians are as rightfully deserving of dignity and life as Israeli civilians. Yet, it would seem a moot point lost on the Israeli military and political leadership. Apparently regarding their own civilians of more than equal in their rights, this leadership chooses to send in air strikes with devastating yet indiscriminate results. In most cases so far, Lebanese civilians paid with their lives.

Instead of sending in ground troops that can confirm where Hezhollah fighters really are located before engaging the target, Israel opts for armchair warfare. This strategy is therefore not only hypocritical, but also reckless. The political leadership of Israel, lacking the necessary integrity, is not willing to respect Lebanese civilians by sending in ground troops in the first place. The risk for the political fall-out over undeniably higher death toll amongst Israeli soldiers seems to outweigh the obligations of Israel under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

But herein lies the folly of war of any kind. One side will always minimise the risks of war to its own and in doing so invariably leave the bill for that choice to the other side.

In a guerrilla war, which in reality this war is, one may not escape engaging the enemy any other manner than on foot. When the enemy has embedded itself into the civilian population, there is no other responsible option but to risk ground troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. Area bombing against suspected guerrilla strongholds is both reckless and in violation of the Geneva Convention.

But such a view assumes an inherent respect for all life, including the other side.

Lebanese conflict sources: ABC, BBC, Google

Mincing words

The most difficult word to pronounce for the leaders of the West seems to be "immediate". Undoubtedly, the English vocabulary of at least some Western leaders stretches to include this word. Yet, in recent days, it proved quite beyond these leaders to put that rather necessary adjective to proper practice in the following direly needed phrase: immediate ceasefire.

The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?

In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.

Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.

Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.

Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.

The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.

The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.