Try Hard

I think that the following quote from Beloved is extremely telling. Ironically given that it is a book about slavery, I believe it explains part of the immigrant experience of Canada and the United States. If you've ever been asked, after having referred to yourself as a Canadian, "Where are you really from?" you would understand the feeling expressed in the following lines:

"And in all those escapes he could not help being astonished by the beauty of this land that was not his. He hid it in his breast, fingered its earth for food, clung to its banks to lap water and tried to not to love it. On nights when the sky was personal, weak with the weight of its own stars, he made himself not love it. Its graveyards and low-lying rivers. Or just a house--solitary under a chinaberry tree; maybe a mule tethered and the light hitting its hide just so. Anything could stir him and he tried hard not to love it."

These sentences are a constant reminder that as much as you might feel it, this is not your place. Your place is somewhere far away. You might never have even been there but because you had the misfortune to have a certain skin colour and features you're evermore of that foreign place. Of course had you had the good fortune to be born with pale, white skin you are instantly accepted in this new land. Somehow you are more deserving of the title of Canadian and American than even those that have been here for many generations.

Now thinking about this experience specifically in relation to Muslims you can perhaps understand the rage of certain extremists in western countries. Muslims in Canada are, perhaps more than other groups, excluded from being fully Canadian or American. For one, they are less inclined to change their habits and dress to conform (though it's never enough) to the expected standard. I should say fairly that Canada and the United States have nothing on the United Kingdom where Muslims are ghettoized and completely rejected from British society; from what I've read this is also the case in France and Germany and much of Europe.

Ultimately when you're not fully part of a place you're always uncomfortable, unstable and resentful. You're constantly reminded that you are rejected in your day to day interactions and simple statements like "where are you really from?". Your roots are shallow. This makes weeding easy when that day comes but it also makes cultivation by extremists equally easy.

A Story to Pass On

The next few entries will be based around quotes from a book I have just finished enjoying. This book is titled Beloved and it's written by Toni Morrison. It's about North American slavery (because there were so many more varieties) and the aftermath of the American Civil War. It's powerful, complex, so well written and I highly recommend it.

The first chosen passage is descriptive of the contemporary USA but also South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, Israel/Palestine and probably every other state on earth. In all these places, governed by fear and inequality, ultimately, even if it takes lifetimes, you reap what you sow. It also reveals certain truths that all minorities must struggle against, every single day. The passage is so insightful, I feel I would do it a disservice to continue to type:

". . . he believed the indecipherable language clamouring around the house was the mumbling of the black and angry dead. Very few had died in bed, like Baby Suggs, and none that he knew of, including Baby, had lived a livable life. Even the educated coloured: the long-school people, the doctors, the teachers, the paper-writers and businessmen had a hard row to hoe. In addition to having to use their heads to get ahead, they had the weight of the whole race sitting there. You needed two heads for that. Whitepeople believed that whatever the manners, under every dark skin was a jungle. Swift unnavigable waters, swinging screaming baboons, sleeping snakes, red gums ready for their sweet white blood. In a way, he thought, they were right. The more coloured people spent their strength trying to convince them how gentle they were, how clever and loving, how human, the more they used themselves up to persuade whites of something Negroes believed could not be questioned, the deeper and more tangled the jungle grew inside. But it wasn't the jungle blacks brought with them to this place from the other (livable) place. It was the jungle white-folks planted in them. And it grew. It spread. In, through and after life, it spread, until it invaded the whites who had made it. Touched them every one. Changed and altered them. Made them bloody, silly, worse than even they wanted to be, so scared were they of the jungle they had made. The screaming baboon lived under their own white skin; the red gums were their own."

Grinning like Fools

What does this picture make you think? When I look at it, I think that these two leaders are a bloody joke. They are still playing the games that elites play. Smiling and shaking the hands of your enemy. All the while children are being blown up with their families, bridges and roads are being destroyed and villages razed. Makes your smiling face seem kind of ridiculous.

How much does it take for you to not smile, to refrain from offering your hand and putting your hand on your opposite's back like old friends. Perhaps these two jokers are old friends, having both worked from an oil company; perhaps PM Fouad Siniora has an oil tanker named after him as well.

I suppose that I don't expect much from the Lebanese Prime Minister. Israel, the United States, and perhaps even Hizbullah possess more power. So he has to grin and accept whatever these other parties do and say. The ultimate yes man.

Also isn't it amazing that the United States is about to offer approximately $30 million for the reconstruction of Lebanon? Had Bush stood up to Israel at the start of this debacle, or at least counseled moderation, there would have been no power plants destroyed, no roads and bridges demolished. Just the dead, who never need reconstruction. The president could have saved his beloved taxpayers $100 million.

I guess America has the best of both worlds, they sell Israel the bombs, then sell the Lebanese, much like the Iraqis, the means to reenter the modern world. Aid is rarely offered without strings.

Still Echoes

"I do believe that the same racist impulse that considers Israeli lives worth more than Arab lives is at play here." As'ad AbuKhalil a political scientist from the University of California declared this bold statement in an interview with Al-Jazeera. This statement might be shocking to many a white middle class Canadians but there is a degree of truth to it that is unavoidable.

This truth is an echo from the past but one that still continues to ring in the heads of Arabs, Africans, First Nations peoples and many more. Having been colonized, they learned the lesson that the paler the skin, the higher value the life. The lives of these coloured people don't count as much as those higher up on the hierarchy (I strongly urge you to click this link and read this article).

In Israel and Palestine, the equation seems to be that one Israeli life equals ten Palestinian lives; it's no different in Lebanon and Gaza in 2006. In news reports on the 2000 Intifadah this dismal equation always seemed to strike me. It was always without fail 10 to 1. A Palestinian suicide bomber might have taken 10 Israeli lives on a bus but in return the Israeli punishment would terminate the lives of 100 Palestinians, give or take a few. If the Israelis assassinated a group of ten Palestinian "militants", the response claimed the life of one Israeli settler in the West Bank. This is a miserable equation, that seems to be agreed upon by both sides, is one that I have always clearly observed.

Of course, I have no doubt that globally a Jewish Israeli life is considered worth less than a white life and possibly a Japanese or Chinese life (the next stage down?). So Israelis are also caught up in this racist condition of the modern world. They are just playing their part as are we Canadians. Why do you think western states like Canada withdrew all those pretty white people when the bombs started falling? Death and suffering wasn't meant for them but for others.

Until we all together decide that this condition is meant for the scrapheap of history, expect more bombs to rain down on Lebanon and Gaza and the response, and ability to escape, to be commensurate to the colour of your skin.

The Obvious Question

How in the hell are there so many foreigners in Lebanon? This week countries from all over the world have begun moving their citizens out of Lebanon to escape the Israeli onslaught. Though few people have said it, this is one of the most massive movements of people in a long time; the British press has hailed it as the biggest movement of people since Dunkirk in World War Two. I'll accept that comparison just as long as Hizbullah isn't (groan) referred to as the new Nazi party of the twenty first century.

From my brief count of news stories I've read on the subject, I'd guess that at least 250,000 foreigners are leaving Lebanon. And that's possibly a low figure. Did you know that there were 30,000 Philippinos in Lebanon? What about the 40,000 Canadians or the 80,000 Sri Lankans? Incredible!

What's going on here? Are these foreigners all employed by the UN feeding, educating and processing all the Palestinian refugees in camps dotted about the country? That's one group that won't be leaving the country. The Palestinians wouldn't have anywhere to go.

I know that Lebanon is a financial hub for the Middle East but it seems strange that with most of their population living below the poverty line that they would need the expertise of 30,000 Philippinos or 80,000 Sri Lankans.

What the heck is going on here? Why are there so many foreigners in Lebanon? Why is no one asking this glaringly obvious question?

Does anyone have an answer for me?

Close Quarters

I received an interesting lesson in geography from the BBC today. Though I was well aware of this fact, it's still hard to fathom. The distances that separate Israel and Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Egypt are miniscule; at most a couple of hundred kilometres. For a Canadian, used to vast territorial contiguity and only one neighbour this is amazing. North Americans know a lot about distance. In the Middle East an intimacy of proximity exists between Israel and its neighbours. Now I can understand some of the Israeli national preoccupation with the closeness of their neighbours and security. They are practically on top of them.

So these rocket attacks are very sudden and are delivered pretty much without warning. It's hard for even mighty Israel to defend against that. See the map below for the distances that Hizbullah rockets can reach:


To put these distances in context. From Hamilton a Katyusha could reach Oakville. The Fajr-3 could reach Mississauga and the Fajr-5 most of western Toronto. Imagine if rockets were being fired across Lake Ontario every now and then and you'll get a small feeling for what the Israelis are going through. I'd be scared too.

These distances make one wonder if military protection is really delivering what Israelis were promised. For all the billions that Israel has spent on arms, its citizens really aren't safe. The realists inside Israel have made their choice but for an idealist like me it seems that real security comes with hard won friendship and empathy. But it's hard to build when you're destroying villages from 30,000 feet.

(source of image: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184974.stm#rocket)

Delusional

Today the Guardian reported on the response in the Israeli media to the current situation in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. The story stated: "Other commentators [from the Israeli press] compared Israel's situation to Britain's during the time of the blitz and said "everything is permissible" in the campaign against Lebanon."

Again, this bizarre statement echoes those made by the Israeli ambassador to the United States yesterday. Are these commentators out of their minds? Israel is not weak. Israel is blockading an entire country as we speak. Israel could destroy every major Arab city in the blink of an eye with its nuclear arsenal. Self-delusion is a powerful thing to behold.

Yet I suppose it makes sense. You want to believe that you're really in harm's way. That your people's very existence hangs in the balance. That you should do anything to ensure your survival. This belief justifies your excessive violent response when you are really good at heart and would never choose to do such a thing rationally. I know most Israelis are good people and that's why they have to rely on these delusions. The Americans came up with similar statements following September 11, 2001. As if 20 hijackers or two rockets fired on Haifa could signal the annihilation of an entire nation.

A little thought is all that is required to calm this situation and get these soldiers home.

Don't Make Me Laugh Danny Boy

Today someone launched two rockets at the northern Israeli coastal city of Haifa, presumably from inside Lebanon. While everyone assumes Hizbullah conducted this action, the Shia-based Lebanese political party and armed movement have denied involvement. So you'll excuse me if I wait to pass judgment. Assuming something isn't the same as knowing something, a lesson we could all well learn.

According to the BBC, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Danny Ayalon, described the Haifa attack as a "major escalation" of the crisis. What a %#$*ing joke! I'm sorry but I've really had enough of this "you hit me first game". How in God's name are two rockets a major escalation? Let's not forget that Israel has blockaded an entire country and is pummelling it from the air with a lot stronger munitions than Kutusha rockets; I believe the number of civilians killed by the Israeli Defense Forces inside Lebanon is now up to 30. What's really an escalation? How do you define escalation?

The truth is that they are an escalation because Hizbullah is fighting back. What Danny means to say is that this war should be fought in Palestine or Lebanon. When it hits home it becomes something more serious. But Danny, it's already hitting home to the Palestinians and Lebanese that are being killed inside their territory. So when your state bombed their country, was that not an escalation requiring a response? You might be interested in a lesson in empathy.

But I'm not forgetting that Hizbullah acted first and killed and captured your soldiers first and this was unjustifiable. But then for over 20 years you occupied and continue to occupy a small part of their country. Before that, Lebanon was the home of the Palestinian resistance (or as you might prefer terrorists) which hurt Israel deeply. And before that, and before that . . .

Now I'm attempting to not get caught up in this most painful and bitter history. It's hard because I have strong opinions. For one, Israel has power, more than any other group in the Middle East. Therefore to my mind, Israel has to make the peace gestures required not abuse their power by whining about a few rockets while leveling bridges and power plants. That's pathetic hypocrisy plain and simple. But maybe that's just me.

Thick Think

Outrageous: a total blockade by Israel of Lebanon's borders and a mini-invasion. And stupid: which moron would think that collective punishment is clearly the option that gets results.

Wow! Israel bombed Beirut International Airport and have closed it down indefinitely. They are telling everyone in south Beirut to get out so they can start razing it in a vain attempt to assassinate the leader of Hizbullah; wouldn't a nuclear warhead do the trick? The Israeli navy is blockading all Lebanon's ports. No one is coming or going. They have even suggested that they will patrol Lebanon's land borders with Syria and Turkey. This is the definition of full spectrum dominance. Yet, much like in Gaza, they still can't save two captured soldiers. This is the gaping whole in a massive defense budget, open for "terrorists" to drive their bomb laden (not bin Laden) vehicles through.

Here's a thought: Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers and others, have essentially driven the price of violence down. For the same level of fear as expensive nuclear weapons produce (generally very little from my experience), they can cause mass hysteria with a small intimate explosive filled with nails in a train or bus. Close, so very close. The West thought they had a monopoly on fear because of their huge defense spending but now these violent non-state organizations have pulled the rug from under them by revolutionizing warfare. Surely the West will have to follow suit, making fear on the cheap, to keep up. I guess starvation and deprivation caused by embargoes and blockades is part of our intimate and less expensive answer to these violence entrepreneurs.

Yet only a truly thick person, a title Ehud Olmert is claiming with gusto, would assume that destroying bridges, roads and power plants would get extremist politicians or groups to abandon their missions or goals and return captured Israeli soldiers. Surely, you might think, the people could get these men (mostly men I expect) to stop what they were doing. Unfortunately, scorched earth policies benefit these men more than anything. As much as the people might hate them for bringing this firestorm upon them, they hate the deliverers of this retribution all the more; what are you going to do, side with your foreign enemy against one of your own people? Therefore Hizbullah and Hamas will win new recruits and be able to paint the Israelis as oppressors and keep the whole cycle going. Sounds pretty logical to me. Does it to you Mr Olmert?

Ultimately, Israel behaves in all ways alike to its Arab brethren in the region. An eye for an eye being the only monolithic policy worth pursuing. Amazingly similar. The only difference is that Israel has all the guns.

If he wasn't in an endless coma, Ariel Sharon, the architect of Lebanon 1982, would be proud. Keep up the good work boys and girls of the IDF, Hizbullah and Hamas! Those seventy virgins will be waiting when you arrive for judgment, trust me.

Seeing

So many of the things I read these days make me think that there's something rotten at the heart of this pinnacle of human advancement--the time in which we live. It seems that so many people are being left behind but we aren't able to see it for all the new cars, big homes, lattes and high definition televisions.

I see walls and barbed wire. So many walls keeping us apart. Bulletproof cars driven past cardboard homes. CCTV following you from step to step. And such violence against anyone different from the majority. And illness and malnutrition. Some blessed, many cursed and unworthy.

Is this new? I think that maybe it's always been this way except for this brief period in the twentieth century when there was so much energy available that you could even take care of the meek and poor, like Jesus commanded. But all along the rich had everything under control; the poor got some scraps and that kept them quiet. But now energy is becoming more scarce and the rich (including ourselves dear middle class Canadians) aren't willing to give up any of their stuff or their power to ensure that each human has a safe, healthy and free life.

There is enough to go around. Just not the will to share and not take any more than we need. Do you really need all that new stuff? I know I don't.

Therefore the walls and barbed wire. And the violence. Train bombs in Mumbai and soon after blood in the streets; dirty Muslim blood spilled by righteous Hindus. Students in St Petersburg murdered for the crime of being black. Torture for security. The list goes on.

How many times have I thought that humans are unworthy of being the stewards of this wonderful planet? Yet hang in there. We might just yet make it if we stop to think about where we're going.

Business As Usual

Today India tested a new missile with a range of up to 3,000 kilometres. The Agni 3, incidentally named after an ancient Vedic god of fire, test was successful. This test came hot on the heels of North Korea's testing of a number of different long range missiles last week. These tests spurred international outrage, the cancellation of talks with North Korea and even got the UN Security Council together to consider an appropriate response.

Expect none of this to happen due to India's tests. India certainly won't be referred to the Security Council, no one would dream of imposing economic sanctions on the new economic monster on the block and I doubt even George W Bush, that paragon of virtue, will comment on the test. It will be business as usual.

And of course, thoughtful people and North Korea and its fellow member of the Axis of Evil will see this result and be outraged by the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems to be a theme of international relations and this blog. Time and again what's good for the goose is never, ever good for the gander. Is it any wonder that thoughtful young people and our "enemies" are cynical about politics and the "just" world that we've made?

But India's action in testing this missile is more provocative and disturbing than almost anything North Korea could do. For one this "deterrent" is a great step in facilitating a war with Pakistan or worse China. Let's not forget that China and India together contain over 2 billion human beings not to mention much of the world's biodiversity. As commentators have mentioned just seconds after this launch, India now has the ability to level important northern Chinese cities like Shanghai and Beijing under radioactive rubble. China has had the ability to do the same to any city on the subcontinent for a long while so I guess it's fair now, right?

Who thinks like this? Why would India and China go to war; over some mountains in the Himalayas? What's the point of border commissions and peace moves, when you're always planning for war. These are clearly hollow initiatives. Why do you need a deterrent against a friend? It's pretty sad to go through life always believing that ultimately your friends will turn on you and needing the resources to challenge them when this inevitable day comes. Are you really living subscribing to this worldview?

Camelot Towers

The United Kingdom's national lottery, Camelot (interesting name) today announced two new games that will be used to help pay for London's 2012 Olympic Games. Unfortunately what this ultimately means is that the poor will be subsidizing the games that are the playground of the rich. This seems logical for these modern times. You might be able to afford the pound for the lottery ticket but what about the 50 pounds, if that, to see the 100 metre finals from the nosebleeds. You see, the rich and middle classes barely waste time playing the lottery; they have the stock market which is much more lucrative and has better odds. For the poor the lottery is the best that they can do to play the game. Throw in a little nationalism as the Olympics do naturally and you've got an easy, justifiable tax on the poor.

This begs the question, if London needs these lotteries to cover the cost of the Olympics, is hosting the event ultimately worth it? We're always told that the Olympics equal investment and development for cities. These Olympics boosters never focus on the cost overruns and debt borne by cities that host the games. And all the homeless people mysteriously disappear just days before the world arrives; or worse, who knows what the Chinese will do before Beijing 2008?