Moral duty2

Jewcy

Zell Kravinsky has been accused of being an extremist, because he dares to put forward the idea, that not doing anything to help the suffering, and more to the point, not giving away a spare and unnecessary kidney, we are guilty of murder. Well, that idea can be discussed, no doubt about it. But is he really an extremist?
This week in France, a popular actress, Fanny Ardant, was attacked for calling the former leader of the italian Red Brigades (a seventies left-wing militant group which killed at least one politician (apparently no more) a "hero". She was forced to explain, that she only admired his steadfast beliefs, not his actions. One wonders if she would have had to explain herself had she called Silvio Berlusconni or George Bush a "hero". Yet, the blood on their hands is somewhat thicker. Talk about double standards.
So, what is extreme? Wanting to give away all you have, including a spare kidney, or allowing, the people we have elected and their murderous actions to continue unhindered?

Watch it!

Quick fixing

Ynet

President Shimon Peres has championed the plan for years, which is supposed to include the "corridor of peace", an ambitious project of economic, tourist and agricultural development for Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority

“Why aren’t they studying the entire system of water resources in Israel,” he asks, “that might enable the partial diversion of the Jordan River and that way both the River and the Dead Sea would be rehabilitated?"

That would mean asking difficult questions. Questions too difficult for the simplistic mindset of political leaders.


EcoPeace

THE DRYING UP OF THE DEAD SEA
Helping the Dead Sea "live" up to its name
The Dead Sea is drying up at an alarming rate. Far and away the biggest cause of the rapid disappearance of the Dead Sea is the lack of water coming into it from its traditional sources: the Jordan River and various side wadis (tributaries). Construction of dams, storage reservoirs, and pipelines for the desalinization and treatment of water has been greatly reducing water inflows to the Dead Sea. While much of this water is being used by the Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians for basic domestic consumption, most goes towards highly subsidised and inefficient agriculture.

The effects of human intervention in the region include:

- The Dead Sea has already lost over 1/3 of its surface area.
- The Sea level has fallen over 20 meters since development of the region started early this century. The Sea's depth is continuing to drop by up to 1 meter per year.
- The shoreline in expected to drop from -411 meters to -430 meters by the year 2020.
- Water inflow levels have already been reduced to just 10% of its original volume, with annual surface inflows in the future predicted to decrease from 375 million cubic meters (mcm) to 135 mcm/yr.
- The fall in the level of the Sea has lowered water tables in surrounding areas causing a drying up of micro-eco-systems and leading to land-subsidence.

Permaculture Reflections
Permanculture Reflections

Moral duty

Tariqramadan.com

Muslim Scholars Speak Out

ON JIHAD, APOSTASY AND WOMEN
Saturday 28 July 2007, by Tariq Ramadan

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?
The concept of “jihad” has different meanings and a scholar such as Jalal ad-Dîn as-Suyutî (15th century), while studying its scope, highlighted 80 different dimensions, uses and objectives related to its place in Islamic teachings. Its root “ja-ha-da” means “making an effort”, “exerting oneself” in order to promote good or to resist wrongdoing, evil or oppression. Every individual trying to resist her/his own negative temptations is engaged in “jihad” and the first time the word is used in the Qur’an (25:52), it refers to an intellectual and spiritual resistance by the means of the Qur’an itself.

In all its dimensions, the essence of “jihad” is “to resist” in the name of justice and dignity. When there is an armed aggression, Muslims have the right to protect themselves and to defend their rights. Here “jihâd” means “qitâl” (armed struggle). The use of violence and weapons must be adjusted to the nature of the aggression itself: an armed aggression may justify an armed resistance if there is no other way to come to a peaceful agreement. But the use of violence and weapons must be proportionate and never target innocent people, women, children, the elderly, and even fruit trees as Abû Bakr, the first successor of the Prophet, stated following Muhammad’s teachings. Jihad never means “holy war” in order “to impose” or “to propagate” Islam everywhere. In fact jihâd and qitâl mean exactly the opposite of what we commonly think: rather than being the justifying instruments of war, they are the imposed measures to achieve peace by resisting an unjust aggression.

In specific situations – when one faces an army and has no weapons or other means to resist – it may be understandable and justifiable to consider sacrificing one’s life in attempts to reach the armed soldiers. Here we are not far from a kind of suicide but it is related to three specific conditions: 1. It must be in a time of declared war; 2. when no other means of resisting are available; 3. the targets must be exclusively the army of the enemies and its armed soldiers. Today’s suicide bombers who are killing innocent people are not only not respecting the Islamic teachings as to the ethics of war but are in fact indulging in anti-Islamic actions.

I would like to react to the above text and give my view of the idea of resistance.
I am not muslim. In fact I am not a follower of any faith. I would describe myself best as a humanist. In a moral sense then, humanity as a whole has a duty to fight against injustice wherever it takes place. I don't believe it is merely the duty of muslims to resist injustices done to them, just as it wasn't merely the duty of Spanish to resist fascism, of Europeans to resist against nazism or of the South Africans to resist Apartheid. Indeed, we not only have the right the resist, but we have the moral duty to do so, as shows the military duty to refuse an illegal order.
Now, I could never condone, let alone call for violence against individuals unless it was in self-defence. The question then is what would be categorised as self-defense. In any case, I would call for non-violent forms of resistance and/or acts of sabotage before violent ones.
The question is what is susceptible of being an effective act of resistance? Furthermore, while I would obviously never call for violence against innocent individuals, the question remains: who is innocent? Some might say no-one is innocent (little reference there for french rockers!). What seems clear to me, is that the citizens of many countries are to varying degrees responsible for the injustices done to inhabitants of other regions, often far-flung ones. After all, we (yes, you guessed it: it's us I was hinting at) benefit from the oppression of others through our oil and consumer fixes.
In that sense, it seems the logical conclusion, is that not only can we expect to be targets of what are commonly known as 'terrorist' acts, but this can also be morally justified if it is accepted, that by doing nothing to end the oppression while continuing to enjoy it's economic fruits we allow and encourage the oppression to continue.
I don't think suicide is a thing you can justify or not. Someone who commits suicide is usually someone who is desperate or someone who has little or nothing to live for. Living under oppression or any kind causes suicide.
The problem in the age of information is the moral double standard displayed not only by politicians (who would expect otherwise) but specifically by those who are supposed to inform us: the media. In the world of big news corporations, the terrorists are the guerilla fighters opposed in a war to the first world leaders and their cohorts. Those guerillas who do the first world's dirty work are resistants (to the nazis, the french resistance was a 'terrorist' force), freedom fighters or occasionaly 'mujahideen' (how very romantic). Sometimes certain individuals can be 'freedom fighters' one day and 'terrorists' the next, like others can be our 'strongmen' one day and evil dictators the next. But, I digress.
In the world of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera when a friendly state or guerilla outfit murders it's opponents it's not news. Yet when an enemy state does the same it's top of the agenda. When a client state kidnaps individuals suspected of 'terrorism', it's unworthy of mention. Yet when an armed force opposed to this client state kidnaps a soldier of said state all hell lets loose and we near hear the end of it. When a client state terrorises it's called 'defence' and when the terrorised revolt it's called 'terrorism'.

The muslim witch and her presidential husband

Turkey's parliament goes to the polls to elect the next president of the country. It attempted to do so four months ago, but the election was annulled. Today, as at the time, one party, the CHP, has refused to take part in the election because of their apparent fear, that one man may be elected. That man is Abdullah Gül, of the ruling AKP. He is apparently too 'islamic' for the members of the CHP. One argument put forward against him, is that his wife wears a hijab. Apparently, the army is also lying ing wait, considering action if the President doesn't act in a sufficiently secular manner, and presumeably if Mrs Gül's headscarfe covers too much of her face!
No doubt this will not play a big part in the EU's analysis of turkish democracy when considering Turkey's application. After all, better a dictatorial army-led secular state, than a democratically elected islamic government or president (the latter albeit elected by parliament. Maybe Turkey should put the choice to the turkish people...) That seems to be the western mantra these days.

Why I wanna write, why I dunno how to and why I'm writing this

I started blogging over two years ago now. From the beginning, I saw it as a tool for sharing information (isn't that what the www is?). Well, what I didn't see it as was keeping a diary of my private&personal life. I suppose from very early on I would have liked to write about what I saw going on in the world through the filter of various media, traditional and alternative, as well as about my world(ly?) views. However, I have mainly stuck so far to quoting media sources and adding my little bit of (invariably cynical) analysis. I also realised early on, that the best or to be more specific the most visited and commented on blogs were those in which bloggers posted their views and analysis in the form of articles written by them and not by others. Still, I didn't feel up that standard. Do I now? Not sure. Part of the reason is certainly that I don't feel I have enough in-depth knowledge of the sort of things I would like to write about. Also, I don't have enough confidence in my writing ability. How do I write an article which is informative as well as humorous and militant? Still, it seems like the thing to do, and not merely to increase the traffic on my blog along with comments, but also because it seems like a more interesting and personal way to convey ideas which seem important to me. Maybe a good way to create debate too. So, I thought the best start was to spill out my wishes and my fears in a post, in the hope, obviously, that someone might give me tips, but also, that in the process a light bulb might appear above my head and and a Eureka! may form on my lips. How's that for a literary beginner?!

Texas execution

Texas Penal Code:

Sec.A7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.AA(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1)AAacting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2)AAacting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3)AAhaving a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b)AAIf, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

A man is about to be executed in Texas under the law quoted above. Even the courts have acknowledged, that he did not commit murder, but he drove the car from which a friend of his emerged before getting into an altercation and shooting another man dead. Not only did Kenneth Foster not commit murder, but he maintains there was no premeditation either by the killer himself or by any of his friends, including Foster. As he says, if there had been premeditation by the whole group or even part of it, someone would have accompanied the killer, wheareas in reality he left the car alone. On Tuesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Kenneth Foster's final appeal. Unless the board of pardons and paroles and the governor of Texas decide to pardon Foster, he will be executed on August 30th.
It seems the BBC and other big news corporations are silent on this pending execution.

An analogy to chew on

Fisk

But you have to hand it to the journalists of Yerevan. Each August, they all go on holiday. At the same time. Yup. Every editor, reporter, book reviewer, columnist and printer packs up for the month and heads off to Lake Sevan or Karabakh for what is still called, Soviet-style, a "rest". "We wish all our readers a happy rest-time and we'll be back on August 17th," the newspaper Margin announced this week. And that was that. No poet may die, no Patriotic War hero expire, no minister may speak, no man may be imprisoned, lest his passing or his words or incarceration disappear from written history. I encourage the management of The Independent to consider this idea; if only we had operated such a system during the rule of the late Tony Blair... But no doubt a civil servant would have emailed him that this was a "good time" to announce bad news.

A US peace deal

BBC

Saudi Arabia says it supports US plans for a regional peace conference this year and would be keen to attend.

The conference is intended to revive the peace process and would include Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states viewed as moderate by the US.

When even the BBC clearly describes the rules as being set by the US (and I must say the choice of photo is perfect!) it seems there is little doubt left as to how one-sided any peace deal can be. What peace deal by the way? If it's just going to be a matter of certain parties hand picked by the world cop sitting together, what sort of solution can there be?
And if the Saudis do indeed attend, what does that say of the US definition of 'moderate'? Does 'moderate' mean friendly to the US?

Hamas, the 2006 Palestinian election winner, refused to sign up to previous peace deals with Israel, and its military victory in Gaza deals a serious blow to Mr Bush's strategic vision of a two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace.

And what kind of palestinian state might that be? A greatly reduced and geographically divided state with pockets of jewish settlers?

News from Palestine

Amira Hass

The concept of "amnesty" that is being used to describe the agreement to stop chasing wanted men demonstrates to what extent Israel is entrenched in its position of domination. According to the law, the president is allowed to pardon "criminals." According to the law, a "criminal" is someone who was tried and convicted. It's true that the late president Chaim Herzog pardoned leading members of the Shin Bet security service before they were tried for the murder of the hijackers of bus no. 300, after the majority opinion in the High Court of Justice ruled that the president of Israel has the same power to pardon as the king of England and the president of the United States. But here it is a "pardon" of the Shin Bet and the army in the field. The ease with which the concept "pardon" was accepted in the media is additional proof of the sweeping approval that Israelis grant the Israel Defense Forces and its soldiers to act as prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is it any wonder that they are given the power of a king of England, to pardon before a trial?

And now the news in brief

This week, the BBC journalist Alan Johnston was rescued from his captors by Hamas. A palestinian bystander with no name was killed in the shoot-out between Hamas and Army of Islam 'gunmen'.

Critical mind

Alternative Online

With the above examples in mind, readers should take bloggers, especially the self-righteous ones like this Angry Arab Abou Khalil, with a grain of salt.

Even better, Abou Khalil is a frequent commentator on Al-Jazeera. He talks with authority, of course being a professor in the US who knows it all from inside the crooked empire.

Readers and viewers of TVs like Al-Jazeera, or even readers of the March 8 dandy writer New Yorker’s Seymour Hirsh should always examine the sources of these media outlets’ speakers and writers and the validity of their arguments. After all, not everyone who depicts himself as “I know it all” or “I am the most patriotic Arab” or for that matter “the most Angry Arab” are credible enough or can sustain their arguments, better known as their ongoing populist propaganda.

Of course, one should always take everything one reads or hears with a 'grain of salt', whether it's in the mainstream media or in the alternative media or on a blog. The BBC, Aljazeera, CNN, Fox etc. may have access to Reuters and information faster than the speed of sound, but that does not make their information necessarily surer than a blog. It all depends on the blog.Readers should use common sense, general knowledge and always double, maybe even triple check. On the other hand, mainstream media can also be the scapegoat for the upholders of officialdom, as has been the case for the BBC and Aljazeera. Again, we should remain wary of what comes out of the mouths of propaganda men and women, be they governmental or non-governmental. Is the BBC a leftwing liberal media? I doubt it! Is Aljazeera a fundamentalist recruitment center? I doubt it too!

Binational state

I remain convinced, that binationalism is the only long-term solution for peace and democracy in Israel-Palestine. Some may say, while supporting the idea, that right now, the only way forward is a two-state solution, but as we can see in the link below and in recent news, there is no true support even for a viable and just soverigh palestinian state coming from Israel or the West. On the palestinian side there is corruption and frustration at the ongoing occupation and this inevitably leads to anger and violence. Hamas, whatever we may think of their methods and/or religious beliefs, represent this anger. In any case, Hamas came to power in a democratic election which has never been fully recognised and now has been downright trodden on.
So, it is easy for us, far from the scene, to call for patience. Yet, I continue to believe violence will lead nowhere. There must therefore be a radical solution. As far as I can see, the only radical solution is a binational state.

Leila Farsakh

There have been a number of recent publications proposing a one-state solution as the only alternative to the current impasse. Three years ago Meron Benvenisti, Jerusalem’s deputy mayor in the 1970s, wrote that the question is “no longer whether there is to be a bi-national state in Palestine-Israel, but which model to choose” (2). Respected intellectuals on all sides, including the late Edward Said; the Arab Israeli member of the Knesset, Azmi Bishara; the Israeli historian Illan Pape; scholars Tanya Reinhart and Virginia Tilley; and journalists Amira Haas and Ali Abunimeh, have all stressed the inevitability of such a solution.

The idea of a single, bi-national state is not new. Its appeal lies in its attempt to provide an equitable and inclusive solution to the struggle of two peoples for the same piece of land. It was first suggested in the 1920s by Zionist leftwing intellectuals led by philosopher Martin Buber, Judah Magnes (the first rector of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Haïm Kalvarisky (a member of Brit-Shalom and later of the National Union). The group followed in the footsteps of Ahad Ha’am (Asher Hirsch Ginsberg, one of the great pre-state Zionist thinkers).

(...)

The failure of the one-state option has often been attributed to the idealism of its cause and its failure to come to terms with local realities. Nevertheless, as Magnes pointed out, the option offered significant advantages in demographic and territorial terms in 1947 to the Jewish cause (4).

In fact, the idea failed because the political actors of the time rejected it: the Zionist organisations were not interested, the British were unsupportive and the Arabs too suspicious. Between 1948 and 1993 the only significant change in these positions came from the Arabs, who finally came to terms with the existence of Israel.

A year on

What has changed? Lebanon teetering on the edge of democracy, the Palestinians still under siege and now forced into a civil war.
As Amira Hass wrote back then, there is absolutely no symetry, so to talk of efforts to be made on both sides for peace is dishonest at best.

Haaretz

It comes as no surprise that this war has not yet been finished in one fell swoop. For six years, the Israeli army has accustomed its soldier to regard their assaults in the occupied territories as "fighting" and "battles." They fostered the myth that there was symmetry between the advanced regular Israeli army and groups of Palestinians armed with light weapons and homespun bombs, scurrying among the tanks and helicopters that are demolishing their houses and fields. Indeed, on a few occasions, the Palestinians succeeded in guerrilla operations that killed or wounded the troops. But these were the exception. The suicide attacks inside Israel attest to the "military" weakness of the Palestinian organizations.

Breaking the silence for peace

The only way to break this silence is to speak out for people whose voices are stifled by their own governments. If we choose not to keep silent about the way we feel about how others are treated in their own countries, we make their leaders accountable for this treatment.

In the occupied territories, the extremist movement is signified by the Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes, killing of innocent children, illegal detainment of suspected criminals, the confiscation of land and the Apartheid Wall which still exists, even in spite of being deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.

Not keeping silent means seeking the truth through credible sources. There are a plethora of Israeli and non-Israeli Jewish authors that systematically demonstrate the political machinations at work that uproot the lives of the Palestinians. Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, Jeff Halper, and Amira Hass are just a few.

Not keeping silent means creating an open dialogue between our community and those that represent us, forcing them to demonstrate their position. Letters should be written to our representatives, and their responses should be broadcasted out into our community.

Not keeping silent means creating an open discussion about and with those institutions that openly support the expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. There are many Christian Zionist churches that openly advocate Israel as the promise land of the Jews, and suggest that the Palestinians should be excluded.

Not keeping silent means joining your voice with voices already at work. It means lending your emotional support. It means investing time. It means demanding that American tax dollars finance justice. And it means instilling these attitudes in our youth.

It also means creating a dialogue between ourselves and the Israelis and the Palestinians to discuss issues that undermine peace and security for all parties. It means teaching Palestinian children the attitudes and actions they need to take to cultivate peace.

Only a thundering roar of collective voices can awaken the world to the harsh realities that exist.

The most depressing joke ever

Gilad Atzmon

Yet, there is a slight problem here. Just a marginal issue that should be addressed before Blair lands in Gaza International Docks or Ramallah’s busy Heliport. The democratically elected Hamas, the party who was voted by the Palestinian people isn’t really happy with the new envoy. If I could have a word with him, I would say, “You see Mr. Blair, as things stand it is actually Hamas you have to talk to. And what about the Lebanese, did you think about them Mr Blair? Will they welcome to their country the man who just less than a year ago enthusiastically approved the total destruction of their country’s infrastructure, capital and southern regions.”

“Thus, I have a little suggestion for you, Mr. Blair. Just before you become a dove, just on your way to your first peace mission, pop over to The Hague for a few days, put yourself on trail. Prove to us and our brothers in the region that you are indeed a man of harmony and peace. You shouldn’t be too worried, you always believed in what you were doing. You always claimed to believe that liberating the Iraqi people was the right thing to do. You believed as well that destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure would bring stability to the region. You believed that dismissing the democratically elected Palestinian Government was an act of humanism.”

Question to Gordon Brown

The Independent

What's a bigger danger - global warming or jihadi terrorism?

TOM CHURCH, by email

Both are massive dangers, and the truth is - while every other country in the world tends to make trade-offs and choose priorities - Britain is the only country simultaneously taking the lead in fighting all the great dangers the world faces: global warming, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation and world poverty. I am proud of that, and that will continue under my government.

As a Kiwi might say: yeah right.

Discouraging democracy, encouraging civil war

Indymedia Israel

On 17 June, a new government was sworn in by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Although this government, now headed by the Minister of Finance, Salam Fayyad, was nominated without the support or even advisement by the democratically elected Palestinian Legislative Council, it already enjoys the full support of Israel, the United States and the European Union. All of these entities now plan to end their boycott, imposed on the Palestinian people following the Hamas victory in the democratic national elections of January 2006.

In my name

1967 revisited

So it seems the question now is this : was Israeli expansion done for agricultural reasons or for religious reasons?
Isn't it amazing, though, how these kind of revelations can so easily be wept under the carpet. How many are aware of these revalations? Indeed, how many Israelis are aware of them?

Blogus, Bloga, Blogum

General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land.

''The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture,'' he said. ''And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing.''

Mr. Tal asked, ''So all the kibbutzim wanted was land?''

And General Dayan answered: ''I'm not saying that. Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it.

''But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land.''