This will be short and to the point, but it is the "great unspoken," so I will once again speak and say it.
Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.
I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.
The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
A low key day today
This morning I made a barbecue flavor hash (potatoes and turkey), as part of my housekeeper role, and when I sampled it to make sure it was OK, I was even tempted to not go for my usual lunch pizza slice and eat my own cooking instead! ;-) But I saved it for the owner of the house and his friends and they had it for lunch.
After going out for my pizza lunch I really hid out in the house, mostly because I'm tired, feeling low key and it's been very hot and humid outside. I finished a miniature collage intended as a gift for an ersatz friend, finished painting a miniature bird house (I cover the walls of my room with them) and did an original flower arrangement that I'm quite pleased with. Green orchids and red something or others, in a very natural setting. That's it, really, with the Internet on all day keeping me company, occasional music, and the usual bad tidings. I posted that one Bible reading and while I had the Bible open, read a favorite section from 1 Maccabees.
My only thought for the day is that I wish some actual peace came along with the awarding of the pantomine Nobel Peace Prize!!!
After going out for my pizza lunch I really hid out in the house, mostly because I'm tired, feeling low key and it's been very hot and humid outside. I finished a miniature collage intended as a gift for an ersatz friend, finished painting a miniature bird house (I cover the walls of my room with them) and did an original flower arrangement that I'm quite pleased with. Green orchids and red something or others, in a very natural setting. That's it, really, with the Internet on all day keeping me company, occasional music, and the usual bad tidings. I posted that one Bible reading and while I had the Bible open, read a favorite section from 1 Maccabees.
My only thought for the day is that I wish some actual peace came along with the awarding of the pantomine Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
More about diplomacy
Read, study and think about each of these quotations, as there is a lot of wisdom and experience, seasoned with wry humor and painful truth.
I found this list when looking for the one I really wanted to share with you, the one by Moshe Dayan.
www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_enemies.html
The Jewish proverb one is also interesting. It comes from scripture, where God has said that he will raise up enemies against the Israelites when they were disobedient to him.
Young people, I hope you spend extra time thinking about these quotes, as part of detaching yourself from combative and bumper sticker mentality, which infests your parental and teacher generation, *sigh*. Behind every wise saying there is a lot of thought, experience and nuance to appreciate, ponder, and incorporate into your thinking, viewpoints and approaches.
Yes, I'm posting this because of all the flack about "bad people" and "enemies" visiting because of the UN gathering! Read the Moshe Dayan one, one that I've quoted many times, but often thinking that Golda Meir had said it! (They were amazing leaders and are worth studying for both their successes and their misses).
I found this list when looking for the one I really wanted to share with you, the one by Moshe Dayan.
www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_enemies.html
The Jewish proverb one is also interesting. It comes from scripture, where God has said that he will raise up enemies against the Israelites when they were disobedient to him.
Young people, I hope you spend extra time thinking about these quotes, as part of detaching yourself from combative and bumper sticker mentality, which infests your parental and teacher generation, *sigh*. Behind every wise saying there is a lot of thought, experience and nuance to appreciate, ponder, and incorporate into your thinking, viewpoints and approaches.
Yes, I'm posting this because of all the flack about "bad people" and "enemies" visiting because of the UN gathering! Read the Moshe Dayan one, one that I've quoted many times, but often thinking that Golda Meir had said it! (They were amazing leaders and are worth studying for both their successes and their misses).
More about UN and diplomacy
For example, here's an idea that would make the ineffective UN immediately more effective. This took me about five seconds to think of as an idea.
One problem is the inherent source of much conflict in the world, which are civil wars, internal to a country and/or neighboring countries who have ethnic groups that cross boundaries. However, the way the UN is structured, whoever rules the government of each country appoints the ambassador to the UN. Do you see an immediate problem? That has plagued the UN from day one.
My suggestion is that in addition to appointing the official ambassador to the UN, each country must send a delegate as an observer and a participant on committees and so forth from the minority party, the party in opposition, or the next largest ethnic group in that country. For example, when the Dems are in power in the USA, the Reps get to select a shadow ambassador. Hopefully the two would provide valuable common ground in their time together. As another example, a Muslim country with both Shia and Sunni would appoint one as the official ambassador according to how power is held in that country, and the clerics or other leaders of the minority denomination would select their shadow ambassador.
This would be crucial whenever any civil conflict arises in a member nation and/or when there is cross boundary tension between two groups struggling for power. One would be the official ambassador to the UN, per the country's rules for determining such, and the other would be the valued educational and awareness ambassador, working with the official ambassador and also representing his or her group's interests to the UN at large, separate from specifically that country.
How cool would that be? And actually useful.
One problem is the inherent source of much conflict in the world, which are civil wars, internal to a country and/or neighboring countries who have ethnic groups that cross boundaries. However, the way the UN is structured, whoever rules the government of each country appoints the ambassador to the UN. Do you see an immediate problem? That has plagued the UN from day one.
My suggestion is that in addition to appointing the official ambassador to the UN, each country must send a delegate as an observer and a participant on committees and so forth from the minority party, the party in opposition, or the next largest ethnic group in that country. For example, when the Dems are in power in the USA, the Reps get to select a shadow ambassador. Hopefully the two would provide valuable common ground in their time together. As another example, a Muslim country with both Shia and Sunni would appoint one as the official ambassador according to how power is held in that country, and the clerics or other leaders of the minority denomination would select their shadow ambassador.
This would be crucial whenever any civil conflict arises in a member nation and/or when there is cross boundary tension between two groups struggling for power. One would be the official ambassador to the UN, per the country's rules for determining such, and the other would be the valued educational and awareness ambassador, working with the official ambassador and also representing his or her group's interests to the UN at large, separate from specifically that country.
How cool would that be? And actually useful.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A simple night prayer
Lord,
fill this night with your radiance.
May we sleep in peace and rise with joy
to welcome the light of a new day in your name.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
-Amen
From the "Christian Prayer: Liturgy of the Hours."
fill this night with your radiance.
May we sleep in peace and rise with joy
to welcome the light of a new day in your name.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
-Amen
From the "Christian Prayer: Liturgy of the Hours."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sad news of police officer killed keeping the peace
Whenever a law enforcement official, fire or safety department member, a service person or, of course, any person is killed, it is sad. It's not the scope of this blog to address each one.
But I had to speak up in tribute about the loss of a particularly gracious police officer, a member of the Mobile (Alabama) Police department, Brandon Sigler, who was killed last night. The city of Mobile is not far from where I currently live, and so I watched the sad news on the local TV channel tonight.
Of all the pathetic things, this officer was gunned down as he tried to keep the peace in the apartment complex where he lived as (get this) two women were in a cat fight with each other. As he tried to break up the fight the boyfriend of one of the women drove up and shot the officer dead.
Family, neighbors, his fiancee, friends, colleagues and former team and school mates are all in shock and all who were interviewed had only one thing to say: That there was nothing at all bad that one could say about him, that everyone appreciated him (both black and white), and that all he did was to try to keep the peace and the neighborhood safe. Even the perpetrator is filled with remorse but now, of course, it's too late.
And so I wanted to say in some consolation, as much as is possible under these circumstances, and with great respect:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9).
http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/mpd_officer_shot_and_killed/75766/
But I had to speak up in tribute about the loss of a particularly gracious police officer, a member of the Mobile (Alabama) Police department, Brandon Sigler, who was killed last night. The city of Mobile is not far from where I currently live, and so I watched the sad news on the local TV channel tonight.
Of all the pathetic things, this officer was gunned down as he tried to keep the peace in the apartment complex where he lived as (get this) two women were in a cat fight with each other. As he tried to break up the fight the boyfriend of one of the women drove up and shot the officer dead.
Family, neighbors, his fiancee, friends, colleagues and former team and school mates are all in shock and all who were interviewed had only one thing to say: That there was nothing at all bad that one could say about him, that everyone appreciated him (both black and white), and that all he did was to try to keep the peace and the neighborhood safe. Even the perpetrator is filled with remorse but now, of course, it's too late.
And so I wanted to say in some consolation, as much as is possible under these circumstances, and with great respect:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9).
http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/mpd_officer_shot_and_killed/75766/
Monday, May 18, 2009
Peace
Genesis 13:8
And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we be brethren.
Proverbs 12:20
Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy.
Mark 9:50
Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men:
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we be brethren.
Proverbs 12:20
Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy.
Mark 9:50
Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men:
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Jehovah's Witness oldest Holocaust survivor
Read this article about this remarkable, moral man, which will have to do until the English language version of his biography comes out. Here is a snip of the book review.
http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2008/11/30/the-story-of-the-oldest-living-holocaust-survivor/
Leopold Engleitner’s blue eyes still burn bright. Last month, the 103-year-old traveled to Frankfurt, from his home in Austria to tell his story at the world’s largest publishing event. Mr. Engleitner, a former farmer from the Salzburg region, is a Jehovah’s Witness.
And he is the oldest living survivor of the Holocaust.
At first no one seemed interested in the facts of his life, which included an unwavering faith and enduring internments in the Buchenwald, Wewelsburg, and Ravensbrueck camps run by German Nazis. Then a young Austrian filmmaker met Engleitner by chance and ended up listening to his stories for hours on end.
The filmmaker, Berhnard Rammerstorfer, was captivated by what he heard and eventually dropped everything he was doing to write Engleitner’s biography.
“What impressed me was that a simple farmer had the courage to withstand Hitler, to refuse to go to war although millions of people did go to war, that he had the strength to adhere to his own conscience,” says Mr. Rammerstorfer.
He first published “Unbroken Will: The Extraordinary Courage of an Ordinary Man,” in German in 1999. It was republished this year, and an English edition is scheduled to be released in 2009.
Walter Manoschek, a political scientist at the University of Vienna who has worked on a project sponsored by the Austrian government to rehabilitate Austrian victims of the Nazi regime, says that Engleitner’s story brings to life one of the least-known groups of Nazi victims that also included Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and the mentally and physically disabled.
A ‘systematic resistance’Nazis targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses mainly because as religious conscientious objectors they eschew swearing an oath to any earthly authority and refused to serve in the German Army. Refusal to serve under Hitler was regarded as treason, punishable by death. Among the 3,200 Witnesses interned in concentration camps, thousands were killed, according to historians.
Unlike other groups – most notably, of course, millions of Jews – they could have walked out free had they agreed to renounce their faith.
http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2008/11/30/the-story-of-the-oldest-living-holocaust-survivor/
Leopold Engleitner’s blue eyes still burn bright. Last month, the 103-year-old traveled to Frankfurt, from his home in Austria to tell his story at the world’s largest publishing event. Mr. Engleitner, a former farmer from the Salzburg region, is a Jehovah’s Witness.
And he is the oldest living survivor of the Holocaust.
At first no one seemed interested in the facts of his life, which included an unwavering faith and enduring internments in the Buchenwald, Wewelsburg, and Ravensbrueck camps run by German Nazis. Then a young Austrian filmmaker met Engleitner by chance and ended up listening to his stories for hours on end.
The filmmaker, Berhnard Rammerstorfer, was captivated by what he heard and eventually dropped everything he was doing to write Engleitner’s biography.
“What impressed me was that a simple farmer had the courage to withstand Hitler, to refuse to go to war although millions of people did go to war, that he had the strength to adhere to his own conscience,” says Mr. Rammerstorfer.
He first published “Unbroken Will: The Extraordinary Courage of an Ordinary Man,” in German in 1999. It was republished this year, and an English edition is scheduled to be released in 2009.
Walter Manoschek, a political scientist at the University of Vienna who has worked on a project sponsored by the Austrian government to rehabilitate Austrian victims of the Nazi regime, says that Engleitner’s story brings to life one of the least-known groups of Nazi victims that also included Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and the mentally and physically disabled.
A ‘systematic resistance’Nazis targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses mainly because as religious conscientious objectors they eschew swearing an oath to any earthly authority and refused to serve in the German Army. Refusal to serve under Hitler was regarded as treason, punishable by death. Among the 3,200 Witnesses interned in concentration camps, thousands were killed, according to historians.
Unlike other groups – most notably, of course, millions of Jews – they could have walked out free had they agreed to renounce their faith.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Lessons from history (4 of series)
Today I want to focus on teaching those of you who have not heard about it another form of oppression/slavery that many of you may not have learned about in school. It had a crucial input into the birth of the United States and much of our psyche regarding freedom. "Back when I was in school" this was a huge topic in history and social studies class. One cannot really understand the foundation of the United States, nor can one truly be informed on the subject of slavery, if one does not understand being "pressed" or impressment.
To put it simply, being pressed means being grabbed off of the street or out of your home, place of business, farm, bar-wherever you may be-by a gang who drags you away and forces you to serve in the British Navy. I am not exaggerating at all. If a town heard of a press gang coming they fled for their lives. Women were left wondering where their sons or husbands went, as they would vanish into thin air, as the men were found and dragged off to serve. Press gangs carried clubs and chains.
Pressing became a government policy under Queen Elizabeth I. (They don't show that tacky side of her in the romanticized modern movies, do they).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
snip
It was used by the Royal Navy, beginning in 1664 and during the 18th and early 19th centuries, in wartime, as a means of crewing warships, although legal sanction for the practice goes back to the time of King Glaude I. The Royal Navy impressed many British merchant sailors, as well as some sailors from other nations.
snip
The first act legalizing this practice was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth in 1563 and was known as "an act touching politick considerations for the maintenance of the navy". It was renewed many times until 1631. In the Vagabonds Act 1597, several lists of persons were subject to impressment for service in the fleet. The Recruiting Act 1703 was an act passed "for the increase of seamen and better encouragement of navigation, and the protection of the Coal Trade".
Some apologists try to characterize pressing as being focused on those who were already able bodies seamen. However, that is not true (though clearly experience was preferred), as the very act is called "vagabond," which is an oppressive elitist name used by the upper class to describe ruffians who seemed to have no fixed abode (such as the poor).
There is a notorious event of impressment in America, before the American War of Revolution, and this was therefore a topic that future Americans, as British subjects, were very familiar with and suffered from and resented deeply. Pressing was another reason for the American Revolution and one of the two direct reasons for the little remembered but very important War of 1812 (America had to fight Britain again, from 1812-5. It was during that war that the White House was burned during the office of President Madison). Here is a description of the pre-Revolutionary War use of impressment in America:
snip
As a result of the doubt over the legality of impressment in American waters, parliament passed a new law in 1746, stating that impressment was forbidden in the West Indies, but not in America, leading to a riot in Boston the following year, and continued with the colonies, particularly New England.
snip
One of the largest impressment operations occurred in the spring of 1757 in New York City, then still under British colonial rule. Three thousand British soldiers cordoned off the city, and plucked clean the taverns, and other sailors' gathering places. "All kinds of tradesmen and Negroes" were hauled in, nearly eight hundred in all. Four hundred of these were "retained in the service."
Notice that free Afro-Americans and slaves were pressed right along with the colonists. This is an example of how the press gangs would go systematically through an entire city and press whoever they desired.
So impressment was another example of where Americans became furious over the trampling of their rights. Remember, being pressed into the British Navy meant that you went to sea to serve for years, a virtual prisoner. This was fodder for declaring independence and fighting the War of Revolution. Since Afro-Americans, free or not, were pressed along with the whites, Afro-Americans understood that the War of Revolution was in their interest too.
The British learned from that and later during the War of 1812 in order to undermine American forces and economy, the British offered slaves pressment and other routes to escape slavery. This is well documented in the War of 1812 article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
This is important for you to understand because it shows how nations and cultures have been on the right side of being against slavery, and the wrong side of supporting slavery, for reasons other than ethics, justice and morality. The British continued to press their own citizens and foreigners, thus being one of the two triggers of the War of 1812, and so they continued to have a stance of social injustice, yet shrewdly realized that they could cause havoc in America by giving the slaves routes to escape.
So here is a description of impressment and its role in causing the War of 1812.
During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. While non-British subjects weren't impressed, Britain didn't recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens. While not directly mentioned as a reason for the declaration of war in the War of 1812, impressment caused serious diplomatic tension, and helped to turn American public opinion against Britain.
In other words, even though America had been free of colonial rule by Britain for several decades, and Britain had conceded defeat, the British still considered any American abroad "fair game" since they did not recognize American citizenship! When it came to pressing the rules against pressing foreigners was interpreted by the British to not apply to Americans.
Another custom of the time to man the many war and trade ships required was to capture combatant or other ships and then force the entire crew to serve. So when a ship was captured, the ship was rapidly turned into a ship of the fleet, its treasure or goods seized, and often its homeland sailors forced to be prisoners or to serve in the army or navy.
Thus even though the Patriots had won America's freedom in the Revolutionary War, they had to fight what is often called the "second war of Revolution" because the British blockaded American ships, disrupting trade and impressed anyone they got their hands on that they thought could serve on their ships. This meant going into war, since that was the reason Britain was blockading and pressing Americans, to drain resources in order to fight Napoleon in France.
And so America declared war on Britain because Britain was, essentially, strangling essential American trade between America and Europe plus Britain refused to recognize American citizenship, as in refusing to obey Britain's own law against impressing foreigners. Thus Americans had to fight their revolution all over again from 1812-5, only three American Presidents after George Washington himself.
I hope that you have found this interesting. I wanted to teach this topic for a few reasons:
1) Students and Americans in general should understand that true freedom is rarely won and kept as the result of one war, one declaration. The birth of this country and its continuity was by no means as easy as I think many people who have not been exposed to this history believe.
2) Slavery, while the most egregious of all human rights violations, should be understood in the context of a time when very few people had real rights, and slavery of one form or another could fall on just about anyone, and may only have been one ocean voyage, or one day walking down the street of New York, away. Only the highest rank people were ransomed in capture; the rest were imprisoned or forced to serve in the military. With all due respect, I think many young Afro-Americans today think that society then was as simple as free/slave, have/have not. As I demonstrated above, anyone who was not an aristocrat could have risked, both in Britain and in colonial America, being swept from your starving family and forced to go to sea, just by being declared a "vagabond" or the "navy needs you" or "we don't recognize American citizenship." America, despite the horrible wound of slavery, still came into being as a shocking example of freedom and rights at a time when that concept was virtually unknown and unrecognized in the world.
3) Studying the American Revolution, the years immediately after, and the War of 1812, one has a much clearer understanding of what difficult work it is to have genuine peace. All of the Founding Fathers deserve golden crowns for how they steered America between the continuing difficulty of Britain and France's wars, trying to be neutral and keep the peace, yet the war is often brought (repeatedly) to one's own doorstep. I can just imagine some people today, if they were "transported in time" back to the years before 1812 going "What! Another war! You warmongers!" Yet, remember, Britain blocked all of America's essential trade with Europe and also refused to recognize American citizenship and hence their rights as foreigners, causing impressment and other wrongs. Yes, the USA had to fight again for their own identity, for their freedom and their own declared rights, and their rights even under foreign law.
This is one of the important lessons to discern a "just war." A war when one's own sovereignty (the right to be an independent country) is threatened and denied, and one's citizens oppressed or murdered, is a just war. Other wars must be identified as what they are, which is maybe just, maybe not, since if they do not involve one's sovereignty, then it may be a war of convenience, a war of going after some resources, or that very slippery slope a "premptive war." Those are far more questionable.
So I think those who are concerned about issues of peace should study the Revolution and the War of 1812, as it provides good models for truly justifiable patriotic war. It then gives you firmer foundation to question wars that you think may not truly be about maintaining the freedom and dignity of America.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
To put it simply, being pressed means being grabbed off of the street or out of your home, place of business, farm, bar-wherever you may be-by a gang who drags you away and forces you to serve in the British Navy. I am not exaggerating at all. If a town heard of a press gang coming they fled for their lives. Women were left wondering where their sons or husbands went, as they would vanish into thin air, as the men were found and dragged off to serve. Press gangs carried clubs and chains.
Pressing became a government policy under Queen Elizabeth I. (They don't show that tacky side of her in the romanticized modern movies, do they).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
snip
It was used by the Royal Navy, beginning in 1664 and during the 18th and early 19th centuries, in wartime, as a means of crewing warships, although legal sanction for the practice goes back to the time of King Glaude I. The Royal Navy impressed many British merchant sailors, as well as some sailors from other nations.
snip
The first act legalizing this practice was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth in 1563 and was known as "an act touching politick considerations for the maintenance of the navy". It was renewed many times until 1631. In the Vagabonds Act 1597, several lists of persons were subject to impressment for service in the fleet. The Recruiting Act 1703 was an act passed "for the increase of seamen and better encouragement of navigation, and the protection of the Coal Trade".
Some apologists try to characterize pressing as being focused on those who were already able bodies seamen. However, that is not true (though clearly experience was preferred), as the very act is called "vagabond," which is an oppressive elitist name used by the upper class to describe ruffians who seemed to have no fixed abode (such as the poor).
There is a notorious event of impressment in America, before the American War of Revolution, and this was therefore a topic that future Americans, as British subjects, were very familiar with and suffered from and resented deeply. Pressing was another reason for the American Revolution and one of the two direct reasons for the little remembered but very important War of 1812 (America had to fight Britain again, from 1812-5. It was during that war that the White House was burned during the office of President Madison). Here is a description of the pre-Revolutionary War use of impressment in America:
snip
As a result of the doubt over the legality of impressment in American waters, parliament passed a new law in 1746, stating that impressment was forbidden in the West Indies, but not in America, leading to a riot in Boston the following year, and continued with the colonies, particularly New England.
snip
One of the largest impressment operations occurred in the spring of 1757 in New York City, then still under British colonial rule. Three thousand British soldiers cordoned off the city, and plucked clean the taverns, and other sailors' gathering places. "All kinds of tradesmen and Negroes" were hauled in, nearly eight hundred in all. Four hundred of these were "retained in the service."
Notice that free Afro-Americans and slaves were pressed right along with the colonists. This is an example of how the press gangs would go systematically through an entire city and press whoever they desired.
So impressment was another example of where Americans became furious over the trampling of their rights. Remember, being pressed into the British Navy meant that you went to sea to serve for years, a virtual prisoner. This was fodder for declaring independence and fighting the War of Revolution. Since Afro-Americans, free or not, were pressed along with the whites, Afro-Americans understood that the War of Revolution was in their interest too.
The British learned from that and later during the War of 1812 in order to undermine American forces and economy, the British offered slaves pressment and other routes to escape slavery. This is well documented in the War of 1812 article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
This is important for you to understand because it shows how nations and cultures have been on the right side of being against slavery, and the wrong side of supporting slavery, for reasons other than ethics, justice and morality. The British continued to press their own citizens and foreigners, thus being one of the two triggers of the War of 1812, and so they continued to have a stance of social injustice, yet shrewdly realized that they could cause havoc in America by giving the slaves routes to escape.
So here is a description of impressment and its role in causing the War of 1812.
During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. While non-British subjects weren't impressed, Britain didn't recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens. While not directly mentioned as a reason for the declaration of war in the War of 1812, impressment caused serious diplomatic tension, and helped to turn American public opinion against Britain.
In other words, even though America had been free of colonial rule by Britain for several decades, and Britain had conceded defeat, the British still considered any American abroad "fair game" since they did not recognize American citizenship! When it came to pressing the rules against pressing foreigners was interpreted by the British to not apply to Americans.
Another custom of the time to man the many war and trade ships required was to capture combatant or other ships and then force the entire crew to serve. So when a ship was captured, the ship was rapidly turned into a ship of the fleet, its treasure or goods seized, and often its homeland sailors forced to be prisoners or to serve in the army or navy.
Thus even though the Patriots had won America's freedom in the Revolutionary War, they had to fight what is often called the "second war of Revolution" because the British blockaded American ships, disrupting trade and impressed anyone they got their hands on that they thought could serve on their ships. This meant going into war, since that was the reason Britain was blockading and pressing Americans, to drain resources in order to fight Napoleon in France.
And so America declared war on Britain because Britain was, essentially, strangling essential American trade between America and Europe plus Britain refused to recognize American citizenship, as in refusing to obey Britain's own law against impressing foreigners. Thus Americans had to fight their revolution all over again from 1812-5, only three American Presidents after George Washington himself.
I hope that you have found this interesting. I wanted to teach this topic for a few reasons:
1) Students and Americans in general should understand that true freedom is rarely won and kept as the result of one war, one declaration. The birth of this country and its continuity was by no means as easy as I think many people who have not been exposed to this history believe.
2) Slavery, while the most egregious of all human rights violations, should be understood in the context of a time when very few people had real rights, and slavery of one form or another could fall on just about anyone, and may only have been one ocean voyage, or one day walking down the street of New York, away. Only the highest rank people were ransomed in capture; the rest were imprisoned or forced to serve in the military. With all due respect, I think many young Afro-Americans today think that society then was as simple as free/slave, have/have not. As I demonstrated above, anyone who was not an aristocrat could have risked, both in Britain and in colonial America, being swept from your starving family and forced to go to sea, just by being declared a "vagabond" or the "navy needs you" or "we don't recognize American citizenship." America, despite the horrible wound of slavery, still came into being as a shocking example of freedom and rights at a time when that concept was virtually unknown and unrecognized in the world.
3) Studying the American Revolution, the years immediately after, and the War of 1812, one has a much clearer understanding of what difficult work it is to have genuine peace. All of the Founding Fathers deserve golden crowns for how they steered America between the continuing difficulty of Britain and France's wars, trying to be neutral and keep the peace, yet the war is often brought (repeatedly) to one's own doorstep. I can just imagine some people today, if they were "transported in time" back to the years before 1812 going "What! Another war! You warmongers!" Yet, remember, Britain blocked all of America's essential trade with Europe and also refused to recognize American citizenship and hence their rights as foreigners, causing impressment and other wrongs. Yes, the USA had to fight again for their own identity, for their freedom and their own declared rights, and their rights even under foreign law.
This is one of the important lessons to discern a "just war." A war when one's own sovereignty (the right to be an independent country) is threatened and denied, and one's citizens oppressed or murdered, is a just war. Other wars must be identified as what they are, which is maybe just, maybe not, since if they do not involve one's sovereignty, then it may be a war of convenience, a war of going after some resources, or that very slippery slope a "premptive war." Those are far more questionable.
So I think those who are concerned about issues of peace should study the Revolution and the War of 1812, as it provides good models for truly justifiable patriotic war. It then gives you firmer foundation to question wars that you think may not truly be about maintaining the freedom and dignity of America.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Cultural diplomacy tutorial case study Part 2
My second case study is the most difficult one that exists in the world today, which is the generation long conflict, both military based and in the lack of peace of mind, in the Middle East, specifically Israel, the Palestinians, and the neighboring Islamic countries and populations. I have been enormously frustrated from the very beginning at the inability and unwillingness of "the powers that be" to seek a genuine solution and pathway to going forward in harmony and peaceful co-existence.
In the first case study I pointed out that regardless if one approves of the situation, actions or mindsets of one or all the participants, one must identify the values that are being protected (or believed to be protected) and then diplomats propose scenarios and solutions that protect those values in reality, not in concept.
If one looks at it that way, all of the participants actually have the same value that they are seeking to protect, but it is the fulfillment of that value that varies widely among the interested parties. To give an analogy, suppose you have a group of five hungry people. They share the value that they are trying to protect, which is "to have enough food to survive and thrive." But simply because all five are hungry, and share the value of needing food, it does not mean that all five need the exact same food. If one is an infant, then that one needs baby food and milk. If one is a grown man who works at hard labor all day, he would not survive on baby food and milk, he needs high calorie protein meals. If the third has simple needs, then he or she will be happy with bread and perhaps fish, so long as there is a steady and reliable supply. Do you see what I mean? In the Middle East situation, everyone has from the very beginning leaped toward arguing, using my analogy, about the foods that one expects for one's self, ignoring what specific foods the other needs. Further, no one has agreed that the foundational problem is a shared value and common need, which is in the analogy, "the need to have enough food to survive and thrive." One cannot be a cultural diplomat without identifying each party's core value that they seek to protect and invest in finding a solution for providing that value to your diplomatic partner, yes, even the "opponents," especially with the opponents. If someone is shooting at you because they need baby food and milk for their infant and has no other way to provide it, you do not have peace by trying to convince them that their infant should just gnaw on a beef bone, or eat hard food when the infant would not survive on that. This is, as I said, still using my analogy. One must buy into the need of one's cultural diplomacy partner (aka opponent) that they must receive food that is appropriate to the infant, not to the grown adult. Just because you might have a lactose intolerant household, you should not tell your cultural diplomacy partner or opponent that "milk is not good for them because it's not good for you" and that "their baby should therefore learn to survive without milk."
So turning back to the reality of the Mideast situation, what is the shared value that each party is seeking to obtain and/or protect? It is the shared value of "home," which must be described as territory that is under their governance, under their self determination, and where they can provide an economy where their people can thrive. Do you see the problem? When one uses the word "homeland," that connotes completely different "foods" to each "hungry" participant in the diplomacy, or conflict. There is insufficient attention to the definition of "home" being a place of self determination where the economy can provide for a thriving of the people. Decade after decade I have watched "the sound and the fury" of Mideast participants forcing down each others throats their own definition of "home," ignoring the needs of a genuine home, which is a place of self determination combined with an economic structure where the population can thrive. If genuine diplomats started from the very beginning of this situation and did this process, as obvious as people might assume the answers would be, it would be educational and helpful to an extreme.
When one goes to the very beginning and defines the core value being sought, obtained and/or protected, and then supplies the specifics of how that value, as in "home," must be provided to be successful, suddenly you have something that the Middle East has never had before: options. Once one combatant recognizes that the food the "other side" needs is infant milk, for example, suddenly options dawn on everyone, as light bulbs, instead of guns and bombs, go off. Think of the ways to provide infants with milk. Nurture mothers so they can breast feed. Nurture wet nurses. Provide cow milk. Provide goat or sheep milk. Import milk from other countries. Suddenly you have, just in this one example, more than five "options" where no option at all existed before, when one party was insisting that a hard potato and a beef bone are "food" and thus "meets the need" of the diplomatic combatant party that is representing the infant.
The past is only important because it helps to understand the frame of reference when your diplomatic partner/combatant is describing to you, in good faith, their "home" value and its definition. The odds are that even they do not really understand fully their own needs and definitions until they pause to reflect on them in that context, as I describe, and explain it to others. The obvious example is the "never again" shorthand definition that the country of Israel uses to describe their vision of "home." "Never again" is one of the greatest paradoxes in modern politics and social verbiage. It seems so obvious, but it has become incredibly obscure. Let me divert with an example. When someone has lost a home to a hurricane or a typhoon, one can say "never again," but what does that mean? There is a huge range of options if one examines it carefully in dialogue, to see what the lost homeowner means by "never again." Here is what the homeowner might mean: Never will I build in a hurricane prone area. Never will I be caught without flood insurance again. Never will I have a basement that can flood, or lack stilts for my rebuilt house. Never will I ignore hurricane warnings and not evacuate. Never will I build out of thin wood a home when I could use steel, brick or cinder block. And etc. etc. one could go on and on. Do you see what I mean? The battered hurricane home owner who lost his home can say "never again," but unless you know what he means by that, how can anyone proceed with action? It is likewise with the Israelis who have become so used to saying "Never again" that they lose patience, and even misunderstand themselves, what options exist to make "never again" come true for them.
I know for a fact that you can put two Jews together who both agree "Never again," and think they are in complete agreement, and would quickly pick a fight with a diplomatic combatant who questions their "Never again," who would actually find, if they paused and analyzed "Never again" the way I describe that they would find they have totally different visions of what "Never again" means. But individuals, political parties, communities and schools of belief do not recognize their own different mental visions of what "Never again" means. When people hear a word or a concept, they form a mental picture, one that flashes so quickly they do not even realize that they are "painting a mind portrait" in that instant. So here is how that works in an example. I know Jews who when you say "Never again" to them, they do not picture Israel being afflicted as was Germany, but they imagine some other country in the world being afflicted and Israel being the "last resort" for those Jews. Thus "Never again" to them means "Never again will a Jew have no place to go to be rescued when their own country persecutes them." Ah yes, but I also know Jews who when they say "Never again," they imagine an affliction occurring within Israel. Do you see what I mean? They think they are speaking of the same "Never again," but their "food needs" based on the common shared value of having food (to go back to my original analogy) differs. One envisions a country that must continue to exist as the ultimate refuge and insurance policy. The other envisions a country that is actually in danger of being under siege or affliction. This is a huge simplification of course, but it is realistic, as I know what people are thinking and how they individualize their perceptions, of course, as they would.
Thus a diplomatic partner or combatant can inadvertently "press the button" of one Jew but not the other with a particular action or set of words. The diplomat partner might address a "Never again" definition of one Jew, but totally alarm the "Never again" specific needs of the other Jew.
This exact same principle applies to the Palestinians. They, however, do not have a "Never again" mindset that both illuminates and obscures at the same time, since they are still within the situation that is unsatisfactory. They live within "What do we do now, and what will happen next?" and that mindset both illuminates and obscures too! Here is why.
Everyone has seen the obligatory science fiction movie where a huge meteor hits the earth or whatever. (I'm not sneaking in reference to "End of Time" fears here. If you ever talk to me in person you have to get used to my saying and meaning the obvious, not hinting at the theological or the occult). I want to use the meteor as an example of a huge object hitting something and causing material to spurt out in all directions. You see that in pictures of the moon and some of the planets, and it is believed that the Gulf of Mexico was gouged out by a striking meteor. Now, I can't use the example of throwing a stone into the water, because while there are ripples, they don't stay frozen as ripples, but the water immediately smooths over again where the stone was thrown. This is not a description of the Middle East, but the meteor striking is an example. While there has always been land grabbing and conflict in the Middle East, since Biblical and Roman times, and all the way into the colonial recent past, Hitler basically threw a meteor during the Holocaust. The meteor caused the rippling of refugees fleeing the countries of his control, and the survivors did not "flow back" into Germany upon his defeat, except those German nationals who repatriated. Refugees and their fears and their realities remained thrown "out there," just as if they were ejected during a meteor strike.
So what happened next? The refusal of many countries to take Jewish refugees and other problems and motivating factors resulted in a second meteor hitting, and that is Jewish home seekers arriving in Palestine. This is not a judgmental statement at all, but a retelling of actual history using an analogy. The arrival of the Jewish advocates for a home state were like a secondary meteor (one that is understandable and justified) hitting, but this time in the territory of Palestine. Now the Palestinians, right or wrong, in fact or in fear, become the "ejecta" from the impact of the meteor. Millions became displaced and that is simply a fact. They are still in their physical or mental state of "displacement." Thus one cannot begin to solve the Mideast problem and bring peace without conducting a total inventory of "home displacement." I do not mean that we set up courts and argue over a land ownership. I mean we need to diagnose, like compassionate doctors, the segments of displaced Palestinians and articulate their degree of displacement, just like the hurricane homeowner used in the previous example. Are they in the second generation of living in camps in another country? Are they displaced within Israel? Are they in Israel but mentally and spiritually displaced? Are they confined in areas where they cannot economically thrive? Peace will not come to the Middle East until we all act like adult doctors who can count the scars and decide what to do about them, rather than ignore or deny them. That is not weakness, that is honesty and strength. Everyone has been too weak about speaking honestly about the Palestinians who are displaced, and so they live in a confined and churning "lack of home" reality and state of mind. This is why "We want a Homeland" like "Never again" sounds so obvious, but is completely diffuse and differing in meaning from Palestinian to Palestinian, just like from Jew to Jew. A "homeland" to one Palestinian may be returning to Israel from Jordan to reside in a Palestinian state, but that might not at all be what the next Palestinian wants, who only wants to get out of the refuge camp and become part of the economic mainstream of wherever he or she is currently residing. So again, just like "Never again," Palestinians who have no idea what each other thinks and needs are "assuming" that they all mean the same thing when they say "Palestinian homeland." One would find, however, that they, like the Jews, have totally different mental portraits of what they mean, and what they would need for them and their families to thrive.
Thus you have the third parties, which are the Islamic countries of the Middle East, who feel somewhat helpless. They feel that the displacement crisis (both physical and spiritual) of the Palestinians are completely ignored. Jews understandable map that concern by the Islamic countries onto their "Never again" fear, and perceive this as pressure (which it is) but reduce their reaction to one option ("offense as defense.") The Israelis feel a constraint pressure of having to evaluate each blip on the political and crime radar as being a "act, react, forebear or endure" crisis. It's no way to live. But the Middle East countries must understand that when they apply pressure without doing the same "homework" within their own resident Palestinian populations, they are pressing the buttons of the Jews and that is not constructive at all. Let's be honest. The Islamic countries have pussy footed in fear of stirring up their own unhappy Palestinian populations. I understand that, but at some point, one must take a first step and not just wring one's hands in dismay. Everyone is waiting for some magical solution that is not going to exist. Middle East countries fear fully absorbing their Palestinian populations because they hope that they will someday be able to "go home." As a result, we are on the second generation of millions in camps who cannot yet "go home." Where is home and what should it look like? This must be decided by working with Israel, not against Israel, to do a displacement inventory and analysis. Where there is hope that some Palestinians may migrate to their preference of a Palestinian state, then sure, continue to host them, but ask for some assistance from the world in making their temporary conditions more amenable and as an investment in their future. Where Palestinians must or prefer to remain, then mainstream their access to the economy so they can thrive, and not just eke out a living somehow.
Israelis have the know how about how to contribute to economic success, but as you can see in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they withhold that because they feel both unappreciated when they do "help" and they use withholding economic self determination as a weapon. This is understandable but has never been actually helpful. Someone who is able to self determine and thrive with hope of prosperity is not sitting there hating and planning the next attack. No, I am not naive, you are. When one does a genuine displacement inventory one suddenly sees many more options of behavior than cutting off supplies as punishment for terrorist attacks.
The lack of genuine progress, of the type I have described, results in all sides feeling they are "forgotten" and they are, for all intents and purposes, if one looks at the results. Israel is "forgotten" because the world feels there is a formula of support they give Israel, but cannot really relate to the heart of why Israelis need security. The Palestinians are "forgotten" because like meteor ejecta, they still sit wherever they were thrust, and live not in homes but in places and mindsets of "displacement." The Middle East countries who host Palestinians are "forgotten" because the status quo just drags on and on in the refugee camps. (Look at how, on a different example, Syria has had to just do the best they can with virtually no help from the world as they host hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, including many Christians who were driven out of Iraq by persecution) "Out of sight out of mind" is the motto of the world when it comes to refugees, and the countries of good will must struggle to support them. And this is why a country like Iran will apply the pressure, not because they are a host country, but because they chafe at the feeling that the Palestinians are "forgotten," and so they rattle the saber to remind the Israelis and the world that the problem of displacement is dragging on and on and on.
In my spare time I've even sketched out a recovery plan for the Gaza strip. Trust me, that did not require a tremendous amount of my brain power, just good will and sound cultural diplomacy expertise. When are people going to go to work in good will and solve these problems peacefully?
I hope you have found this helpful, especially the young people, who inherited this mess that should never have become such a mess at all.
In the first case study I pointed out that regardless if one approves of the situation, actions or mindsets of one or all the participants, one must identify the values that are being protected (or believed to be protected) and then diplomats propose scenarios and solutions that protect those values in reality, not in concept.
If one looks at it that way, all of the participants actually have the same value that they are seeking to protect, but it is the fulfillment of that value that varies widely among the interested parties. To give an analogy, suppose you have a group of five hungry people. They share the value that they are trying to protect, which is "to have enough food to survive and thrive." But simply because all five are hungry, and share the value of needing food, it does not mean that all five need the exact same food. If one is an infant, then that one needs baby food and milk. If one is a grown man who works at hard labor all day, he would not survive on baby food and milk, he needs high calorie protein meals. If the third has simple needs, then he or she will be happy with bread and perhaps fish, so long as there is a steady and reliable supply. Do you see what I mean? In the Middle East situation, everyone has from the very beginning leaped toward arguing, using my analogy, about the foods that one expects for one's self, ignoring what specific foods the other needs. Further, no one has agreed that the foundational problem is a shared value and common need, which is in the analogy, "the need to have enough food to survive and thrive." One cannot be a cultural diplomat without identifying each party's core value that they seek to protect and invest in finding a solution for providing that value to your diplomatic partner, yes, even the "opponents," especially with the opponents. If someone is shooting at you because they need baby food and milk for their infant and has no other way to provide it, you do not have peace by trying to convince them that their infant should just gnaw on a beef bone, or eat hard food when the infant would not survive on that. This is, as I said, still using my analogy. One must buy into the need of one's cultural diplomacy partner (aka opponent) that they must receive food that is appropriate to the infant, not to the grown adult. Just because you might have a lactose intolerant household, you should not tell your cultural diplomacy partner or opponent that "milk is not good for them because it's not good for you" and that "their baby should therefore learn to survive without milk."
So turning back to the reality of the Mideast situation, what is the shared value that each party is seeking to obtain and/or protect? It is the shared value of "home," which must be described as territory that is under their governance, under their self determination, and where they can provide an economy where their people can thrive. Do you see the problem? When one uses the word "homeland," that connotes completely different "foods" to each "hungry" participant in the diplomacy, or conflict. There is insufficient attention to the definition of "home" being a place of self determination where the economy can provide for a thriving of the people. Decade after decade I have watched "the sound and the fury" of Mideast participants forcing down each others throats their own definition of "home," ignoring the needs of a genuine home, which is a place of self determination combined with an economic structure where the population can thrive. If genuine diplomats started from the very beginning of this situation and did this process, as obvious as people might assume the answers would be, it would be educational and helpful to an extreme.
When one goes to the very beginning and defines the core value being sought, obtained and/or protected, and then supplies the specifics of how that value, as in "home," must be provided to be successful, suddenly you have something that the Middle East has never had before: options. Once one combatant recognizes that the food the "other side" needs is infant milk, for example, suddenly options dawn on everyone, as light bulbs, instead of guns and bombs, go off. Think of the ways to provide infants with milk. Nurture mothers so they can breast feed. Nurture wet nurses. Provide cow milk. Provide goat or sheep milk. Import milk from other countries. Suddenly you have, just in this one example, more than five "options" where no option at all existed before, when one party was insisting that a hard potato and a beef bone are "food" and thus "meets the need" of the diplomatic combatant party that is representing the infant.
The past is only important because it helps to understand the frame of reference when your diplomatic partner/combatant is describing to you, in good faith, their "home" value and its definition. The odds are that even they do not really understand fully their own needs and definitions until they pause to reflect on them in that context, as I describe, and explain it to others. The obvious example is the "never again" shorthand definition that the country of Israel uses to describe their vision of "home." "Never again" is one of the greatest paradoxes in modern politics and social verbiage. It seems so obvious, but it has become incredibly obscure. Let me divert with an example. When someone has lost a home to a hurricane or a typhoon, one can say "never again," but what does that mean? There is a huge range of options if one examines it carefully in dialogue, to see what the lost homeowner means by "never again." Here is what the homeowner might mean: Never will I build in a hurricane prone area. Never will I be caught without flood insurance again. Never will I have a basement that can flood, or lack stilts for my rebuilt house. Never will I ignore hurricane warnings and not evacuate. Never will I build out of thin wood a home when I could use steel, brick or cinder block. And etc. etc. one could go on and on. Do you see what I mean? The battered hurricane home owner who lost his home can say "never again," but unless you know what he means by that, how can anyone proceed with action? It is likewise with the Israelis who have become so used to saying "Never again" that they lose patience, and even misunderstand themselves, what options exist to make "never again" come true for them.
I know for a fact that you can put two Jews together who both agree "Never again," and think they are in complete agreement, and would quickly pick a fight with a diplomatic combatant who questions their "Never again," who would actually find, if they paused and analyzed "Never again" the way I describe that they would find they have totally different visions of what "Never again" means. But individuals, political parties, communities and schools of belief do not recognize their own different mental visions of what "Never again" means. When people hear a word or a concept, they form a mental picture, one that flashes so quickly they do not even realize that they are "painting a mind portrait" in that instant. So here is how that works in an example. I know Jews who when you say "Never again" to them, they do not picture Israel being afflicted as was Germany, but they imagine some other country in the world being afflicted and Israel being the "last resort" for those Jews. Thus "Never again" to them means "Never again will a Jew have no place to go to be rescued when their own country persecutes them." Ah yes, but I also know Jews who when they say "Never again," they imagine an affliction occurring within Israel. Do you see what I mean? They think they are speaking of the same "Never again," but their "food needs" based on the common shared value of having food (to go back to my original analogy) differs. One envisions a country that must continue to exist as the ultimate refuge and insurance policy. The other envisions a country that is actually in danger of being under siege or affliction. This is a huge simplification of course, but it is realistic, as I know what people are thinking and how they individualize their perceptions, of course, as they would.
Thus a diplomatic partner or combatant can inadvertently "press the button" of one Jew but not the other with a particular action or set of words. The diplomat partner might address a "Never again" definition of one Jew, but totally alarm the "Never again" specific needs of the other Jew.
This exact same principle applies to the Palestinians. They, however, do not have a "Never again" mindset that both illuminates and obscures at the same time, since they are still within the situation that is unsatisfactory. They live within "What do we do now, and what will happen next?" and that mindset both illuminates and obscures too! Here is why.
Everyone has seen the obligatory science fiction movie where a huge meteor hits the earth or whatever. (I'm not sneaking in reference to "End of Time" fears here. If you ever talk to me in person you have to get used to my saying and meaning the obvious, not hinting at the theological or the occult). I want to use the meteor as an example of a huge object hitting something and causing material to spurt out in all directions. You see that in pictures of the moon and some of the planets, and it is believed that the Gulf of Mexico was gouged out by a striking meteor. Now, I can't use the example of throwing a stone into the water, because while there are ripples, they don't stay frozen as ripples, but the water immediately smooths over again where the stone was thrown. This is not a description of the Middle East, but the meteor striking is an example. While there has always been land grabbing and conflict in the Middle East, since Biblical and Roman times, and all the way into the colonial recent past, Hitler basically threw a meteor during the Holocaust. The meteor caused the rippling of refugees fleeing the countries of his control, and the survivors did not "flow back" into Germany upon his defeat, except those German nationals who repatriated. Refugees and their fears and their realities remained thrown "out there," just as if they were ejected during a meteor strike.
So what happened next? The refusal of many countries to take Jewish refugees and other problems and motivating factors resulted in a second meteor hitting, and that is Jewish home seekers arriving in Palestine. This is not a judgmental statement at all, but a retelling of actual history using an analogy. The arrival of the Jewish advocates for a home state were like a secondary meteor (one that is understandable and justified) hitting, but this time in the territory of Palestine. Now the Palestinians, right or wrong, in fact or in fear, become the "ejecta" from the impact of the meteor. Millions became displaced and that is simply a fact. They are still in their physical or mental state of "displacement." Thus one cannot begin to solve the Mideast problem and bring peace without conducting a total inventory of "home displacement." I do not mean that we set up courts and argue over a land ownership. I mean we need to diagnose, like compassionate doctors, the segments of displaced Palestinians and articulate their degree of displacement, just like the hurricane homeowner used in the previous example. Are they in the second generation of living in camps in another country? Are they displaced within Israel? Are they in Israel but mentally and spiritually displaced? Are they confined in areas where they cannot economically thrive? Peace will not come to the Middle East until we all act like adult doctors who can count the scars and decide what to do about them, rather than ignore or deny them. That is not weakness, that is honesty and strength. Everyone has been too weak about speaking honestly about the Palestinians who are displaced, and so they live in a confined and churning "lack of home" reality and state of mind. This is why "We want a Homeland" like "Never again" sounds so obvious, but is completely diffuse and differing in meaning from Palestinian to Palestinian, just like from Jew to Jew. A "homeland" to one Palestinian may be returning to Israel from Jordan to reside in a Palestinian state, but that might not at all be what the next Palestinian wants, who only wants to get out of the refuge camp and become part of the economic mainstream of wherever he or she is currently residing. So again, just like "Never again," Palestinians who have no idea what each other thinks and needs are "assuming" that they all mean the same thing when they say "Palestinian homeland." One would find, however, that they, like the Jews, have totally different mental portraits of what they mean, and what they would need for them and their families to thrive.
Thus you have the third parties, which are the Islamic countries of the Middle East, who feel somewhat helpless. They feel that the displacement crisis (both physical and spiritual) of the Palestinians are completely ignored. Jews understandable map that concern by the Islamic countries onto their "Never again" fear, and perceive this as pressure (which it is) but reduce their reaction to one option ("offense as defense.") The Israelis feel a constraint pressure of having to evaluate each blip on the political and crime radar as being a "act, react, forebear or endure" crisis. It's no way to live. But the Middle East countries must understand that when they apply pressure without doing the same "homework" within their own resident Palestinian populations, they are pressing the buttons of the Jews and that is not constructive at all. Let's be honest. The Islamic countries have pussy footed in fear of stirring up their own unhappy Palestinian populations. I understand that, but at some point, one must take a first step and not just wring one's hands in dismay. Everyone is waiting for some magical solution that is not going to exist. Middle East countries fear fully absorbing their Palestinian populations because they hope that they will someday be able to "go home." As a result, we are on the second generation of millions in camps who cannot yet "go home." Where is home and what should it look like? This must be decided by working with Israel, not against Israel, to do a displacement inventory and analysis. Where there is hope that some Palestinians may migrate to their preference of a Palestinian state, then sure, continue to host them, but ask for some assistance from the world in making their temporary conditions more amenable and as an investment in their future. Where Palestinians must or prefer to remain, then mainstream their access to the economy so they can thrive, and not just eke out a living somehow.
Israelis have the know how about how to contribute to economic success, but as you can see in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they withhold that because they feel both unappreciated when they do "help" and they use withholding economic self determination as a weapon. This is understandable but has never been actually helpful. Someone who is able to self determine and thrive with hope of prosperity is not sitting there hating and planning the next attack. No, I am not naive, you are. When one does a genuine displacement inventory one suddenly sees many more options of behavior than cutting off supplies as punishment for terrorist attacks.
The lack of genuine progress, of the type I have described, results in all sides feeling they are "forgotten" and they are, for all intents and purposes, if one looks at the results. Israel is "forgotten" because the world feels there is a formula of support they give Israel, but cannot really relate to the heart of why Israelis need security. The Palestinians are "forgotten" because like meteor ejecta, they still sit wherever they were thrust, and live not in homes but in places and mindsets of "displacement." The Middle East countries who host Palestinians are "forgotten" because the status quo just drags on and on in the refugee camps. (Look at how, on a different example, Syria has had to just do the best they can with virtually no help from the world as they host hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, including many Christians who were driven out of Iraq by persecution) "Out of sight out of mind" is the motto of the world when it comes to refugees, and the countries of good will must struggle to support them. And this is why a country like Iran will apply the pressure, not because they are a host country, but because they chafe at the feeling that the Palestinians are "forgotten," and so they rattle the saber to remind the Israelis and the world that the problem of displacement is dragging on and on and on.
In my spare time I've even sketched out a recovery plan for the Gaza strip. Trust me, that did not require a tremendous amount of my brain power, just good will and sound cultural diplomacy expertise. When are people going to go to work in good will and solve these problems peacefully?
I hope you have found this helpful, especially the young people, who inherited this mess that should never have become such a mess at all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Read about great Turk man the "Peace Father"
What a fantastic story. This is the way that peace and morality can be gained back, through the individual efforts of great men such as he. Makes me proud of my Turkish ancestry on my maternal grandmother's side ;-)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081028.wturkey28/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
How Kurdish Mr. Fix-It resolves blood feuds
In Turkey, where disputes last decades and can lead to loss of life, the 'Peace Father' works his magic with words, tears
DIYARBAKIR, TURKEY — Murat and Farida didn't know about the feud between their families when they first met at the university in this stone-walled town, a place where residents cling to long memories and ancient traditions. They found out only when Murat went home to tell his family, the Kamcis, that he wanted to marry a girl he had met at school whose last name happened to be Tarhan.
The news appalled the Kamcis and they forbade the nuptials. For 36 years, ever since a young Tarhan boy innocently let his goats graze on a Kamci pasture, the families had been at war. A member of the Kamci family slapped the Tarhan boy that day in the field and the blood feud was on. Four people were killed as a result of that slap, and dozens of others had been driven from their homes to preserve the dignity of the two names.
Distraught by their families' reaction, Murat and Farida went to see the local imam for advice. He told them that if they wanted to get married there was only one way - they must seek out the man known as the Peace Father.
Sait Sanli, the Peace Father's real name, is the 64-year-old wise man of Turkey's Kurdish southeast. Diminutive of stature, exceedingly polite and admittedly prone to tears, the former butcher is the man local residents turn to for advice when their blood starts to boil. By his own count, Mr. Sanli has resolved 449 blood feuds in the eight years since he agreed to mediate his first dispute, and he says none of the pacts he negotiated have since been broken. But his favourite story is the tale of Murat and Farida, the real-life Romeo and Juliet.
"They were crying. They told me they loved each other, but they couldn't get married because their grandfathers had a problem 36 years ago," Mr. Sanli said. "I cried with them."
The next day, Mr. Sanli went to work, travelling to see the elders of both families, as well as the widows and orphans on each side. He took an accounting of how much wrong had been done by each side over the decades. How many had been killed by each family (three Kamcis had died versus one Tarhan) and how much farming income had been lost (the Kamcis had seized 15 hectares of Tarhan land). Then he proposed a solution: Hadn't the blood debt owed by the Tarhans to the Kamcis been repaid by 36 years of free rent and farming income?
It was a simple suggestion, but one the two clans had never considered before. Mr. Sanli offered that the Tarhans should be allowed to return to their homes and that Murat and Farida get married. The two sides accepted and held a festive dinner in the Peace Father's honour.
***
Read the rest of the article, and you cannot help but be so totally charmed, as I am, by his humility and dedication to this great personal calling. More people should imitate him, for sure.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081028.wturkey28/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
How Kurdish Mr. Fix-It resolves blood feuds
In Turkey, where disputes last decades and can lead to loss of life, the 'Peace Father' works his magic with words, tears
DIYARBAKIR, TURKEY — Murat and Farida didn't know about the feud between their families when they first met at the university in this stone-walled town, a place where residents cling to long memories and ancient traditions. They found out only when Murat went home to tell his family, the Kamcis, that he wanted to marry a girl he had met at school whose last name happened to be Tarhan.
The news appalled the Kamcis and they forbade the nuptials. For 36 years, ever since a young Tarhan boy innocently let his goats graze on a Kamci pasture, the families had been at war. A member of the Kamci family slapped the Tarhan boy that day in the field and the blood feud was on. Four people were killed as a result of that slap, and dozens of others had been driven from their homes to preserve the dignity of the two names.
Distraught by their families' reaction, Murat and Farida went to see the local imam for advice. He told them that if they wanted to get married there was only one way - they must seek out the man known as the Peace Father.
Sait Sanli, the Peace Father's real name, is the 64-year-old wise man of Turkey's Kurdish southeast. Diminutive of stature, exceedingly polite and admittedly prone to tears, the former butcher is the man local residents turn to for advice when their blood starts to boil. By his own count, Mr. Sanli has resolved 449 blood feuds in the eight years since he agreed to mediate his first dispute, and he says none of the pacts he negotiated have since been broken. But his favourite story is the tale of Murat and Farida, the real-life Romeo and Juliet.
"They were crying. They told me they loved each other, but they couldn't get married because their grandfathers had a problem 36 years ago," Mr. Sanli said. "I cried with them."
The next day, Mr. Sanli went to work, travelling to see the elders of both families, as well as the widows and orphans on each side. He took an accounting of how much wrong had been done by each side over the decades. How many had been killed by each family (three Kamcis had died versus one Tarhan) and how much farming income had been lost (the Kamcis had seized 15 hectares of Tarhan land). Then he proposed a solution: Hadn't the blood debt owed by the Tarhans to the Kamcis been repaid by 36 years of free rent and farming income?
It was a simple suggestion, but one the two clans had never considered before. Mr. Sanli offered that the Tarhans should be allowed to return to their homes and that Murat and Farida get married. The two sides accepted and held a festive dinner in the Peace Father's honour.
***
Read the rest of the article, and you cannot help but be so totally charmed, as I am, by his humility and dedication to this great personal calling. More people should imitate him, for sure.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Syrian Grand Mufti invites Pope, has wise words
http://www.zenit.org/article-23389?l=english
snip
Syrian Mufti Hopes Pope Visits for Pauline Year
Notes Wish That Vatican Can Help Bring Peace to Mideast
By Mirko TestaDAMASCUS, Syria, JULY 31, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The grand mufti of Syria is hoping for a visit from Benedict XVI during the Pauline Jubilee Year.
Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun invited the Pope to visit his country in the context of a meeting in Damascus with a group of journalists, on a trip following in the footsteps of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
"What I would like to say to the Holy Father is that at present, Damascus is the capital of Arab culture and, at the same time, the capital of the Year of St. Paul," Hassoun said. "I will be exceedingly happy if the Holy Father decides to accept our invitation to visit Syria in this year."
and
The grand mufti also expressed the hope that "the Vatican might play a role in planting the flower of peace in the Middle East."
"Deep down, among religious intellectuals, there is no quarrel but dialogue and discussion," the Muslim leader contended. "And I hope that the Holy Father will play a fundamental part in the peace of the world."
The great mufti recalled Pope John Paul II's urgent appeal not to erect walls but build bridges of dialogue, in reference to the wall of separation built between Israel and Palestinian territories.
"The Vatican had a fundamental role in the fall of the Berlin Wall," he said, "and I hope it will be able to play a similar role to demolish the wall being built in the land of peace."
***
These are very generous words and a very worthy and gracious example by a man of God toward another man of God. I would love to see such a dialogue and visit to take place!
snip
Syrian Mufti Hopes Pope Visits for Pauline Year
Notes Wish That Vatican Can Help Bring Peace to Mideast
By Mirko TestaDAMASCUS, Syria, JULY 31, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The grand mufti of Syria is hoping for a visit from Benedict XVI during the Pauline Jubilee Year.
Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun invited the Pope to visit his country in the context of a meeting in Damascus with a group of journalists, on a trip following in the footsteps of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
"What I would like to say to the Holy Father is that at present, Damascus is the capital of Arab culture and, at the same time, the capital of the Year of St. Paul," Hassoun said. "I will be exceedingly happy if the Holy Father decides to accept our invitation to visit Syria in this year."
and
The grand mufti also expressed the hope that "the Vatican might play a role in planting the flower of peace in the Middle East."
"Deep down, among religious intellectuals, there is no quarrel but dialogue and discussion," the Muslim leader contended. "And I hope that the Holy Father will play a fundamental part in the peace of the world."
The great mufti recalled Pope John Paul II's urgent appeal not to erect walls but build bridges of dialogue, in reference to the wall of separation built between Israel and Palestinian territories.
"The Vatican had a fundamental role in the fall of the Berlin Wall," he said, "and I hope it will be able to play a similar role to demolish the wall being built in the land of peace."
***
These are very generous words and a very worthy and gracious example by a man of God toward another man of God. I would love to see such a dialogue and visit to take place!
Friday, March 21, 2008
Prayers needed for permanent Uganda peace
This is a good article about the current status of trying to bring to final peace Uganda's LRA headed by Kony. One of my longest standing prayer intentions is that Kony will return to sanity, realizing he is not Jesus Christ (no one is Jesus but the one Jesus who is in heaven), repent, and I'd like even more than punishment that he join a mainstream Christian church and work as a civilian volunteer to rebuild the society he has destroyed and the lives he has shattered.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080321.wuganda21/BNStory/International/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080321.wuganda21/BNStory/International/home
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Happy Birthday Prince Hassan
And many years to come of health and prosperity.
http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=6555
snip
AMMAN (JT) - HRH Prince Hassan celebrates his 61st birthday today, following a year of diverse active and pro-active engagement with cultural, humanitarian and environmental issues across the world.
In contrast, the Prince will celebrate his birthday quietly with his family, and has received warm messages of goodwill from friends and colleagues from around the world.
In recent months, his work for peace and understanding has received eclectic international recognition.
snip
Prince Hassan has continued to emphasise the need for common standards for the humane treatment of all people in the region. He recently called on all peoples from the region to recognise their traditions of common humanity, of peace building and of reconciliation.
Prince Hassan has also emphasised his commitment to the environment in recent months, with a strong focus on increasingly relevant energy issues.
In November, the Prince presented a white paper on the DESERTEC concept for energy, water and climate security to the president of the European Parliament. This paper described the vast potential of deserts to supply secure, clean and cheap power to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.
The initiative aims to fight climate change in a way that is economically, technically and politically feasible.
Prince Hassan’s work for a sustainable environment has been complemented by his efforts to empower civil society in West Asia–North Africa.
http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=6555
snip
AMMAN (JT) - HRH Prince Hassan celebrates his 61st birthday today, following a year of diverse active and pro-active engagement with cultural, humanitarian and environmental issues across the world.
In contrast, the Prince will celebrate his birthday quietly with his family, and has received warm messages of goodwill from friends and colleagues from around the world.
In recent months, his work for peace and understanding has received eclectic international recognition.
snip
Prince Hassan has continued to emphasise the need for common standards for the humane treatment of all people in the region. He recently called on all peoples from the region to recognise their traditions of common humanity, of peace building and of reconciliation.
Prince Hassan has also emphasised his commitment to the environment in recent months, with a strong focus on increasingly relevant energy issues.
In November, the Prince presented a white paper on the DESERTEC concept for energy, water and climate security to the president of the European Parliament. This paper described the vast potential of deserts to supply secure, clean and cheap power to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.
The initiative aims to fight climate change in a way that is economically, technically and politically feasible.
Prince Hassan’s work for a sustainable environment has been complemented by his efforts to empower civil society in West Asia–North Africa.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
A very good speech by the King of Jordan
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=6095
snip
AMMAN (JT) - The US should be completely involved in Middle East peace process to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008, His Majesty King Abdullah said on Friday.
In a speech he delivered at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the King stressed “the critical importance of a long-term strategic American involvement in the development of the Middle East”.
“I am here to explain that such a commitment is an opportunity to transform the strategic landscape of the Middle East for years to come,” he told students and faculty members at the school (see full text).
The King urged college academicians to help draw up a US strategy in the area.
I know that optimism does not come easily in academia. But I do know about the visionary thinking that is the scholar’s gift. Today, I ask you to employ visionary thinking to consider a short- and long-term strategy that will ensure a viable, stable, prosperous Middle Eastern region and a safe and secure world for all.
Highlighting the fact that the world’s 57 Muslim countries are not at peace with Israel and whose citizens deem the conflict in Palestine as the issue of their time, His Majesty warned of the implications for global stability if the Mideast conflict continues.
He asserted that 2008 is a critical year. “We are in the best possible position to resolve 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine,” especially since the Arab and Muslim states have committed to an “unprecedented and unanimous peace initiative”.
***
He has a wise perspective and should be listened to, although Washington's "help" has been very one-sided.
snip
AMMAN (JT) - The US should be completely involved in Middle East peace process to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008, His Majesty King Abdullah said on Friday.
In a speech he delivered at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the King stressed “the critical importance of a long-term strategic American involvement in the development of the Middle East”.
“I am here to explain that such a commitment is an opportunity to transform the strategic landscape of the Middle East for years to come,” he told students and faculty members at the school (see full text).
The King urged college academicians to help draw up a US strategy in the area.
I know that optimism does not come easily in academia. But I do know about the visionary thinking that is the scholar’s gift. Today, I ask you to employ visionary thinking to consider a short- and long-term strategy that will ensure a viable, stable, prosperous Middle Eastern region and a safe and secure world for all.
Highlighting the fact that the world’s 57 Muslim countries are not at peace with Israel and whose citizens deem the conflict in Palestine as the issue of their time, His Majesty warned of the implications for global stability if the Mideast conflict continues.
He asserted that 2008 is a critical year. “We are in the best possible position to resolve 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine,” especially since the Arab and Muslim states have committed to an “unprecedented and unanimous peace initiative”.
***
He has a wise perspective and should be listened to, although Washington's "help" has been very one-sided.
Quotes to remember and heed
“If we are to achieve peace, we must first love our children more than we hate our enemies.”
– Golda Meier
“If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies.”
– Moshe Dayan
– Golda Meier
“If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies.”
– Moshe Dayan
Saturday, March 1, 2008
First ever visit by Iran president to Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23429996/
snip
BAGHDAD - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived Sunday in Baghdad for the first-ever visit by an Iranian president to Iraq, waving as he stepped off his plane to be greeted by representatives of a nation that was once Iran’s bitter enemy.
snip
Iran and Iraq are both led by Shiite Muslims. The two countries were hostile to each other during Saddam’s regime and fought a long and destructive war during most of the 1980s. But Ahmadinejad sought to reassure Iraqis ahead of the trip that Iran is not fueling violence in Iraq.
“Iran has no need to intervene in Iraq. It is friendly to all groups in Iraq. Isn’t it ridiculous that those who have deployed 160,000 troops in Iraq accuse us of intervening there?” the Iranian state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
***
I'm all for the visit.
snip
BAGHDAD - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived Sunday in Baghdad for the first-ever visit by an Iranian president to Iraq, waving as he stepped off his plane to be greeted by representatives of a nation that was once Iran’s bitter enemy.
snip
Iran and Iraq are both led by Shiite Muslims. The two countries were hostile to each other during Saddam’s regime and fought a long and destructive war during most of the 1980s. But Ahmadinejad sought to reassure Iraqis ahead of the trip that Iran is not fueling violence in Iraq.
“Iran has no need to intervene in Iraq. It is friendly to all groups in Iraq. Isn’t it ridiculous that those who have deployed 160,000 troops in Iraq accuse us of intervening there?” the Iranian state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
***
I'm all for the visit.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Arab League peace initiative
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-israel.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1185380169-UHtukesMMxInK0H/rt9Rig
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel.
The league’s initiative would grant Israel full recognition and normal relations with its Arab neighbors in return for withdrawing to its 1967 borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It also calls for “an agreed, just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The initiative was begun by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002.
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” among Israel, Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world, the Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said at a news conference with Mr. Peres, The Associated Press reported.
The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said he hoped Israel would respond positively to the proposal.
***
I hope so too.
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel.
The league’s initiative would grant Israel full recognition and normal relations with its Arab neighbors in return for withdrawing to its 1967 borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It also calls for “an agreed, just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The initiative was begun by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002.
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” among Israel, Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world, the Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said at a news conference with Mr. Peres, The Associated Press reported.
The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said he hoped Israel would respond positively to the proposal.
***
I hope so too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
