The Need for Hope: Are we All Just Doomed?

Looking on rabble.ca, I found one of the bleakest and most despairing columns I have ever come across. Written by an American who seems to be having a really bad day, he basically says Bush will continue to do damage until early 2009, the Democrats will not be any better if they get one of their own elected as president in 2008, most Americans will continue to work harder for less and won’t seriously question it, freedoms will continue to be eroded, then after oil production peaks and supplies run low, we will face the double-whammy of economic collapse and environmental catastrophe. And so on….

All these things are real, or real dangers anyway. But piling them on like this is no way to resist the “inevitability” of such a feared future. When fears become that overwhelming, people are demobilized. Actually, speaking of inevitability, this guy says “of course this will happen”, and “of course that will happen”.

We can’t just paint the future in dark colours, nor in rosy colours. Without fear of what might happen, people won’t change their lives. Without hope of what they might be able to achieve, they won’t either. They’ll just ignore the warnings and hope they don’t come true. And who could blame them, really.

I wrote something recently in which a character cries out “We need hope! It’s the only hope we’ve got!”. Although it sounds facetious, there’s still some truth there, isn’t there?

Evil, the Sequel: Who Wears the Jackboots?

From a CP report: "Jason Kenney (a Tory MP) says the fact that Hezbollah has a politicial wing doesn't change the fact that it is a terrorist group dedicated to the eradication of Israel. He says Germany in the 1930s had a political party which ran in elections and provided social services but it was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people... There is nothing to negotiate with an organization motivated by hate, he says."

You know, there are those who equate Israel with Nazism too. I don't find that terribly enlightening either. Certainly if one looks at who has actually been crushing other peoples of late, one could say that the jackboot is on the other foot these days, but there are levels of oppression that are not quite as bad as that carried out by the Nazis. As for Hezbollah being like the Nazis- if Hezbollah had the power to do to Israel what Israel has just done to Lebanon, I'd be more worried. What capacity does Hezbollah actually have to destroy Israel? None. The only valid point in Kenney's statement is that being a political party doesn't stop a political organization from being hate-filled and perncious. But is there really nothing to talk about with Hezbollah? Simply equating them with the Nazis is not an argument, anymore than equating Israel with Nazi Germany is.

Even worse, Kenney says that "the decision by three opposition MPs - a Liberal, a New Democrat and a Bloc member - to visit Lebanon this week offers political legitimacy to Hezbollah. " Not only do we not have anything to talk about with Hezbollah, we apparently have nothing to discuss with the Lebanese, nor need we concern ourselves about looking at the consequences for them of Israel's attack on them. Nice.

Meanwhile, Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has distanced himself from the Liberal MP who was with the visiting delegation of MP`s (Borys Wrzesnewskyj), saying:

"I think that you can't sanction violence. We have to operate according to principles and one of the principles is not to acknowledge bodies that will not abide by basic human rights and international law," Kennedy said.

Really? Surely this "principle" would lead to us not recognizing Israel- and I am against not recognizing Israel, by the way. Do I really need to trot out all the examples of Israel`s human rights and international law violations? Furthermore, we could also not, as a matter of principle, recognize China, Syria, Iran, and...the United States. As for "not sanctioning violence", allow me a moment to break into derisive laughter- unless Kennedy is a strict pacifist he is talking gibberish. If to recognize a body was to sanction its violence, then our mere recognition of a country like Israel (or the United States) as a legitimate body would sanction all its acts of violence. I`m not into realpolitik. I am into dealing with the reality of how the world actually is, and not getting diverted by"principles" that no one has any serious intention of applying across the board, and which are therefore not principles at all, but rather a whole lot of rhetorical hot air.

Evil: Where Do You Find It?

From Robert Fisk's diary (Independent, Aug. 20, 2006):

"An Israeli calls me from Los Angeles. She thinks she has discovered a reason why the Lebanese Red Cross may have been targeted by the Israeli air force. "I will send you a fax proving that they are helping the Hizbollah," she says.

I await the fax, which turns out to be a New York Times report from southern Lebanon, recording how the Red Cross gave medical assistance to wounded members of the Hizbollah. I call Rachel back. The Lebanese Red Cross helped wounded American marines after they were suicide-bombed in Beirut in 1983, I tell her, and they gave help - and were criticised for it by their Lebanese neighbours - to wounded Israelis after a suicide bombing in Tyre the following year. Isn't it the duty of all Red Cross teams to help all those who are suffering? "Perhaps, but they should have detained the Hizbollah," comes the voice from Los Angeles. What? The Red Cross is now supposed to imprison Israel's enemies?

I receive another fax from Rachel. "I am for dialog (sic) but not with the Devil, Nazis et al," she says. "Reality and justice are derived from the ability to discern between good and evil, between truth and lies, and between the fireman and the arsonist. Keep safe."

What is evil incarnate? How is evil manifested? What made Hitler evil, for example? Or, to be more practical about it, what made Hitler capable of such evil?

It was his utter conviction in the sheer evil of his "enemies". He could murder millions of Jews because they were "evil"- not human, but pernicious vermin in human form. In his mind, the ability to discern between good evil, between truth and lies, and between the fireman and the arsonist, was very sharp indeed. And it enabled him to be evil.

Of course, his "discernment" was in fact wrong. He saw evil where there was no evil, and failed to see good where there was good. He saw everything through the lens of his hateful ideology. Whereas, one could argue, one would be right to classify Hezbollah as "evil".

But Hitler is merely an extreme example of the tendency to see those who are "in your way" as pure evil, and therefore fit only for destruction. There are many sides to Hezbollah- it also provides social services to the population. Is that evil? And what of its suppoerters? Are they all evil?

If it is evil for Hezbollah to take Israeli soldiers as prisoners, then what are we to make of Israel still holding thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, without charge, after many years? Are all those prisoners too evil to be freed? The stated aim of Hezbollah in taking those Israeli soldiers prisoner was to secure the release of some of these prisoners. Was that an act of pure evil, then?

There are reasons to believe that the immediate prisoner issue was less important than the fact that both Israel and Hezbollah were quietly preparing for a showdown. But even then, the prisoner issue is important. Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon in 2000, but did not even attempt to settle outstanding issues such as prisoners, because, of course, virtuous Israel can never descend to the level of talking with evil Hezbollah.

For those who think of Hezbollah as nothing more than an evil organization, consider this question: Do you say that its actions are evil because it is evil, or do you say that it's evil because its actions are? Because if it's the latter, then those who would fight evil need to look at their own actions, lest they wind up fighting evil with evil.

This concern apparently isn't shared by those who seem to confuse defending the interests of a foreign country with defending the interests of the Jewish community. (Look, I understand that Israel has an importance to the Jewish community for nationalistic reasons, but surely Israel has a diplomatic corps in Canada to state its case) Frank Dimant, vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, said he finds it "outrageous" that Canadian MPs want to speak with a known terrorist organization when Canadian troops are dying at the hands of another in Afghanistan.

"(Wrzesnewskyj) (one of the MP's who suggested that maybe it's silly not to talk to Hezbollah- ed.) doesn't seem to understand that we're at war with terrorists, and that includes Hezbollah," he said. "It is not Canada's job to be a peacemaker here, but to stand with a sister democracy."

You see? There is a war between good and evil. The boundery between good and evil is plain to see. It is the boundery between the terrorists, who are all the same, and all in cahoots- and the democracies, who are all the same and whose interests are the same.

Mind you, anyone familar with the circumstances under which modern Israel came into being might recall that the main Zionist political groupings in British occupied Palestine had armed wings that committed acts of terrorism. Had the British stuck to the principle that "we will never talk to terrorists", there would be no Israel today. And, sticking to early Israeli history for a moment, wasn't using massacres to terrorise Palestinians into fleeing their lands en masse so that another people could take that land for themselves terrorism? If it wasn't, then what is?

Unless we accept that Hezbollah leaders, members and supporters are just plain evil, and that's all there is to it, then the question becomes- why do they do bad things and support bad things? When they do, it is because they themselves work from a stark distinction between good and evil- children of the light on one side, creatures of the darkness on the other. Of course we must destroy the creatures of the darkness. Don't you see? They are trying to snuff out our light- the light of God, of truth, of reason, of...whatever it is. And when they're not actively trying to snuff out our light, they're plotting to snuff out our light, or they're training their young to snuff out our light, or they're the young being trained to snuff out our light.

But seriously, yes, we must discern between good and evil and between truth and lies- but we need to discern them most of all in our own words and actions. Are we reducing other people to nothing? Are we demonizing them so we can blame them for all the evils that beset us and destroy them for the sake of our own security?

Thus when MPs go to Lebanon and report the devestation wrought by Israel's attacks, Diamont responds that the world should not forget the rockets that were aimed at civilian targets in Israel. No doubt, but he surely would like the world to forget the bombs and rockets that were aimed at civilian- yes, undeniably civilian- targets in Lebanon. And unlike Hezbollah rockets, Israeli bombs usually managed to destroy things- and, often enough, people too. People who were worth nothing to those who ordered the bombings. To me, that's evil.

A Thought Experiment (originally posted Aug. 19)

Israel's raid deep in Lebanese territory raises an interesting philosophical question: what is the distinction between an offensive action and a defensive action?Israel says it carried out this raid to stop arms shipments to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran, and therefore counts as "defensive". Does it? Let's try a little thought experiment:During the war the United States expedited shipments of bombs and missiles to Israel, because Israel had dropped so many on Lebanon that it was running low. Suppose that Lebanon had attacked these shipments. Or, even better, suppose it had attacked IDF weapons storage facilities and airbases within Israel. Would this have counted as self-defence?Of course, this thought experiment is outlandish. If Lebanon had the ability to attack shipments of American weapons to Israel and disable Israel's airbases and weapons facilities, then it could also shoot down Israeli bombers, and Israel wouldn't dare to conduct raids deep into Lebanese territory, "defensive" or otherwise. Once again, we are faced with reality- Israel can defend itself; Lebanon can't. But suppose if someone could have destroyed those arms shipments. Suppose some of those bombers had been shot down from the sky before they could drop their bombs. Suppose a large number of Israeli aircraft had been destroyed on the ground by raids into Israel. Imagine how many lives could have been saved.What a pity there was no one to defend the civilians of Lebanon.

Previous Political Postings

I Wanted to be Wrong

Against all odds, the ceasefire in Lebanon is basically holding- so far, anyway. So far my prediction has not come true! How sweet it can be to be wrong.Both sides are claiming victory, which reminds me of a quote from a Terry Pratchett book (to paraphrase: “Both sides claimed victory, but as usual, the actual score was “Ravens 10 000, Humans 0”) Anyway, it seems the Israeli public is not buying the idea that Israel won. True, it initially allowed itself to be whipped into a frenzy of gung-ho militarism, but certain realities are now sinking in. The mighty IDF cannot defeat a guerilla army in the hills of southern Lebanon, nor can it isolate Hezbollah within Lebanon through collective punishment administered from the air. Hezbollah seems to be more entrenched than ever within Lebanon. The last international force that tried to do Israel’s dirty work in Lebanon retreated with its tail between its legs after the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983.Only a few months ago, Amir Peretz represented the hope of a rejuvenated Labour Party as a leftist force in Israeli politics. After having unwisely accepted the post of Defense Minister and conducted this disastrous war, that war may now finish his political career. I hear that the calls for his resignation grow louder by the day. And the shine has also come off of the Prime Minister, Olmert, triumphant in the elections of a few months ago, now embattled under attacks from both left and right.Meanwhile Iran and Syria are crowing. It is the misfortune of the Lebanese to be in the caught in the middle of this insane power struggle.



Flamboozling, and the Alleged Non-Relationship Between Mortality and Morality

(Words from British reporter Robert Fisk- excerpts from “Tea and rockets: café society, Beirut-style”, The Independent, Aug. 13. 2006)“A long radio interview with an Israeli professor who says "the number of people killed [in this war] doesn't reflect morality". Well, at more than a thousand Lebanese civilians dead against a few dozen Israelis, it can't reflect morality because, if it did, that would suggest Israel was committing war crimes.”

The Israeli professor's statement is yet another example of the mentalist-essentialist theory of morality in action. This moral theory is divorced from the world of fact: it says, "Never mind the facts- morality is in the ego- how we define ourselves as moral beings by what we proclaim/believe to be true about ourselves. We define ourselves as people who don’t target civilians. A thousand civilians die under our bombs? Sheer coincidence, for by definition, we do not target civilians."But seriously, possibly the only real difference on the subject between Israel and Hezbollah- apart from the fact that Israel’s sheer power has enabled it to kill about 30 civilians to Hezbollah’s one- is that while Hezbollah makes no apologies about going after civilians, period, Israelis make no apologies about going after civilians because they are able to delude themselves into thinking that what is most obvious about what they are doing is simply not their responsibility. Does Israel’s comforting self-image elevate it over Hezbollah’s brutal honesty, or honest brutality? No more than Hezbollah’s honest brutality elevates it over Israel’s delusional brutality.

Fisk continues: “But Hizbollah will also have their day of reckoning. Who gave them the right to bring this cruelty down upon the head of every Lebanese? Who gave the Shias permission to go to war for Lebanon? There will be questions in Israel too. How come the Israel Defence Forces, famous in legend and song, could not defend the people of Israel, despite slaughtering so many Lebanese civilians? "NOTE: In another article, Fisk states that: “The US saw this war as an opportunity to humble Hizbollah's Iranian and Syrian sponsors but already it seems as if the tables have been turned. The Israeli military appears to be efficient at destroying bridges, power stations, gas stations and apartment blocks - but signally inefficient in crushing the "terrorist" army they swore to liquidate.”- Robert Fisk: “As the 6am ceasefire takes effect... the real war begins” (The Independent, Aug. 14, 2006 )

Flamboozling

“Cody has invented a great new word: to "flamboozle". It's what politicians do to their people when they go to war. Ehud Olmert has been flamboozling the Israelis and Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has been flamboozling Lebanon's Shias. We may have a ceasefire at the weekend. So the end of the flamboozling may be nigh.” Sadly, I doubt it, but here’s hoping anyway. We might as well have hope, or we are lost.



Friday, August 11, 2006: "You Have Been Duly Warned" : First Come the Fliers, then the Bombs

Robert Fisk reports on the document Israel air-dropped on Beirut yesterday: "Yesterday's air-dropped Israeli document ordered Shia Muslims in Beirut's Hay al-Selloum, Bourj al-Barajneh and Shiyah districts to abandon their homes "immediately". In other words, the Israeli army wishes to "cleanse" every civilian out of the 12 square miles between Beirut airport and the old Christian civil war frontline at Galerie Semaan.This malicious document ends with a sinister threat - which breaks all the relevant rules of the Geneva Conventions - that "each expansion of Hizbollah terrorist operations will lead to a harsh and powerful response and its painful response will not be confined to Hassan's gang of criminals" (i.e. Hizbollah).So what does "not be confined to" mean? That it is the civilians who will pay the price - this time in Beirut - as they have in the Israeli air force massacres of southern Lebanon over the past three weeks?Well, stand by for more Hizbollah atrocities and more Israeli atrocities."(from "Hizbollah's iron discipline is match for military machine" The Independent, August 11, 2006)

Oh dear. No doubt this last statement is yet another example of pernicious "moral equivilence" (a staple of the 'anti-Israel left")- because, by defintition, the actions of a terrorist group must always be far worse than those of a legitmate state. Thus, if Hizbollah commits atrocities, Israel does not. Right? Those who don't accept this reasoning place Israel on the same level as Hizbollah (morally equivilant) and thus deny it legitamcy as a state, thus agreeing to the destruction of Israel, which is furthermore to be anti-Semitic. Got all that? See how cunningly people disguise their anti-Semitism in the guise of concern for human beings!

Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006




An interesting perspective (from George Monbiot, a self-acknowledged "peacenik") on the current war in Lebanon, which suggests that Israel's assault had been planned for some time and that it was simply waiting for the right moment to strike.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1839244,00.html

Incidentally, Robert Fisk (who makes clear his disdain for both Israel and Hezbollah in his reporting from Lebanon) reported that it seemed that Hezbollah had also been planning for this, and that is why it's got such an arsenal of rockets now.

Both sides were prepared, cynically prepared. The only ones who weren't prepared were the Lebanese (apart from Hezbollah), and they're the ones bearing the brunt of this. Both sides claim to act in self-defence. Both are in fact guilty of aggression. It is merely due to the tremendous power imbalance that Israel has done far damage than Hezbollah. That power imbalance is a reality that must be taken into account. Does Israel face a serious threat to its existence? If Israel was having done unto it what it now does unto others, I could take that idea seriously.




Aug. 7, 2006: The Time for Peace is Now

I went to a demonstration for peace in Lebanon yesterday (to clarify: the peace is to be in Lebanon- and Israel- but the demo was in Montreal, starting from Parc Lafontaine). It was much larger than the last one I was at- tens of thousands of people were there. It was great weather for a demo- blue skies & sunshine.

I had mixed feelings about some of the chants, especially since there were supporters of Hezbollah in the crowd who had their own chants equating Hezbollah with resistance. This is interesting. Hezbollah is unable to do anything about Israeli bombing, so their “resistance” appears to consist mainly in retaliatory rocket attacks on northern Israel. (Or are the Israeli bombings in “retaliation” for the Hezbollah rocket attacks? A pretty pointless argument, don’t you think?) Yes, there's nothing like retailiating for ensuring your security- "even if we can't prevent death from coming down on you from above, we'll make damn sure people on the other side of the fence pay for your lives with their lives."

Seen in that light, Hezbollah is indeed “resisting” the Israeli onslaught, but let’s not forget that they also provoked it. On the other hand, I was taught as a child that being provoked doesn’t excuse very much. Perhaps it’s this that biases me against Israel’s “the best defense is a strong offensive” brand of “self-defense”. That, and the facts on the ground, and in the ground, underground (six feet under). There’s also the fact that if I were to respond to provocations as Israel is doing, I’d be locked up for my “measured responses”, as a danger to society. But then, the term “diplomatic immunity” can mean many things, can’t it?


Actually, what’s happening is quite simple when you think about it. Israel’s foreign policy is based on the idea that its interests require that it be feared throughout the region. Hamas and Hezbollah made brazen attacks upon Israel, and this required a devastating response, otherwise Israel might no longer be feared. Are we supposed to believe that in Lebanon Hezbollah has been lurking on all the highways, in the power plants, hospitals, factories and communications stations, using bridges as launching pads for missile attacks, and that when people flee their villages on the orders of the Israeli army there must be terrorists hiding among them? No. Israel has been making an example out of Lebanon. It doesn't need to launch air attacks that specifically aim to cause civilan casulties- all it has to do is massively bombard populated areas with a reckless disregard for human life and of course it will spread terror and death among civilians. That'll learn 'em. Now it continues its onslaught on Lebanon in order to not lose face, just as Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for years so that the U.S. would not appear to be a “helpless giant” in the face of communists. On the other side, as long as Hezbollah can go on being widely seen as heroic resisters of Israeli aggression, there'll be little incentive for it to stop its own outrages.

In the face of this, what should we do? Well for starters, we shouldn't support it, and we should try to help the belligerants find a way out of their madness. So thank you, Stephen Harper, for bringing me out into the streets yesterday. You thought it better to join in the madness yourself, in your own way. I'll resist it as best I can, in my own way.

Peace- Paix- Pax- Paz- Shalom