Or as normal as life gets post 9/11.
This last week seems to have seen a certain amount of normality returning to ones day to day life. If one looks at the news, the attack on the US still of course dominates the headlines (except of course for The Sun which was good enough to use it's front page yesterday to inform the world that Elton John like girls; rather dashed my hopes of living a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of a sugar daddy actually but I suppose it means my rectum can now live free from the fear of being brutally invaded by a faded rock star whose wigs and hair weaves get more press than he does...) but the rest of the news is gradually expanding to take up more than a few minutes on the 10 o clock news. We are also being exhorted by the great and good to carry on our lives. "Life must go on" is becoming something of a catchphrase amongst politicians now; Giulianni, Dubya, and Blair are all growing increasingly fond of it. So how does the world go about its daily business after such an apocalyptic event?
Well, seemingly it does so in pretty much the same way as it did beforehand. The Elton John headline is one example; one can rely on The Sun to distract us from our daily lives with amusing and sometimes well-written inanities. In Northern Ireland there were loyalist riots last night; presumably in the new climate of anti terrorism those good Protestants took it upon themselves to shoot and bomb those Catholics whom they considered terrorists (i.e. any and all Catholics that they could get there hands on). So we can content ourselves with the knowledge that at least one of the sides in that continuing saga remains as ignorant, stupid, and intolerant as ever.
Of course, some things have radically altered. The idea of the relationship between Iran and the UK developing in the way it has in the last week would have been unthinkable before September 11th, yet the press and political commentators are now pro-Iranian and act as if they have been all their lives. No-one seems to want to point out how unusual, not to mention fantastic, this is. Is that because after the events of that black Tuesday, we want to be reassured with certainties? And if that is the case, is that why events like this are talked of as if they had been expected for years and that no-one should worry themselves about it? That it is, in fact, business as usual?
This is also an opportune moment for me to say something that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would. Dubya made a speech to Congress last week, and it was absolutely bloody brilliant. There, I said it. It was well delivered and displayed none of the usual mangling of the language that has become his forte. It also stopped well short of being the gung-ho, dead or alive, "I think I'm in a movie", rabble rousing diatribe that I had feared and expected. Yet this, when reported on, has had the subtext of "Well what else did you expect? He always makes excellent speeches." If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would begin to compare the media's behaviour with that of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 which saw past newspapers being altered so that the predictions of the past gelled with the facts of the present.
With that in mind we also have the sight of certain people taking advantage of the current, rather peculiar social climate to say or do things that would have caused howls of either amusement or outrage (depending on whether or not you read the Daily Mail) before the 11th. Michael Jackson for example is threatening to sue the BBC over comments made by Iain Lee about Jacko's legendary fondness for children. There was a time not so long ago when this would have caused splutters of disbelief; the man who felt the need to give a multi million dollar settlement to a child who claims that he was sexually abused by Jackson trying to sue an almost unheard of comedian who made his comments on Liquid News which airs on BBC 24hr News. I feel the need to mention the program, as you may not have ever heard of it. I feel the need to mention the name of the comedian, as he is one of the most cancerously unfunny men in televisual history. Michael Jackson apparently feels the need to boost the career of one and the ratings of another by getting upset about comments that, until I read about him intending to sue, I had never even heard. This is pretty much passing by without any comment from the media about how ridiculous the whole affair is. I suspect that in the next few weeks, no-one will want to be seen to be making waves in the press and so Jacko, either by accident or design, is taking full advantage of this.
But, as there are two sides to every coin, one can also say or do good things that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago. The best example of this would be one of my all time favourite bugbears; Israel and Palestine. Jack Straw (a man who looks more like a Gestapo officer every time I see him) wrote that Arab anger over Palestine was one of the major motivations of Middle Eastern based terrorists. He also visited Iran and Jordan to get support for the coalition against...actually, I'm not quite sure exactly who it's meant to be against but we'll leave that for now. In any case, both his statement and his actions are quite correct. Unless you're an Israeli politician in which case both are racist. Never mind the fact that Straw took the opportunity to state that the Iranian view of Israel as a racist and Zionist country was, in his opinion, utter nonsense. Israel brooks no criticism of it's handling of Palestine, however appalling it may be. It would appear that Israel is unhappy that the rest of the world, having been growing increasingly sick of the heavy handed brutality that is routinely used against Palestinians, has leapt upon the opportunity to point out just how ghastly the likes of Shimon Peres et al are. Of course there are those who use this as an excuse to trot out the usual anti-Semitic rubbish but if one discounts them, the mood of the media seems to be fast becoming anti-Israeli concerning their treatment of Palestinians. Peres has always been a jumped up little thug who, but for an accident of birth, would have been far more at home in the Nazi party. It is pleasing to see that message being brought into our homes by the press.
And finally of course, there is politics. Politics seems to have been put on hold since the 11th. This means that we have missed the election of Darth Tory as the Conservative Party leader as well as the fact that the only right-wingers that aren't included in his shadow cabinet are Hermann Goering and Dr. Josef Goebbals. Those great irrelevancies, the party conferences, have for once been under reported and (oh please let this be true) cut back to 2 days instead of a full week. However, this more than anything else is an area where doing strange new things whilst making it seem as if life has always been this way is the most dangerous. Whilst I am fairly ambivalent about the issue of compulsory ID cards, one must acknowledge the strong feeling that this issue causes. Yet there is the danger that an ID card law can be brought in whilst we're not looking. It seems somehow disrespectful to the public to do that, and I hold out hope that it will not yet be the case. But I would hope that people keep an eye on the political scene now more than ever. Not to protect us from our government, but rather to gently remind them when they're going wrong.
So would appear that, despite the spectre of war (worldwide or localised) life does indeed go on. It has become a case of everything is different and it all stays the same. Who knows, perhaps next time I'll be writing about how Jeffrey Archer was hard done by, how the Conservative party is the bright future of British Politics, and how impressed I am with the warm and humane treatment of the Palestinians in Israel.
Tuesday, 25 September 2001
Friday, 21 September 2001
Feed my Conspiracy
Though my approach is rather scattergun, I stand by this essay; the majority of Conspiracy theorists are so single-minded and egocentric that they ensure any legitimate concern or opposition to government pronouncements can be safely dismissed as the frothings of a lunatic.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Tuesday, 18 September 2001
One Week Later
Unfortunately, the latter option of the final paragraph seems to have been the one that has come to pass.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
Wednesday, 12 September 2001
The day after the day before
Today there are numerous questions that remain unanswered. I could write all day about them but I shall limit myself to a few that are pertinent to that which I have wrote about previously. Firstly, what does this mean for the Palestinian people? Secondly, what does this mean for Dubya? Finally, what does this mean for the world and for democracy?
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
Friday, 7 September 2001
The Red Mist
A fairly straightforward rant about the nature of Anger coupled with it's relevance to a then-current news story.
Anger.
Anger is a curious and oft ignored motivation. It is also one that has been at the forefront of the British news recently, together with its attendant emotions of anguish and humiliation. The latter two are best evidenced (if you're English) by the eminently satisfying reports in the German media concerning the 5-1 drubbing that was dished out to the national team on Saturday. But I mention this only in passing. If one wants to look at anger in the news, one should look no further than the Ardoyne Road in Belfast.
For the last week there has been some horrifically ugly scenes as parents tried to walk their children to school. This act has angered the residents of Ardoyne Road so much that they have attempted to blockade the route to the school and have hurled everything from abuse to bottles at both parents and children. The police have been accused of heavy handedness by the Ardoyne residents, but truth be known they have acted with that force which was necessary to repel them from the pupils of the Holy Cross school. The only reason it may have appeared excessive is that the fury of the people of Ardoyne is so great, so passionate, that it literally took a small army of baton wielding policemen to batter and force them back.
So what has caused all of this anger? Obviously it cannot be the mere fact that some children are walking through their street to get to school. We are told that the reason is a simple one; Holy Cross school is Catholic. The Ardoyne Road is Protestant. The Protestants don't want Catholic's walking through their street as they "feel intimidated". So intimidated in fact that they have suddenly felt the need to turn out in force and bay like wolves at the moon every weekday morning as the children make their frightened way to school.
There has been much said this week of the barbarity of the Ardoyne residents. Even hardened loyalists have frowned upon their behavior, with some commenting that it makes them ashamed to be Protestant. What strikes me about much of the coverage of the disgraceful scenes this week is the assumption that the anger of the Ardoyne is a choice that was rationally made leading to quite voluntary attendance in the mob every morning. Personally, I'm not so sure. These people are Angry with a capital A, that much is for certain. After all, our society is littered with taboos concerning the ill treatment of children (just look at the storm generated by Brass Eye if one wants an example) and yet these people are turning up five mornings a week with the specific intent of screaming hate filled vitriol at a group of 8 to 11 year olds.
I suspect that if it were put in just those terms to the Ardoyne residents then they would perhaps pause for a little thought. But then again, perhaps not. After all, something has caused this tremendous anger, and I cannot believe that it is simply the fact that some children from one local yet distinct group are walking through an area populated by people belonging to another group who are their traditional opponents to get to school. Good lord if that were the case then the boy from Sunderland who attended my High School in Newcastle would have had to run a gauntlet of fury every morning (which, come to think of it, wouldn't have been so bad as he was a noted and notorious git). So why the extreme anger?
In my experience, one doesn't get the choice about whether to be angry or not. One simply reacts to circumstances. Who among us can say that they have sat down and made a conscious decision to get angry about something? Anger is something primal, and logical thought has no place in its genesis. The most ridiculous things can cause it. We are contemptuous of the Ardoyne residents for their anger at schoolchildren, yet I have in my time been roused to fury by my football team losing, or by my girlfriends constant snoring (the kind that sort of hangs around in the background noise when one is trying to sleep, only to rise to a brief crescendo when one is on the very cusp of unconsciousness; most annoying!). If I were to think rationally about these things, the pointlessness of my anger at them quickly becomes apparent. But who thinks rationally when angry? Anger is something that is essentially beyond our control.
So then, if we accept that the anger of the Ardoyne has as much justification as pretty much any other bout of hostility we can perhaps begin to look a little further into their ire. One thing that should be addressed from the very beginning is the mistaken belief that anger (and in particular anger that excites ones passion to the extent that one can proceed no further without either bellowing with rage and/or smashing up inanimate objects and, regrettably, people) is the sole preserve of the stupid. This is not at all the case and I would go as far as to say that it is stupid of anyone to think that. I don't think I'm being too arrogant by saying that I'm an intelligent person. And yet I've become so angry at times that I have screamed hatred and vitriol at whomever was unfortunate enough to be the target of my hostility. I've quite possibly broken holes in more walls than Tom and Jerry. Happily I have resisted the urge to lash out at people, contenting myself with becoming the scourge of kitchen walls instead. Einstein was not exactly noted for his 100% cool temper. If we were to really get into a debate on this one could point out an angry Jesus throwing the moneylenders from the temple. I'm entirely sure that some of the people in the Ardoyne mob are as intelligent or more so than I am (perhaps not quite at the level of Einstein or Jesus though...). But they're still there and their anger is no different to any of the other members of the mob.
This means that anybody can be held to the mercy of his or her rage. And it is not up to us to decide when it happens either. So are the people of the Ardoyne mere slaves to their spleen? Not entirely; I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling of fighting to keep control of your emotions when faced with something pretty much guaranteed to cause an explosion of rage. It is a strong willed person indeed who, faced with an event that causes one to feel almost unreal anger, manages to choke down their hate and attempt to look at the situation with a balanced view. The intoxicating thing about anger is that, at the time, it seems so completely right that one should react in this way. One is afforded a clarity that is rarely (if ever) in evidence during our normal life. Any and all moral objections are swept away. Whatever pockets of reason remain are ignored entirely. Whatever it is that excites our wrath is given our full and undivided attention. And usually, anger being what it is, we are entirely focused on how best to either destroy or hurt that which has caused us to feel this way. The fact that there could be all manner of justifications for the events that caused us to feel so is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that is of any concern is the anger that it has caused. It is for that reason that the people of the Ardoyne have been spitting bile at the children of Holy Cross. If someone objective can fully understand the causes of their anger (by which I mean truly understand rather than trotting out the usual sectarian spiel) then perhaps we can begin to hope that some of the hate can be lanced and that some semblance of normality can return to the Ardoyne.
Anger.
Anger is a curious and oft ignored motivation. It is also one that has been at the forefront of the British news recently, together with its attendant emotions of anguish and humiliation. The latter two are best evidenced (if you're English) by the eminently satisfying reports in the German media concerning the 5-1 drubbing that was dished out to the national team on Saturday. But I mention this only in passing. If one wants to look at anger in the news, one should look no further than the Ardoyne Road in Belfast.
For the last week there has been some horrifically ugly scenes as parents tried to walk their children to school. This act has angered the residents of Ardoyne Road so much that they have attempted to blockade the route to the school and have hurled everything from abuse to bottles at both parents and children. The police have been accused of heavy handedness by the Ardoyne residents, but truth be known they have acted with that force which was necessary to repel them from the pupils of the Holy Cross school. The only reason it may have appeared excessive is that the fury of the people of Ardoyne is so great, so passionate, that it literally took a small army of baton wielding policemen to batter and force them back.
So what has caused all of this anger? Obviously it cannot be the mere fact that some children are walking through their street to get to school. We are told that the reason is a simple one; Holy Cross school is Catholic. The Ardoyne Road is Protestant. The Protestants don't want Catholic's walking through their street as they "feel intimidated". So intimidated in fact that they have suddenly felt the need to turn out in force and bay like wolves at the moon every weekday morning as the children make their frightened way to school.
There has been much said this week of the barbarity of the Ardoyne residents. Even hardened loyalists have frowned upon their behavior, with some commenting that it makes them ashamed to be Protestant. What strikes me about much of the coverage of the disgraceful scenes this week is the assumption that the anger of the Ardoyne is a choice that was rationally made leading to quite voluntary attendance in the mob every morning. Personally, I'm not so sure. These people are Angry with a capital A, that much is for certain. After all, our society is littered with taboos concerning the ill treatment of children (just look at the storm generated by Brass Eye if one wants an example) and yet these people are turning up five mornings a week with the specific intent of screaming hate filled vitriol at a group of 8 to 11 year olds.
I suspect that if it were put in just those terms to the Ardoyne residents then they would perhaps pause for a little thought. But then again, perhaps not. After all, something has caused this tremendous anger, and I cannot believe that it is simply the fact that some children from one local yet distinct group are walking through an area populated by people belonging to another group who are their traditional opponents to get to school. Good lord if that were the case then the boy from Sunderland who attended my High School in Newcastle would have had to run a gauntlet of fury every morning (which, come to think of it, wouldn't have been so bad as he was a noted and notorious git). So why the extreme anger?
In my experience, one doesn't get the choice about whether to be angry or not. One simply reacts to circumstances. Who among us can say that they have sat down and made a conscious decision to get angry about something? Anger is something primal, and logical thought has no place in its genesis. The most ridiculous things can cause it. We are contemptuous of the Ardoyne residents for their anger at schoolchildren, yet I have in my time been roused to fury by my football team losing, or by my girlfriends constant snoring (the kind that sort of hangs around in the background noise when one is trying to sleep, only to rise to a brief crescendo when one is on the very cusp of unconsciousness; most annoying!). If I were to think rationally about these things, the pointlessness of my anger at them quickly becomes apparent. But who thinks rationally when angry? Anger is something that is essentially beyond our control.
So then, if we accept that the anger of the Ardoyne has as much justification as pretty much any other bout of hostility we can perhaps begin to look a little further into their ire. One thing that should be addressed from the very beginning is the mistaken belief that anger (and in particular anger that excites ones passion to the extent that one can proceed no further without either bellowing with rage and/or smashing up inanimate objects and, regrettably, people) is the sole preserve of the stupid. This is not at all the case and I would go as far as to say that it is stupid of anyone to think that. I don't think I'm being too arrogant by saying that I'm an intelligent person. And yet I've become so angry at times that I have screamed hatred and vitriol at whomever was unfortunate enough to be the target of my hostility. I've quite possibly broken holes in more walls than Tom and Jerry. Happily I have resisted the urge to lash out at people, contenting myself with becoming the scourge of kitchen walls instead. Einstein was not exactly noted for his 100% cool temper. If we were to really get into a debate on this one could point out an angry Jesus throwing the moneylenders from the temple. I'm entirely sure that some of the people in the Ardoyne mob are as intelligent or more so than I am (perhaps not quite at the level of Einstein or Jesus though...). But they're still there and their anger is no different to any of the other members of the mob.
This means that anybody can be held to the mercy of his or her rage. And it is not up to us to decide when it happens either. So are the people of the Ardoyne mere slaves to their spleen? Not entirely; I'm sure you're familiar with the feeling of fighting to keep control of your emotions when faced with something pretty much guaranteed to cause an explosion of rage. It is a strong willed person indeed who, faced with an event that causes one to feel almost unreal anger, manages to choke down their hate and attempt to look at the situation with a balanced view. The intoxicating thing about anger is that, at the time, it seems so completely right that one should react in this way. One is afforded a clarity that is rarely (if ever) in evidence during our normal life. Any and all moral objections are swept away. Whatever pockets of reason remain are ignored entirely. Whatever it is that excites our wrath is given our full and undivided attention. And usually, anger being what it is, we are entirely focused on how best to either destroy or hurt that which has caused us to feel this way. The fact that there could be all manner of justifications for the events that caused us to feel so is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that is of any concern is the anger that it has caused. It is for that reason that the people of the Ardoyne have been spitting bile at the children of Holy Cross. If someone objective can fully understand the causes of their anger (by which I mean truly understand rather than trotting out the usual sectarian spiel) then perhaps we can begin to hope that some of the hate can be lanced and that some semblance of normality can return to the Ardoyne.
Tuesday, 28 August 2001
Paternalism
A subject that doesn't really affect me, but still annoys the shit out of me.
I see that Neil and Christine Hamilton have been exonerated of all wrongdoing today. Well, not *all* wrongdoing obviously, but certainly they can now hold their heads up high and say in a strong and clear voice "We are not rapists! Corrupt liars and thieves we may be, but rapists we are not!"
Of course, were it not for a silly bitch screaming "Rape" in the name of earning a fast buck, I would not have been placed in the lamentable position of having sympathy for a couple whom I regard as a decaying and slightly smelly blood clot on the tampon of life. Nadine Milroy-Sloane, the woman who made the accusations, has gone on record as saying that she is "devastated". I can hardly blame her; not only has she had all of her assets frozen and not only is she doomed to financial ruin (because the Hamiltons will pursue her in the courts in an effort to find the cash to pay off their rather sizable debts to Mohammed Al Fayed) but she has managed to strike a blow for rapists everywhere. Now a man can rape away to his hearts content, safe in the knowledge that the actions of just one brain-dead money whore has ensured that the 1 out of every 10 rape victims who are courageous enough to report what has happened to the police will think twice before doing so. After all, they're already putting themselves forward for the humiliation and pain of reliving the experience in a police interview room and in court. The additional incentive of the very people whom are fighting your corner wondering at the back of their minds whether or not you are making it up for reasons of your own gives that extra frisson of horror to the whole experience. God bless you Miss Sloane; your complete lack of anything even remotely resembling a scruple will ensure that wherever a sexually inadequate, violent man and a woman are gathered together with no witnesses, the man will surely bless your name and actions.
However, one thing that the Hamiltons have raised during their numerous media briefings is how disgusted they felt that their accuser could remain anonymous whilst they were paraded around for all to see (the fact that it was they who caused and propagated the media circus by their daily updates to anyone who'd listen seems to have passed them by...). As such, they have called for a change in the law to remove the right of anonymity for the victim. This is, of course, an extraordinarily bad idea. Possibly it's the only thing that is would cause more rejoicing among the rapist community than the actions of Miss Sloane. However, it does raise one thing concerning our rape laws; their paternalism. That is to say, the fact that they favour women but only by treating them like sweet little things whom, if their DNA were to be mapped, would be found to contain sugar, spice, and all things nice.
As the law stands, the accuser is granted anonymity whilst the accused is not. For the record, I happen to believe that both parties should remain anonymous unless there is a conviction. The current law works entirely on the assumption that the victim is female (male rape has only been recognised as a crime in the last decade) and therefore a weak and fragile little creature whose abominable suffering means that she cannot be relied on as a witness. Any disagreements on that? If so, why not have a swift glance at the conviction rates in rape cases where the victim is also the only witness. They're not very high needless to say, and this is because of a marked reluctance from the police and CPS to proceed to court where the only evidence is that of the victim. This paternalism can also work in favour of a woman courageous enough to push for charges to be brought, or a woman like Miss Sloan (whom, by the way, represents the vast minority of people who say that they have been raped) who can get a case taken further than it should be because the legal system assumes that women are too free of guile to lie or to make accusations for reasons of revenge or money.
So then; the paternalism of our rape laws can work either for or against the victim, but the fact is that it shouldn't do either. It shouldn't even be present, but it is. And it is by no means the only example. Take divorce laws; I know from experience that if a man wants to come out of a divorce settlement and not be on the "losing" side (that is, the side who has lost most financially) then he should immediately take steps to secure a sex change. There is *always* a presumption in favour of the woman in a divorce case. If there is a house in joint names, it is she who will get it. If there are bills or credit agreements in joint names, it is he who will get them. The judge will almost always work on the idea that the man has to provide for this poor woman whom he mistreated to the point that she felt the need to divorce him. And they will do this regardless of what the facts may be. Out of the divorce cases that I was involved in during my brief tenure in the legal profession, I would say that the financial circumstances of the man were better than those of the woman perhaps 15% of the time. Otherwise they were either equals or, occasionally, the woman's circumstances were better. Yet I have never ever either sat in on, or heard about from a colleague, a case where the man was given fair and equal treatment and where his soon to be former wife was given exactly the same.
And why am I so completely opposed to this sort of thing? Well, it is not (as you may think) because I am a sexist pig who thinks that women should be returned to the kitchen. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe that women should be treated completely 100% equally with men. That's not to say that I think men and women are both exactly the same (I think anti-feminism is something to rant about another day. If you take issue with that last point I shall give ample opportunity for disagreement at a later point.) because they're not, but that doesn't mean that being different means "not as good". Therefore, I'd like to see complete equality in society's treatment of men and women. The paternalistic attitude of the law and many other facets of society prevent this.
A paternalistic society is nothing new in itself. However, it is a very visible example of our increasing acceptance of "Positive Discrimination" into society. This is a strange beast as it seems to be telling us that two wrongs make a right. Whilst it is wrong to discriminate against someone from an ethnic minority so that they do not get a job for which they are eminently qualified, it is apparently quite correct to discriminate in their favour. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Ethnicity" forms that come with every job application these days. You know; the ones that ask you for your cultural and racial background so that they can fill a certain quota of jobs according to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Don't these things strike anyone as...well, rather offensive? I'd like to know that I got a job on my merits or, if I didn't I would rather it was because there was someone better qualified for the job. I'd be less than impressed knowing that I'd got a job solely because I was a crippled black homosexual and that fills out 3 different quota's in one. I'm being facetious of course, but I do find it a little sad that we have to enshrine this sort of thing in law. If we have to write our ethics laws down and enforce them then we don't really have any ethics as a society. A Company can have the most small-minded bigot in the world selecting their staff and not have his attitudes addressed because as long as he fills a quota of minorities or women, then he will be considered an equal opportunities employer. Call me idealistic, but I would have thought that the whole point of laws designed to stop Racial discrimination would have concentrated on educating people about why being racist or sexist immediately marks one out as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with little or no place in the 21st century. I wouldn't have expected it to claim that racism and sexism are on the decline purely because the figures say so. (Incidentally, I think I can claim to be completely free of sexism or racism; I care not for your racial makeup, sexual orientation, gender, or functionality of your limbs. Whoever you are, rest assured that I hold you all in equal contempt.)
As things stand we are making no effort whatsoever to reduce the causes of discrimination. What we are doing is masking most of the visible effects, and we are doing it in a way that is itself discriminatory. True equality cannot be forced on people( and more is the pity because I for one would love to see the discomfort of an average neighbourhood Nazi being forced to live with and work with, for example, an Asian Les-Bi-Gay association. Now *that* would make good reality TV...), it needs to be nurtured. What we have smacks of a quick fix so that the government of the day can claim to be doing more to reduce discrimination than ever before. If there was a long term plan to educate people from school age about the evil of discrimination, and also to ensure that employers are fair and equal without having to rely on an ethnicity form, perhaps even to reform the law and it's practitioners in order to help them see women as humans rather than objects to be protected, then perhaps discrimination of any kind will be consigned to history.
If you're thinking "...and pigs might fly" in postscript to that, I would hardly blame you.
I see that Neil and Christine Hamilton have been exonerated of all wrongdoing today. Well, not *all* wrongdoing obviously, but certainly they can now hold their heads up high and say in a strong and clear voice "We are not rapists! Corrupt liars and thieves we may be, but rapists we are not!"
Of course, were it not for a silly bitch screaming "Rape" in the name of earning a fast buck, I would not have been placed in the lamentable position of having sympathy for a couple whom I regard as a decaying and slightly smelly blood clot on the tampon of life. Nadine Milroy-Sloane, the woman who made the accusations, has gone on record as saying that she is "devastated". I can hardly blame her; not only has she had all of her assets frozen and not only is she doomed to financial ruin (because the Hamiltons will pursue her in the courts in an effort to find the cash to pay off their rather sizable debts to Mohammed Al Fayed) but she has managed to strike a blow for rapists everywhere. Now a man can rape away to his hearts content, safe in the knowledge that the actions of just one brain-dead money whore has ensured that the 1 out of every 10 rape victims who are courageous enough to report what has happened to the police will think twice before doing so. After all, they're already putting themselves forward for the humiliation and pain of reliving the experience in a police interview room and in court. The additional incentive of the very people whom are fighting your corner wondering at the back of their minds whether or not you are making it up for reasons of your own gives that extra frisson of horror to the whole experience. God bless you Miss Sloane; your complete lack of anything even remotely resembling a scruple will ensure that wherever a sexually inadequate, violent man and a woman are gathered together with no witnesses, the man will surely bless your name and actions.
However, one thing that the Hamiltons have raised during their numerous media briefings is how disgusted they felt that their accuser could remain anonymous whilst they were paraded around for all to see (the fact that it was they who caused and propagated the media circus by their daily updates to anyone who'd listen seems to have passed them by...). As such, they have called for a change in the law to remove the right of anonymity for the victim. This is, of course, an extraordinarily bad idea. Possibly it's the only thing that is would cause more rejoicing among the rapist community than the actions of Miss Sloane. However, it does raise one thing concerning our rape laws; their paternalism. That is to say, the fact that they favour women but only by treating them like sweet little things whom, if their DNA were to be mapped, would be found to contain sugar, spice, and all things nice.
As the law stands, the accuser is granted anonymity whilst the accused is not. For the record, I happen to believe that both parties should remain anonymous unless there is a conviction. The current law works entirely on the assumption that the victim is female (male rape has only been recognised as a crime in the last decade) and therefore a weak and fragile little creature whose abominable suffering means that she cannot be relied on as a witness. Any disagreements on that? If so, why not have a swift glance at the conviction rates in rape cases where the victim is also the only witness. They're not very high needless to say, and this is because of a marked reluctance from the police and CPS to proceed to court where the only evidence is that of the victim. This paternalism can also work in favour of a woman courageous enough to push for charges to be brought, or a woman like Miss Sloan (whom, by the way, represents the vast minority of people who say that they have been raped) who can get a case taken further than it should be because the legal system assumes that women are too free of guile to lie or to make accusations for reasons of revenge or money.
So then; the paternalism of our rape laws can work either for or against the victim, but the fact is that it shouldn't do either. It shouldn't even be present, but it is. And it is by no means the only example. Take divorce laws; I know from experience that if a man wants to come out of a divorce settlement and not be on the "losing" side (that is, the side who has lost most financially) then he should immediately take steps to secure a sex change. There is *always* a presumption in favour of the woman in a divorce case. If there is a house in joint names, it is she who will get it. If there are bills or credit agreements in joint names, it is he who will get them. The judge will almost always work on the idea that the man has to provide for this poor woman whom he mistreated to the point that she felt the need to divorce him. And they will do this regardless of what the facts may be. Out of the divorce cases that I was involved in during my brief tenure in the legal profession, I would say that the financial circumstances of the man were better than those of the woman perhaps 15% of the time. Otherwise they were either equals or, occasionally, the woman's circumstances were better. Yet I have never ever either sat in on, or heard about from a colleague, a case where the man was given fair and equal treatment and where his soon to be former wife was given exactly the same.
And why am I so completely opposed to this sort of thing? Well, it is not (as you may think) because I am a sexist pig who thinks that women should be returned to the kitchen. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe that women should be treated completely 100% equally with men. That's not to say that I think men and women are both exactly the same (I think anti-feminism is something to rant about another day. If you take issue with that last point I shall give ample opportunity for disagreement at a later point.) because they're not, but that doesn't mean that being different means "not as good". Therefore, I'd like to see complete equality in society's treatment of men and women. The paternalistic attitude of the law and many other facets of society prevent this.
A paternalistic society is nothing new in itself. However, it is a very visible example of our increasing acceptance of "Positive Discrimination" into society. This is a strange beast as it seems to be telling us that two wrongs make a right. Whilst it is wrong to discriminate against someone from an ethnic minority so that they do not get a job for which they are eminently qualified, it is apparently quite correct to discriminate in their favour. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Ethnicity" forms that come with every job application these days. You know; the ones that ask you for your cultural and racial background so that they can fill a certain quota of jobs according to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Don't these things strike anyone as...well, rather offensive? I'd like to know that I got a job on my merits or, if I didn't I would rather it was because there was someone better qualified for the job. I'd be less than impressed knowing that I'd got a job solely because I was a crippled black homosexual and that fills out 3 different quota's in one. I'm being facetious of course, but I do find it a little sad that we have to enshrine this sort of thing in law. If we have to write our ethics laws down and enforce them then we don't really have any ethics as a society. A Company can have the most small-minded bigot in the world selecting their staff and not have his attitudes addressed because as long as he fills a quota of minorities or women, then he will be considered an equal opportunities employer. Call me idealistic, but I would have thought that the whole point of laws designed to stop Racial discrimination would have concentrated on educating people about why being racist or sexist immediately marks one out as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with little or no place in the 21st century. I wouldn't have expected it to claim that racism and sexism are on the decline purely because the figures say so. (Incidentally, I think I can claim to be completely free of sexism or racism; I care not for your racial makeup, sexual orientation, gender, or functionality of your limbs. Whoever you are, rest assured that I hold you all in equal contempt.)
As things stand we are making no effort whatsoever to reduce the causes of discrimination. What we are doing is masking most of the visible effects, and we are doing it in a way that is itself discriminatory. True equality cannot be forced on people( and more is the pity because I for one would love to see the discomfort of an average neighbourhood Nazi being forced to live with and work with, for example, an Asian Les-Bi-Gay association. Now *that* would make good reality TV...), it needs to be nurtured. What we have smacks of a quick fix so that the government of the day can claim to be doing more to reduce discrimination than ever before. If there was a long term plan to educate people from school age about the evil of discrimination, and also to ensure that employers are fair and equal without having to rely on an ethnicity form, perhaps even to reform the law and it's practitioners in order to help them see women as humans rather than objects to be protected, then perhaps discrimination of any kind will be consigned to history.
If you're thinking "...and pigs might fly" in postscript to that, I would hardly blame you.
Tuesday, 21 August 2001
The (Insert Name Here) Ghetto Uprising
Compared to the abuse that is heaped on Israeli policy these days, this is nothing more than a gentle chiding.
A little while ago I wrote concerning the quite horrific mess that is Israel in the 21st century. I made a parallel between child whom is abused becoming an abuser, and Israelites having suffered oppression at the hands of the Nazi's becoming oppressors themselves. I was accused of oversimplifying the case to the point of distortion. To an extent I'll accept that. Not a very big extent though as I still think it's a valid comparison, the more so since a particular historical parallel has been brought to my attention. Allow me to explain...
In the spring of 1943 things were looking bleak for the Jews who had found themselves confined to the Warsaw Ghetto, an area won through conquest that was being used to contain the Jews. 300,000 of them had been deported to Treblinka in the previous summer, and they had heard dark rumours of mass killings taking place there. This was of course a comparatively late stage in their persecution by the Nazi's. They had endured what must have seemed like endless suffering; numerous racial laws had clearly defined them as a sub-class of people and so the state tacitly condoned, not to say encouraged anyone who struck against them. Kristalnacht saw the destruction of much of their property. Those goods and properties that escaped this were confiscated by the state. Jews outside of Germany had been forcibly removed from their land to make way for German settlers as part of Hitler’s "Lebensraum" policy. Those who remained in German held territory were treated as second class citizens in their own country, finding that the only work available to them was unskilled labour at best, and no work at all at worst. Initially they were all packed into ghettos such as the one in Warsaw. Even these grotesque and crowded places could not be thought of as their own as the Nazi's kept them on a tight leash with any perceived disobedience being met with lethal and indiscriminate force.
By this time there had been murmuring and discontent throughout the Jewish ghettos. The mass deportation and subsequent tales of horror during the summer of 1942 led to the formation of the ZOB, an organisation that had resistance to the Nazi oppressors as it's sole purpose. It's methods were crude; by January 1943 they had managed to acquire some weapons and used them on the German soldiers who came to round up Jews for deportation. It was a small victory as it only drove the Germans away for a few days, but it was cause for celebration amongst a people so crushed that any act of defiance brought hope and a certain freedom from the grim inevitability of their lives.
On April 19th 1943, the German's entered the Warsaw ghetto with the intention of liquidating it and deporting all inhabitants to the various death camps set up around Poland. 750 members of ZOB fought the heavily armed, better-trained and numerically superior German forces off for almost a month. The fact that they were doomed to lose is an irrelevance here; they knew that they were making martyrs of themselves but they felt that the treatment that they were receiving was so bad, so inhuman that it was better to obey the dictates of their conscience even though it would cost them their lives. They were martyred as free men and women as well as Jews. Their actions were of course utterly condemned by the Nazi's and used as an excuse for even more savage brutality (if that were possible...) toward the Jews. Despite this and despite the inherent futility of the ZOB led uprising, this incident is (rightly) recorded in history as an heroic stand against oppression and evil. Time has led us to forget whatever condemnations the Nazi's and their sympathizers put forward and to remember only the heroism of those incredibly brave men and women.
I would say that one of the reasons the uprising happened in the first place was that the Nazi's had put the Jews through so much, heaping indignity upon indignity, that the members of ZOB (which, by the way, stands for Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which in turn means Jewish Fighting Organisation) felt that they had nothing else to lose. A man or woman with nothing to lose is capable of doing things that would have been considered either out of character or suicidally stupid depending upon your point of view. Which leads me back to Israel circa 2001...
Summer 2001 would seem to hold the promise of still darker days ahead for the Palestinian people of Israel. They have found themselves confined to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, area's that were won by conquest, and have endured suffering that must seem endless to them. They have been displaced from their land, firstly by the creation of Israel itself (although I should clarify at this point that I continue to believe that the creation of Israel was both a good and necessary thing) and then by the creation of Israeli settlements in the aforementioned conquered areas. They are treated as second class citizens; the Israeli police have admitted to tribunals investigating the events of the recent troubles that they use a mix of live ammunition and rubber bullets when controlling Arab-Israeli and Palestinian riots, and rubber bullets only when the Jewish Israeli's rise in anger.
The Israeli policy of assassination further reminds the Palestinians that any perceived disobedience on their part will be met with lethal and sometimes indiscriminate force. Far from boasting the pinpoint accuracy that made the Israeli secret service Mossad so feared in the 70's and 80's, these attacks can come at any time and have no guarantee of leaving innocent bystanders untouched. How many people have died at the hands of an Israeli assassin? How many of those were the actual targets? Do the Israeli government even care? It would appear not as they show no signs of abandoning this policy.
Today finds many more moderate Palestinians and Arab Israeli's supporting the actions of organisations such as Hamas. Indeed, 3 out of 4 Palestinians support the recent wave of suicide bombings. More people seem to be coming out in support of meeting Israeli force and intimidation with force of their own. They reason that they have nothing else left to lose. The more radical amongst them would rather become a martyr to the cause of freedom for the Palestinian people than be battered and abused by the Israelis. This is despite the fact that the Israeli army and Security forces are numerically superior, far better trained, and in possession of superior equipment. All the Palestinians have is some small arms and bomb making equipment. Every time they do strike at Israel, it is used as an excuse for even more brutal and savage reprisals against the Palestinians.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at here. One can see the many similarities between the actions of the Jews of Warsaw in 1943 and those of the Palestinians of Israel in 2001 without much prompting. It would appear that the Jews have forgotten an extremely important lesson from their own history. Either that or they simply don't care enough about the Palestinians to think much about it.
As a final point, it has also been pointed out to me that the Palestinians have been a lot more active and violent in their efforts against the Jews than the Jews were against the Nazi's. In truth, I no longer recall or care whom it was that committed the first atrocity against citizens of the other side. The fact is it doesn't matter any more because when one side commits what the other calls an atrocity, it is used as an excuse to commit another one in reprisal. What does matter, regardless of how one views the Palestinians and their cause, is that they are fighting for their freedom against the most appalling odds. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this makes them martyr's of equal weight to those in Warsaw.
A little while ago I wrote concerning the quite horrific mess that is Israel in the 21st century. I made a parallel between child whom is abused becoming an abuser, and Israelites having suffered oppression at the hands of the Nazi's becoming oppressors themselves. I was accused of oversimplifying the case to the point of distortion. To an extent I'll accept that. Not a very big extent though as I still think it's a valid comparison, the more so since a particular historical parallel has been brought to my attention. Allow me to explain...
In the spring of 1943 things were looking bleak for the Jews who had found themselves confined to the Warsaw Ghetto, an area won through conquest that was being used to contain the Jews. 300,000 of them had been deported to Treblinka in the previous summer, and they had heard dark rumours of mass killings taking place there. This was of course a comparatively late stage in their persecution by the Nazi's. They had endured what must have seemed like endless suffering; numerous racial laws had clearly defined them as a sub-class of people and so the state tacitly condoned, not to say encouraged anyone who struck against them. Kristalnacht saw the destruction of much of their property. Those goods and properties that escaped this were confiscated by the state. Jews outside of Germany had been forcibly removed from their land to make way for German settlers as part of Hitler’s "Lebensraum" policy. Those who remained in German held territory were treated as second class citizens in their own country, finding that the only work available to them was unskilled labour at best, and no work at all at worst. Initially they were all packed into ghettos such as the one in Warsaw. Even these grotesque and crowded places could not be thought of as their own as the Nazi's kept them on a tight leash with any perceived disobedience being met with lethal and indiscriminate force.
By this time there had been murmuring and discontent throughout the Jewish ghettos. The mass deportation and subsequent tales of horror during the summer of 1942 led to the formation of the ZOB, an organisation that had resistance to the Nazi oppressors as it's sole purpose. It's methods were crude; by January 1943 they had managed to acquire some weapons and used them on the German soldiers who came to round up Jews for deportation. It was a small victory as it only drove the Germans away for a few days, but it was cause for celebration amongst a people so crushed that any act of defiance brought hope and a certain freedom from the grim inevitability of their lives.
On April 19th 1943, the German's entered the Warsaw ghetto with the intention of liquidating it and deporting all inhabitants to the various death camps set up around Poland. 750 members of ZOB fought the heavily armed, better-trained and numerically superior German forces off for almost a month. The fact that they were doomed to lose is an irrelevance here; they knew that they were making martyrs of themselves but they felt that the treatment that they were receiving was so bad, so inhuman that it was better to obey the dictates of their conscience even though it would cost them their lives. They were martyred as free men and women as well as Jews. Their actions were of course utterly condemned by the Nazi's and used as an excuse for even more savage brutality (if that were possible...) toward the Jews. Despite this and despite the inherent futility of the ZOB led uprising, this incident is (rightly) recorded in history as an heroic stand against oppression and evil. Time has led us to forget whatever condemnations the Nazi's and their sympathizers put forward and to remember only the heroism of those incredibly brave men and women.
I would say that one of the reasons the uprising happened in the first place was that the Nazi's had put the Jews through so much, heaping indignity upon indignity, that the members of ZOB (which, by the way, stands for Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which in turn means Jewish Fighting Organisation) felt that they had nothing else to lose. A man or woman with nothing to lose is capable of doing things that would have been considered either out of character or suicidally stupid depending upon your point of view. Which leads me back to Israel circa 2001...
Summer 2001 would seem to hold the promise of still darker days ahead for the Palestinian people of Israel. They have found themselves confined to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, area's that were won by conquest, and have endured suffering that must seem endless to them. They have been displaced from their land, firstly by the creation of Israel itself (although I should clarify at this point that I continue to believe that the creation of Israel was both a good and necessary thing) and then by the creation of Israeli settlements in the aforementioned conquered areas. They are treated as second class citizens; the Israeli police have admitted to tribunals investigating the events of the recent troubles that they use a mix of live ammunition and rubber bullets when controlling Arab-Israeli and Palestinian riots, and rubber bullets only when the Jewish Israeli's rise in anger.
The Israeli policy of assassination further reminds the Palestinians that any perceived disobedience on their part will be met with lethal and sometimes indiscriminate force. Far from boasting the pinpoint accuracy that made the Israeli secret service Mossad so feared in the 70's and 80's, these attacks can come at any time and have no guarantee of leaving innocent bystanders untouched. How many people have died at the hands of an Israeli assassin? How many of those were the actual targets? Do the Israeli government even care? It would appear not as they show no signs of abandoning this policy.
Today finds many more moderate Palestinians and Arab Israeli's supporting the actions of organisations such as Hamas. Indeed, 3 out of 4 Palestinians support the recent wave of suicide bombings. More people seem to be coming out in support of meeting Israeli force and intimidation with force of their own. They reason that they have nothing else left to lose. The more radical amongst them would rather become a martyr to the cause of freedom for the Palestinian people than be battered and abused by the Israelis. This is despite the fact that the Israeli army and Security forces are numerically superior, far better trained, and in possession of superior equipment. All the Palestinians have is some small arms and bomb making equipment. Every time they do strike at Israel, it is used as an excuse for even more brutal and savage reprisals against the Palestinians.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at here. One can see the many similarities between the actions of the Jews of Warsaw in 1943 and those of the Palestinians of Israel in 2001 without much prompting. It would appear that the Jews have forgotten an extremely important lesson from their own history. Either that or they simply don't care enough about the Palestinians to think much about it.
As a final point, it has also been pointed out to me that the Palestinians have been a lot more active and violent in their efforts against the Jews than the Jews were against the Nazi's. In truth, I no longer recall or care whom it was that committed the first atrocity against citizens of the other side. The fact is it doesn't matter any more because when one side commits what the other calls an atrocity, it is used as an excuse to commit another one in reprisal. What does matter, regardless of how one views the Palestinians and their cause, is that they are fighting for their freedom against the most appalling odds. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this makes them martyr's of equal weight to those in Warsaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)