''It is worse for a man to inflict wrong then to suffer it''
Socrates
'' All the discourses and commentaries (about 9/11) denote the exaggerated abreaction to the event and the fascination it exerts. The moral condemnation and the sacred union against terrorism are matched by a prodigious jubilation to see the destruction of a superpower or, much better, to see this superpower self destruct at its height. Because it is this unbearable power, which fomented all the widespread violence in the world, that fomented (without willingly knowing it) the terrorist imagination in us .''
Jean Baudrillard in L'esprit du terrorisme (my translation)
In his article, L'esprit du terrorisme (The Essence of Terrorism), published in French less than two months after September eleventh, and two years later in English, Jean Baudrillard, drawing from the first reactions to the events of the World Trade Center, which he depicts as 'a counter phobic delirium to exorcise Evil', argues that by making 9/11 a planetary Event we are creating a symbolism which is uniting the terrorists and ourseleves in an implicit complicity. Baudrillard writes that this complicity is what the terrorists might have expected and taken into account.
How did this complicity come into being ? Baudrillard defends the idea that there is no absolute Good as there is no absolute Evil, that they are in a state of equilibrium inherited from traditional societies and always fluctuating in the same direction. It is naive to think that the increase in Good can completely suppress Evil. Baudrillard explains how September eleventh and our reaction to it are both one and only event that encompasses a great contradiction threatening the traditional equilibrium between Good and Evil; the capacity of the terrorists to transform their deaths into an absolute weapon against a society which abhorres death and whose objective is Zero death. This is not as much a quantitative comparison as it is a symbolic one. Its symbolism is entranched in the fact that the terrorist's death is a different kind of reality, a reality that reaches us through the medium of the virtual and the sensational, the image. With the animated image, we come to feel terror before grapsing the the reality behind it. The reality of the event beocmes then secondary, and the event in itself becomes an overwhelming fiction, more forcefully striking our imagination.
Baudrillard contends that the representation of death through an image medium striking the imagination, and the fascination exerted on us by this image, breaks the previous equilibrium between Good and Evil because the only response to this symbolism is an escalation; more death. Terrorism by the image creates a symbolism which ties death to some sort of 'immoral fascination'. And this death will come to us via self destruction.
I did not see the images of the World trade Center attacks because we don't watch TV, we don't own a TV. Recently I saw 'United 93' on video. I felt a great unease, a moral shock in face of the terrorism we see as reconstructed in this movie. It was a new sort of moral shock for me, something I never felt before, something that I could only relate to what I felt when I saw images of naked AbuGhraib's prisoners and read accounts about Guantanamo's 'porn' method interrogations. Suddenly, it occured to me that the kind of moral shock I was feeling could be related to the moral shock someone feels when watching porn. This new kind of terror meant to strike the imagination through images which are taboos exploit the same human basic emotions, fascination shrouded in disgust and reprobation.
I have come to understand that terror on the screen is the porn of death. Sadly, for some, seeing porn does not evoke reprobation but only fascination and so this is actually the case with the overreaction to Terror, with the new legislation on Torture. Torture is the answer to the fascination of death infused into our imagination by the terrorists and their images.
With this new legislation, the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 has gone beyond Bin Laden's best expectations. Not only this death porn director and his followers actors have been given the stature of world statesmen but they have been given also our liberties and our moral principles on a sacrificial altar, the altar of security. Because it is we, in the first place, who will have to deal with this new legislation on Torture which is changing irreversibly our moral standards.
How many declared and potential terrorists suicide bombers are there on the Planet that we feel obliged to bow to such radical changes in our rules and laws in their names ? Rules and laws that have been carefully constructed with a certain idea of Humanity, itself carefully crafted over the years by cultural progress and so many humanist struggles. Just as the Patriot Act was more about legalising a posteriori Bush's domestic spying program on American citizens, the new legislation on Torture is about legalising a posteriori the dangerous breaches to Human Rights which have been going on in outsourced and extraterritorial American prisons worldwide.
The effects of the new legislation on Torture are not going to be confined to AbuGhraib, Guantanamo and some obscure CIA prisons in some obscure eastern european countries. They are going to shake the foundations of Human Rights, freeedom of expression and honest dissent inside the United States and worldwide. Because the moment a discussion is started on what is acceptable and not acceptable in Torture, this moment marks the acceptation and the admission of Torture as a practice. Judgments about Torture should never go into these sinister details: how much inflicted suffering amounts to Torture ? Is suffering without organ failure considered a Torture ? Can our best intentions accompany our worst practices ? The debate on Torture should not go into details of the practice, it should be at the level of the general principles. Human dignity is not a vague concept, it is only vague in the minds of illiterate in humanist matters like Gonzalez and Bush. Pain and suffering are degrading and should not be accepted in any form as a way to treat human beings.
Our society abhorres pain and suffering in all its forms for ourselves and yet, at the same time, we let our leaders inflict them on others. Or maybe we consider that these others don't have the same level of humanity. The discussion on Torture and the fact that a majority of senators and congressmen in the US voted for accomodations on Torture imply a more worrying fact, the fact that our society and our media can hold a discussion on Torture and its accomodations without raising eyebrows. It is worrying because it means that we have all already abandoned the fundamental principles of human dignity and its meaning. This is a dangerous path because it degrades not only the humanity of others but our own humanity.
The new legislation on Torture is already degrading our own moral standards as a society. This is the Terror inside, the terror we have watched on our TV screens, imagined fascinated, and feared. It is now inside our imagination. With the terror inside, not only Bin Laden have won, but also Bush. With the new legislation on Terror, every US citizen can fear for his dignity, his freedom and his life. New York Times journalist William Rivers Pitt has an imaginary and moving account on the implications of the new legislation on normal people, not terrorists. Editorialist and blogger Pierre Tristam writes about the negociations that preceded the 'deal' on Torture: ''Either way, the example the administration and its once-again pliant Congress are broadcasting to the world is that of a nation step by step debasing law and its own foundations of liberty.''
I am really depressed by the situation and I wish I can hear more voices from normal people around me reassuring me that this is just a nightmare and that we are all going either to wake up or to rise against our despots and Bin Laden's fellows in terror, those who have the guts to turn the morbid and disgusting fascination for terror into a powerful political tool against our Democracies, Human Rights and moral values, ultimately leading us into a self destructive and suicidal path.
We are already standing on the edge of a moral abyss but we are unable to see it because we are watching behind us, way behind, into September eleventh and the day we have lost our imagination to terror.
Mark From Ireland has a post on a 15 year old boy resident of Guantanamo, Rolling Stone has the source article.
30.9.06
Why I will not vote for Ignatieff
This week end, the liberal party is voting to select the delegates who will choose its new leader. Here is my argument on why Ignatieff should not lead the Liberal party and Canada.
(Thanks L.M. for pointing an error about the voting process for the Liberal party leadership which appeared in a previous version of this post)
(Thanks L.M. for pointing an error about the voting process for the Liberal party leadership which appeared in a previous version of this post)
29.9.06
Stephen Harper's logical and ethical fallacies
During the last Israeli agression on Lebanon, Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, refused to recognise the suffering of Lebanese civilians by not calling for an immediate ceasefire, despite having in his own country a sizeable Lebanese diaspora who was waiting for a word from him in this direction and who was anxious and furious about the daily killings of hundreds of lebanese civilians, mainly children, from Israeli bombings.
Recently, at the summit of the Francophonie held in Romania, Harper blocked a common offcicial declaration by the summit that mentions the suffering of Lebanese civilians arguing that it did not mention the suffering of Israeli civilians, despite the fact that the declaration was adopted by a majority of countries participating in the summit.
''Harper said Canada deplored the war but couldn't accept a resolution that didn't recognize that Israelis had also suffered.
"I hope we can all recognize the suffering of humans -- men and women -- and not just suffering based on people's nationality,'' Harper said. ''
Harper's position is logically fallacious and not only unethical but also criminal. Indeed Harper did not ask himself the following questions:
- If he did not recognise the suffering of Lebanese civilians during the height of the Israeli agression how can he logically recognise it now ?
-Moreover, Harper's position during the Israeli agression implied that not only Lebanese civilian suffering was acceptable to achieve military objectives but also Israeli civilian suffering. Was Israeli civilian suffering then acceptable to Harper ?
Harper is here guilty, not only of logical fallacies, but of moral fallacies, for recognising immediately afterward, something that if he had accepted to recognise one month ago he could have saved lives on both sides.
Another fallacy in Harper's position resides in the fact that, recognising retrospectively the moral equivalence of Israeli lives and Lebanese lives and insisting on it, no matter the numbers of civilians who died on both sides, is in contradiction with his position during the height of the war when the dying of Lebanese civilians by the hundreds every day seemed to him acceptable as long as Israeli civilian casualties did not match those of the Lebanese. One could assume, from Harper's insiting on signing the declaration only if it mentioned Israeli civilians, that if Israeli civilian lives were wasted by the hundreds and the thousands during the July war, he may have asked for an immediate ceasefire.
I remember that my professor of Logic told us that the minds of our political leaders are poor in Logic and therefore unethical. He used to give us examples of political speeches full of logical fallacies, asking us to find them and telling us that Logic was connected to Ethics because they share the same process, coherence. Logic requires from us to be coherent in our statements and discourse and Ethic requires coherence between our principles and our actions. Harper lacks both.
Harper is the leader who talked the most about Ethics in Politics and it served him well because he stole the victory from a Liberal party struggling with Ethical problems. However, after this incoherence and many others in Harper's position on the Israeli agression on Lebanon, I say: Harper has no lessons to give in Ethics, not to Canadians and not to the rest of the world. On the contrary, he seems to be desperately in need of lessons from others on these matters.
Recently, at the summit of the Francophonie held in Romania, Harper blocked a common offcicial declaration by the summit that mentions the suffering of Lebanese civilians arguing that it did not mention the suffering of Israeli civilians, despite the fact that the declaration was adopted by a majority of countries participating in the summit.
''Harper said Canada deplored the war but couldn't accept a resolution that didn't recognize that Israelis had also suffered.
"I hope we can all recognize the suffering of humans -- men and women -- and not just suffering based on people's nationality,'' Harper said. ''
Harper's position is logically fallacious and not only unethical but also criminal. Indeed Harper did not ask himself the following questions:
- If he did not recognise the suffering of Lebanese civilians during the height of the Israeli agression how can he logically recognise it now ?
-Moreover, Harper's position during the Israeli agression implied that not only Lebanese civilian suffering was acceptable to achieve military objectives but also Israeli civilian suffering. Was Israeli civilian suffering then acceptable to Harper ?
Harper is here guilty, not only of logical fallacies, but of moral fallacies, for recognising immediately afterward, something that if he had accepted to recognise one month ago he could have saved lives on both sides.
Another fallacy in Harper's position resides in the fact that, recognising retrospectively the moral equivalence of Israeli lives and Lebanese lives and insisting on it, no matter the numbers of civilians who died on both sides, is in contradiction with his position during the height of the war when the dying of Lebanese civilians by the hundreds every day seemed to him acceptable as long as Israeli civilian casualties did not match those of the Lebanese. One could assume, from Harper's insiting on signing the declaration only if it mentioned Israeli civilians, that if Israeli civilian lives were wasted by the hundreds and the thousands during the July war, he may have asked for an immediate ceasefire.
I remember that my professor of Logic told us that the minds of our political leaders are poor in Logic and therefore unethical. He used to give us examples of political speeches full of logical fallacies, asking us to find them and telling us that Logic was connected to Ethics because they share the same process, coherence. Logic requires from us to be coherent in our statements and discourse and Ethic requires coherence between our principles and our actions. Harper lacks both.
Harper is the leader who talked the most about Ethics in Politics and it served him well because he stole the victory from a Liberal party struggling with Ethical problems. However, after this incoherence and many others in Harper's position on the Israeli agression on Lebanon, I say: Harper has no lessons to give in Ethics, not to Canadians and not to the rest of the world. On the contrary, he seems to be desperately in need of lessons from others on these matters.
27.9.06
Women's issues and identity in Modern Iran: An erudite and insider analysis based on Iranian cinema
I am a great admirer of Iranian cinema. When I discovered this cinema, I was overwhelmed by the level of technical perfection, creative narration, humanist perspective and artistic productivity of an industry having endured radical political transformations, a long and bloody war, censorship and sometimes cultural isolation and which was able to regenerate itself in a way that forces our admiration.
'The taste of Cherry', 'The wind will carry us', 'Ten', 'Where is the friend's house' are works of internationally renowned Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami. Jean-Luc Godard said of Kiarostami: 'Cinema starts with D.W.Griffith and ends with Kiarostami.'
There are also the Makhmalbaf, father and daughter with 'Gabbeh', 'Kandahar' and 'The blackboard'. I am citing here a tiny portion of Iranian cinema, those movies who were able to reach us in the west.
In a country that have been going through fundamental and brutal transformations for the last thirty years, the film industry, instead of becoming, under the tight control of the state, the reflection of the political and religious power and its structure, turned out to be the catalyser of a chain of dialogue and compromise between the civil society and the state, thanks to the prolific and untamed creativity of its members and to the cultural vitality of Iranian society. The Iranian cinema became, in the process, so much intertwined with Iranian society, contributing to its evolution while documenting it at the same time. It is no wonder then that a careful study of Iranian cinema yielded surprising results about women's issues in Iran and their evolution during the last thirty years.
We are told today that women living in traditional Mulsim societies need the protection of the West, that they need our ready made ideologies in order to emancipate their self and our ill thought wars in order to access modernity. My friend, Najmeh Khalili Mahani, not only proves the contrary with her admirable essay on women in Iranian cinema, but she also proves that a society is capable of transforming itself from the inside, no matter the circumstances, by initiating a cultural dialogue between its different components, a dialogue in which art plays a major role.
The essay is well documented and worth reading.
Excerpts:
''In the West, the media-driven portrait of Iranian women after the 1970’s Revolution is often blurred with over-simplifications that render their image bleakly oppressed, chained by Islamic fundamentalism, and scarred with violations of the rights and body. Yet, under the iron rule of the mullahs, an Iranian woman receives the Nobel peace prize; two Iranian females become the first Muslim women to conquer Everest; a woman becomes the national car-racing champion amongst both men and women challengers in Iran; women occupy over 60% of the capacity of higher education centers; the feminist non-governmental organizations grow by over 400%; [1] the international prize for technological innovation in Geneva goes to a provincial Iranian girl; and presidential candidates herald women’s issues in the election campaign. [2] Patriarchy in Iran is not fundamentally different from that in non-Islamic societies, but the religious dogma is bound to raise higher the bar of challenge for attaining equality for women’s right.''
''The right to participation in public sphere and the political process is at the heart of the Iranian women’s movement since the beginning. The politics of “veiling,” however, have been the centerpieces of not only religious but also secular legislative debates. The forced unveiling of women during Reza Shah’s regiment of modernity set back the women’s movement by as much as did the forced veiling of women during Khomeini’s regiment of Islamic rule. From the long history of struggle for the right to dress, however, Iranian women have inherited skills for negotiation, resistance and survival. Today, in spite of cultural and constitutional inequalities that cripple the women’s movement, it is they who push the wheels of democracy and (even post-) modernity. ''
And she concludes:
''Whether feminist or humanist, whether popular or repertory, whether box-office hit or totally banned from the silver screen, the Iranian cinema has succeeded in taking advantage of the paradoxical nature of Islamic Republic’s quest for Islamic Modernism and become the outlet of expression for a generation who has experienced revolution, war and reform, all condensed in less that 30 years. The cinema in Iran is among many of other slumbering institutions that are awakening to the voices of the ‘second gender.’ Yet, in the vast emptiness of the visual field of the representation of feminine diversity, the voices of cinematic women, whether behind or in front of the camera, echo perpetually with that which is awakened and that which is awakening. Although journalism is the brave frontrunner of reform in Iran, it is the primacy of the visual affect that accelerates the efficacy of the text. Here, we glimpsed at the image of progress made by women of Iranian cinema: from perdition to resurrection to revolution. This progress is owed in part to the readiness of the spectators for change and in part to the artists who have taken risks and have pushed the envelope of the viewer’s imagination and expectations beyond tradition and taboo. And from beneath the ‘hijab,’ which is meant to obscure a vision of femininity, the Iranian women are painting a striking figure of their identity that flickers through the darkness of the cinema theater and perhaps into the darkness beyond.''
Read the entire article
'The taste of Cherry', 'The wind will carry us', 'Ten', 'Where is the friend's house' are works of internationally renowned Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami. Jean-Luc Godard said of Kiarostami: 'Cinema starts with D.W.Griffith and ends with Kiarostami.'
There are also the Makhmalbaf, father and daughter with 'Gabbeh', 'Kandahar' and 'The blackboard'. I am citing here a tiny portion of Iranian cinema, those movies who were able to reach us in the west.
In a country that have been going through fundamental and brutal transformations for the last thirty years, the film industry, instead of becoming, under the tight control of the state, the reflection of the political and religious power and its structure, turned out to be the catalyser of a chain of dialogue and compromise between the civil society and the state, thanks to the prolific and untamed creativity of its members and to the cultural vitality of Iranian society. The Iranian cinema became, in the process, so much intertwined with Iranian society, contributing to its evolution while documenting it at the same time. It is no wonder then that a careful study of Iranian cinema yielded surprising results about women's issues in Iran and their evolution during the last thirty years.
We are told today that women living in traditional Mulsim societies need the protection of the West, that they need our ready made ideologies in order to emancipate their self and our ill thought wars in order to access modernity. My friend, Najmeh Khalili Mahani, not only proves the contrary with her admirable essay on women in Iranian cinema, but she also proves that a society is capable of transforming itself from the inside, no matter the circumstances, by initiating a cultural dialogue between its different components, a dialogue in which art plays a major role.
The essay is well documented and worth reading.
Excerpts:
''In the West, the media-driven portrait of Iranian women after the 1970’s Revolution is often blurred with over-simplifications that render their image bleakly oppressed, chained by Islamic fundamentalism, and scarred with violations of the rights and body. Yet, under the iron rule of the mullahs, an Iranian woman receives the Nobel peace prize; two Iranian females become the first Muslim women to conquer Everest; a woman becomes the national car-racing champion amongst both men and women challengers in Iran; women occupy over 60% of the capacity of higher education centers; the feminist non-governmental organizations grow by over 400%; [1] the international prize for technological innovation in Geneva goes to a provincial Iranian girl; and presidential candidates herald women’s issues in the election campaign. [2] Patriarchy in Iran is not fundamentally different from that in non-Islamic societies, but the religious dogma is bound to raise higher the bar of challenge for attaining equality for women’s right.''
''The right to participation in public sphere and the political process is at the heart of the Iranian women’s movement since the beginning. The politics of “veiling,” however, have been the centerpieces of not only religious but also secular legislative debates. The forced unveiling of women during Reza Shah’s regiment of modernity set back the women’s movement by as much as did the forced veiling of women during Khomeini’s regiment of Islamic rule. From the long history of struggle for the right to dress, however, Iranian women have inherited skills for negotiation, resistance and survival. Today, in spite of cultural and constitutional inequalities that cripple the women’s movement, it is they who push the wheels of democracy and (even post-) modernity. ''
And she concludes:
''Whether feminist or humanist, whether popular or repertory, whether box-office hit or totally banned from the silver screen, the Iranian cinema has succeeded in taking advantage of the paradoxical nature of Islamic Republic’s quest for Islamic Modernism and become the outlet of expression for a generation who has experienced revolution, war and reform, all condensed in less that 30 years. The cinema in Iran is among many of other slumbering institutions that are awakening to the voices of the ‘second gender.’ Yet, in the vast emptiness of the visual field of the representation of feminine diversity, the voices of cinematic women, whether behind or in front of the camera, echo perpetually with that which is awakened and that which is awakening. Although journalism is the brave frontrunner of reform in Iran, it is the primacy of the visual affect that accelerates the efficacy of the text. Here, we glimpsed at the image of progress made by women of Iranian cinema: from perdition to resurrection to revolution. This progress is owed in part to the readiness of the spectators for change and in part to the artists who have taken risks and have pushed the envelope of the viewer’s imagination and expectations beyond tradition and taboo. And from beneath the ‘hijab,’ which is meant to obscure a vision of femininity, the Iranian women are painting a striking figure of their identity that flickers through the darkness of the cinema theater and perhaps into the darkness beyond.''
Read the entire article
Rice's divinations
Condi Rice, in three separate recent interviews, describes the situation in Lebanon as very fragile. She warns of possible murder attempts on the Politicians of the March 14 movement in Lebanon, Sanyura, Hariri, Jumblatt and co...and at the same time she predicts that this movement will become stronger. She also recycles the view that Israel was in war against Hezbollah and not against Lebanon.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the situation in Lebanon was still "very fragile" following the Israeli offensive on Lebanon, and warned of possible assassination attempts of figures associated with the March 14 group and the moderate consensus.Rice also said that "what really is going on in the Middle East, the kind of sharpening between extremist forces and moderate forces," adding that "what will be interesting and important is how that plays out over the next, now, probably several years."
I think these are very disturbing declarations from a secretary of state. Are secretary of states supposed to give predictions when they speak with the press as if they were sports or weather commentators or are they supposed to give sharp analyses of the political situation and explain their diplomacy efforts ?
By the way, look who are the 'moderates' in the Arab world according to Rice ! Actually she agrees with one of the zionist commentators on this blog on the definition of a 'moderate'.
And as it appears, she has not learned a thing from the recent war in lebanon, let alone not learning from Iraq. According to my own definition of a radical and an extremist, which states that a radical will pursue its agenda whatever the consequences and the circumstances and the suffering, Rice corresponds very well to this definition. So much for Diplomacy !
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the situation in Lebanon was still "very fragile" following the Israeli offensive on Lebanon, and warned of possible assassination attempts of figures associated with the March 14 group and the moderate consensus.Rice also said that "what really is going on in the Middle East, the kind of sharpening between extremist forces and moderate forces," adding that "what will be interesting and important is how that plays out over the next, now, probably several years."
I think these are very disturbing declarations from a secretary of state. Are secretary of states supposed to give predictions when they speak with the press as if they were sports or weather commentators or are they supposed to give sharp analyses of the political situation and explain their diplomacy efforts ?
By the way, look who are the 'moderates' in the Arab world according to Rice ! Actually she agrees with one of the zionist commentators on this blog on the definition of a 'moderate'.
And as it appears, she has not learned a thing from the recent war in lebanon, let alone not learning from Iraq. According to my own definition of a radical and an extremist, which states that a radical will pursue its agenda whatever the consequences and the circumstances and the suffering, Rice corresponds very well to this definition. So much for Diplomacy !
26.9.06
A Short Glossary of Zionist and Israeli Terms
Palestine: 'A land without people for people without land'
How come 20% of its population and 100% of the occupied Palestinian territories are natives ? This is because these are Arabs and not Palestinians, they came from neighbouring Arab countries when they foresaw with the advent of Zionism an opportunity to grab some land.
How come they accept to live under occupation while they can live in Palaces ? Well, that's hard to answer but Israel has been doing its best to make them understand that they must get a life elsewhere.
Existence means Expansion. After all, isn't the universe expanding ? Until this theory is proved wrong, Existence will mean Expansion for Israel. Universal harmony. Madonna may even venture to say that, having learned Kabbalah, this state of things has to do with Kabbalah.
Withdrawal means occupation. Isn't Israel delaying of its withdrawal from Lebanon the only thing that is making UN resolution 1701 respected and the ceasefire effectif ?
Moderate: ''I think we must be careful here to define just who is a "moderate". A leader may appear to be "moderate" to others if he refrains from calling for totalitarian world conquest, but Israelis would still classify him as a mortal threat if he called for the destruction ofIsrael
Sabra and Chatila massacres: First these were not massacres but 'legitimate killings of palestinian civilians hiding militants'. They are called massacres and they engage Israel's responsibility as the only foreign army in presence only because of Israel's high standards when it comes to protecting civilians and respecting Human rights.
''The Palestinian leadership was evacuated by Western forces from Beirut to Tunisia when Israel invaded in1982 in response to repeated Palestinian attacks and bombardments from Lebanese territory, and Israel didn't participate in the Lebanese massacre of the Palestinian camps (indeed, I have read hostile accounts of people who survived by running to Israeli troops), though by Israeli (not Arab) standards its troops should have stood between the Lebanese and the Palestinians to better prevent such things from happening.''
Again quoted from Solomon2
Submission: It all depends to whom we are submitted. It is called 'Submission' to terrorism if it is Hezbollah and 'Moderation' if it is Israel. In the latter case, 'Terrorism' becomes 'Taking Control'
According to Solomon2
I could have dismissed the last three definitions as being the opinions of one person but they are actually quite pervasive and representative of the current thinking among current Political elites in the US, Israel and unconditional allies.
To be continued...
How come 20% of its population and 100% of the occupied Palestinian territories are natives ? This is because these are Arabs and not Palestinians, they came from neighbouring Arab countries when they foresaw with the advent of Zionism an opportunity to grab some land.
How come they accept to live under occupation while they can live in Palaces ? Well, that's hard to answer but Israel has been doing its best to make them understand that they must get a life elsewhere.
Existence means Expansion. After all, isn't the universe expanding ? Until this theory is proved wrong, Existence will mean Expansion for Israel. Universal harmony. Madonna may even venture to say that, having learned Kabbalah, this state of things has to do with Kabbalah.
Withdrawal means occupation. Isn't Israel delaying of its withdrawal from Lebanon the only thing that is making UN resolution 1701 respected and the ceasefire effectif ?
Moderate: ''I think we must be careful here to define just who is a "moderate". A leader may appear to be "moderate" to others if he refrains from calling for totalitarian world conquest, but Israelis would still classify him as a mortal threat if he called for the destruction of
Sabra and Chatila massacres: First these were not massacres but 'legitimate killings of palestinian civilians hiding militants'. They are called massacres and they engage Israel's responsibility as the only foreign army in presence only because of Israel's high standards when it comes to protecting civilians and respecting Human rights.
''The Palestinian leadership was evacuated by Western forces from Beirut to Tunisia when Israel invaded in
Again quoted from Solomon2
Submission: It all depends to whom we are submitted. It is called 'Submission' to terrorism if it is Hezbollah and 'Moderation' if it is Israel. In the latter case, 'Terrorism' becomes 'Taking Control'
According to Solomon2
I could have dismissed the last three definitions as being the opinions of one person but they are actually quite pervasive and representative of the current thinking among current Political elites in the US, Israel and unconditional allies.
To be continued...
On Power, Detachment and Zen
Why Blair couldn't just act like Koizumi and quit in dignity ?
The answer is in the spirit of Zen culture and how it teaches detachment, I believe, while Catholicism teaches exactly the contrary.
Blair told the Labour conference today: 'It's hard to let go'
The answer is in the spirit of Zen culture and how it teaches detachment, I believe, while Catholicism teaches exactly the contrary.
Blair told the Labour conference today: 'It's hard to let go'
25.9.06
More on the boycott of Israel
Irish academics call for a boycott of Israeli universities.
Other boycotts:
Ken Loach
Individual boycott
The Ontario workers union boycott
The Dubai Life boycott (Please go on their site and sign it)
The British lecturers boycott of Israeli academics
The US presbyterian church divestment
The Church of England boycott divestment
The British architects boycott
The Palestinian campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel
The BIG campaign boycott (UK): the non violent response to Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Boycottisrael.co.uk: Links containing informations on different boycott campaigns and on cthe ompanies who support zionism.
Mazin Qumsiyeh has a site with a wealth of information on boycotts of Israel and divestments as well as a list of the companies we should boycott.
Please inform me of additional boycotts I am unaware of.
Special thanks to Furgaia
Other boycotts:
Ken Loach
Individual boycott
The Ontario workers union boycott
The Dubai Life boycott (Please go on their site and sign it)
The British lecturers boycott of Israeli academics
The US presbyterian church divestment
The Church of England boycott divestment
The British architects boycott
The Palestinian campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel
The BIG campaign boycott (UK): the non violent response to Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Boycottisrael.co.uk: Links containing informations on different boycott campaigns and on cthe ompanies who support zionism.
Mazin Qumsiyeh has a site with a wealth of information on boycotts of Israel and divestments as well as a list of the companies we should boycott.
Please inform me of additional boycotts I am unaware of.
Special thanks to Furgaia
22.9.06
Georges Brassens's 22 septembre
Le 22 septembre
Un vingt-deux de septembre au diable vous partites,
Et, depuis, chaque année, à la date susdite,
Je mouillais mon mouchoir en souvenir de vous...
Or, nous y revoilà, mais je reste de pierre,
Plus une seule larme à me mettre aux paupières:
Le vingt-deux de septembre, aujourd'hui, je m'en fous.
On ne reverra plus au temps des feuilles mortes,
Cette âme en peine qui me ressemble et qui porte
Le deuil de chaque feuille en souvenir de vous...
Que le brave Prévert et ses escargots veuillent
Bien se passer de moi pour enterrer les feuilles:
Le vingt-deux de septembre, aujourd'hui, je m'en fous.
Jadis, ouvrant mes bras comme une paire d'ailes,
Je montais jusqu'au ciel pour suivre l'hirondelle
Et me rompais les os en souvenir de vous...
Le complexe d'Icare à présent m'abandonne,
L'hirondelle en partant ne fera plus l'automne:
Le vingt-deux de septembre, aujourd'hui, je m'en fous.
Pieusement noué d'un bout de vos dentelles,
J'avais, sur ma fenêtre, un bouquet d'immortelles
Que j'arrosais de pleurs en souvenir de vous...
Je m'en vais les offrir au premier mort qui passe,
Les regrets éternels à présent me dépassent:
Le vingt-deux de septembre, aujourd'hui, je m'en fous.
Désormais, le petit bout de coeur qui me reste
Ne traversera plus l'équinoxe funeste
En battant la breloque en souvenir de vous...
Il a craché sa flamme et ses cendres s'éteignent,
A peine y pourrait-on rôtir quatre châtaignes:
Le vingt-deux de septembre, aujourd'hui, je m'en fous.
Et c'est triste de n'être plus triste sans vous
21.9.06
Why I won't vote for Ignatieff
Today, I came across this portrait of Michael Ignatieff by someone who worked with him at the Canadian Globe and Mail. I searched for this information when I read that he is among the three front runners for the Canadian liberal party leadership. Although, what lies ahead in the leadership contest will be probably the most difficult for him, he stands a reasonable chance of becoming the next liberal party leader and may be the next prime minister of Canada.
The portrait is excellent, reserved, uncompromising, investigative and detailed.
Before reading the protrait I didn't know what to think of Ignatieff. I have not read much of his writings, my readings in philosophy and litterature are focused on other writers, but I knew about him enough to admire his intellect. I was of course most unhappy with his stance on the Iraq war but I thought that so many well intentioned and intelligent people have misjudged when they supported this war and later recognized that the after war was mishandled. This is a half apology for someone like me who was against the war altogether and who knew that this war was going to bring misery to the Iraqi people and an additional destabilizing element in a region which is always on the brink of war. I was however ready to accept that people, even intelligent and well informed people can misjudge sometimes and to forgive Ignatieff. I didn't give too much thought in my previous judgement of Ignatieff to all what was written against him, I thought that successful people make ennemies easily. There was however this article he wrote on torture in which he didn't come clear about condemning torture. This continued to bother me and I thought that it was an intellectual absurdity. I didn't want to believe that an intelligent and articulate person like him supports the use of torture, so I suspended my belief and my judgement about him.
Reading his Portrait today made it obvious for me who is the real Ignatieff. As he lived most of his life outside Canada, he is unknown to ordinary Canadians, however much was said about him in the UK. While most of what was said point to someone who easily betrays his friends, family and changes political allegiances, it appeared to me that there was a continuity in all his endeavours and all his stances whatever the allegiances.
Michael Ignatieff seems to be following only his own deep inclinations and his mind in a very independant way, so independant that it is sometimes detached from reality having only as reference himself and what he thinks is right and wrong with a quasi intuitive certainty, the kind of intellectual certainty Descartes made as the ultimate foundation of Knowledge. However, Descartes was careful to interpret this certainty as coming from the outside, from God. In this sense, Ignatieff is not a cartesian thinker. I would say that he is a Fichtean thinker. Fichte was a contemporary of kant and is considered as a post-kantian philosopher. He is the first to have established subjectivity, the 'pure I', as the foundation of knowledge. He cleared the foundations of knowledge from all external elements, Descarte's God and Kant's sensations and perceptions of the external world as necessary elements to his categories of Reason and Understanding. He gave a name to the 'pure I'; the intellectual intuition. He has writings in political philosophy and his ideas in this area are thought to be extremely dangerous if they were to be applied and would lead to an enlightened totatlitarianism.
I am an independant person and I appreciate independant minds. However, reading Ignatieff's portrait, I was chilled. I think the man is better where he used to stand before, in the universe of abstract ideas. I am convinced of one thing: Ignatieff will be his own man, indifferent to the aspirations of Canadian citizens and to their plight because his extreme certainty is what makes him who he is and he will never be able to change.
Extreme certainty can be dangerous in Politics. Didn't the people who defend the Iraq war show that extreme certainty in Politics can be dangerous and murderous ? Didn't Ignatieff flirt with the idea that torture was good for democratic states fighting evil ?
More than intellectual certainty, Ignatieff seems to be a man incapable of empathic emotions. Politics require some empathy, the capacity to project oneself, as a leader, into the psyche of the people who expect you to bring them a good life and a good future.
Among other things, the portrait shows also that Ignatieff is not a man to serve the people, as we usually expect from our Politicians, he rather sees Politics the other way, a field where he can put at will his abstract ideas into practice where the people become the ones who will be serving the man...
I wish Ignatieff can be convinced that he could fare better where he belongs, in the sphere of abstract ideas. This is not to say that the two front runners are better than Ignatieff. I think the liberal party is in trouble and our little Bush franchise, Stephen Harper, might stay at the helm of the country for a couple more years...
Que Dieu nous aide !
UPDATE: The author of Ignatieff's portrait, Michael Valpy, discusses Ignatieff and the related article with the Globe readers.
The portrait is excellent, reserved, uncompromising, investigative and detailed.
Before reading the protrait I didn't know what to think of Ignatieff. I have not read much of his writings, my readings in philosophy and litterature are focused on other writers, but I knew about him enough to admire his intellect. I was of course most unhappy with his stance on the Iraq war but I thought that so many well intentioned and intelligent people have misjudged when they supported this war and later recognized that the after war was mishandled. This is a half apology for someone like me who was against the war altogether and who knew that this war was going to bring misery to the Iraqi people and an additional destabilizing element in a region which is always on the brink of war. I was however ready to accept that people, even intelligent and well informed people can misjudge sometimes and to forgive Ignatieff. I didn't give too much thought in my previous judgement of Ignatieff to all what was written against him, I thought that successful people make ennemies easily. There was however this article he wrote on torture in which he didn't come clear about condemning torture. This continued to bother me and I thought that it was an intellectual absurdity. I didn't want to believe that an intelligent and articulate person like him supports the use of torture, so I suspended my belief and my judgement about him.
Reading his Portrait today made it obvious for me who is the real Ignatieff. As he lived most of his life outside Canada, he is unknown to ordinary Canadians, however much was said about him in the UK. While most of what was said point to someone who easily betrays his friends, family and changes political allegiances, it appeared to me that there was a continuity in all his endeavours and all his stances whatever the allegiances.
Michael Ignatieff seems to be following only his own deep inclinations and his mind in a very independant way, so independant that it is sometimes detached from reality having only as reference himself and what he thinks is right and wrong with a quasi intuitive certainty, the kind of intellectual certainty Descartes made as the ultimate foundation of Knowledge. However, Descartes was careful to interpret this certainty as coming from the outside, from God. In this sense, Ignatieff is not a cartesian thinker. I would say that he is a Fichtean thinker. Fichte was a contemporary of kant and is considered as a post-kantian philosopher. He is the first to have established subjectivity, the 'pure I', as the foundation of knowledge. He cleared the foundations of knowledge from all external elements, Descarte's God and Kant's sensations and perceptions of the external world as necessary elements to his categories of Reason and Understanding. He gave a name to the 'pure I'; the intellectual intuition. He has writings in political philosophy and his ideas in this area are thought to be extremely dangerous if they were to be applied and would lead to an enlightened totatlitarianism.
I am an independant person and I appreciate independant minds. However, reading Ignatieff's portrait, I was chilled. I think the man is better where he used to stand before, in the universe of abstract ideas. I am convinced of one thing: Ignatieff will be his own man, indifferent to the aspirations of Canadian citizens and to their plight because his extreme certainty is what makes him who he is and he will never be able to change.
Extreme certainty can be dangerous in Politics. Didn't the people who defend the Iraq war show that extreme certainty in Politics can be dangerous and murderous ? Didn't Ignatieff flirt with the idea that torture was good for democratic states fighting evil ?
More than intellectual certainty, Ignatieff seems to be a man incapable of empathic emotions. Politics require some empathy, the capacity to project oneself, as a leader, into the psyche of the people who expect you to bring them a good life and a good future.
Among other things, the portrait shows also that Ignatieff is not a man to serve the people, as we usually expect from our Politicians, he rather sees Politics the other way, a field where he can put at will his abstract ideas into practice where the people become the ones who will be serving the man...
I wish Ignatieff can be convinced that he could fare better where he belongs, in the sphere of abstract ideas. This is not to say that the two front runners are better than Ignatieff. I think the liberal party is in trouble and our little Bush franchise, Stephen Harper, might stay at the helm of the country for a couple more years...
Que Dieu nous aide !
UPDATE: The author of Ignatieff's portrait, Michael Valpy, discusses Ignatieff and the related article with the Globe readers.
Tony Blair's government dialogue with Britain's Muslims is becoming ridiculous
Before reading, please see Steve Bell's cartoon on the subject. The three characters are Blair (the dog), Reid, the home secretary as a baby suicide bomber and Bush seen in the back pushing the baby. Steve Bell always portrays Bush as a primate. Look at how he draws his feet.
From today's The Guardian:
''Mr Reid had gone to Leyton county cricket ground to warn Muslim parents that "fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash your children for suicide bombing" and tell them to "look for the telltale signs" or risk losing them for ever.
From today's The Guardian:
''Mr Reid had gone to Leyton county cricket ground to warn Muslim parents that "fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash your children for suicide bombing" and tell them to "look for the telltale signs" or risk losing them for ever.
The warning, which had been trailed in tabloid newspapers, had sparked protests even before he got to his feet with Ahmed Versi, the editor of the Muslim News, saying it was farcical for him to ask parents to spy on their children and report them to the anti-terrorist police.
But Mr Reid was unrepentant: "I know it's not easy. I'm a parent with two boys and I know how hard it is to raise children and to know everything about them ... But there are some circumstances when we need to intervene. There is no nice way of saying this but there are fanatics looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children for suicide bombing. Grooming them to kill themselves in order to murder others."
When the home secretary described 9/11, 7/7 in
20.9.06
Galloway on Blair and Bush
I have never been a fan of the man but I admit that a little dose of Galloway is good to your health*.
*Warning: Scientifically unproven
*Warning: Scientifically unproven
19.9.06
Disengagement and Reengagement: Israel's cruel occupation game in Gaza
Gideon Levy reports from Gaza.
Meanwhile, the unity government agreed by Hamas and Fatah does not seem to be initiating the kind of positive change on the side of the US toward easing the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians as a punitive measure for electing Hamas.
The economic situation in Gaza is beyond anything we could imagine and can be only compared to the economic situation in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII.
Alain Gresh writes:'' The year 2006 will be the worse in the history of Palestinians if the actual situation does not evolve positively.'' Which means: If the international aid is still blocked. There will be 40% decrease in the average income and 67 % of the population will be considered as living in poverty.
Gresh took these figures from the world bank report.
Meanwhile, the unity government agreed by Hamas and Fatah does not seem to be initiating the kind of positive change on the side of the US toward easing the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians as a punitive measure for electing Hamas.
The economic situation in Gaza is beyond anything we could imagine and can be only compared to the economic situation in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII.
Alain Gresh writes:'' The year 2006 will be the worse in the history of Palestinians if the actual situation does not evolve positively.'' Which means: If the international aid is still blocked. There will be 40% decrease in the average income and 67 % of the population will be considered as living in poverty.
Gresh took these figures from the world bank report.
Remembering Sabra and Chatila massacres
Sabbah's
Irish have led successful boycott campaigns in the past.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) commemorated the anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacres with a National Boycott Israel Day.
And there is the excellent Monika Borgmann's, Slim Lokman's and Herman Theissen's 'Massaker' interviewing men from the Lebanese Forces who participated in the massacres. They described everything from training in Israel where they watched Israeli female soldiers naked, it looks like this was part of the training...They were also educated about the holocaust, although one of them was clearly racist, he hated Jews. They also talked about the visits of top Israeli officers and Politicians to the Gemayyels and about the acts perpetrated inside the camps by details including acts of rape and reactions of the victims. They also said that Israeli soldiers were around the camp and inside. It was they who thought to bring plastic bags for the corpses.
Chilling !
We saw the documentary last year at the Montreal Arab documentary festival.
My husband walked out in the middle of the documentary. It was unbearable...
Irish have led successful boycott campaigns in the past.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) commemorated the anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacres with a National Boycott Israel Day.
And there is the excellent Monika Borgmann's, Slim Lokman's and Herman Theissen's 'Massaker' interviewing men from the Lebanese Forces who participated in the massacres. They described everything from training in Israel where they watched Israeli female soldiers naked, it looks like this was part of the training...They were also educated about the holocaust, although one of them was clearly racist, he hated Jews. They also talked about the visits of top Israeli officers and Politicians to the Gemayyels and about the acts perpetrated inside the camps by details including acts of rape and reactions of the victims. They also said that Israeli soldiers were around the camp and inside. It was they who thought to bring plastic bags for the corpses.
Chilling !
We saw the documentary last year at the Montreal Arab documentary festival.
My husband walked out in the middle of the documentary. It was unbearable...
18.9.06
Renaud against Sarko
I love French pop. We love French pop in my family. When I was a student and a young mother in
He is a tall tiny man with eyes like volcanoes. The son of teachers and militant socialists, Renaud's carreer and the songs he authors cannot be differentiated from his politic. He was a fierce critic of the French society, the military, the bourgeois and the political establishment, even the one he used to identify with, the socialist party.
This was the time when
Unfortunately, Tony Blair did not invent the third way. It was invented before him by Mitterrand. By the end of the eighties,
It was a strange and awkward feeling when, everytime we would drive from Montréal, with our two young children in the car, to the nearest location in the
We then stopped hearing from Renaud, no new albums, nothing...We were told that his wife left him and that he was battling an alcohol addiction. Four years ago, he came to give a concert in Montréal. I bought tickets and after reading the negative critics of his first performance night here, I decided not to go. I didn't want to be disappointed. Renaud was recovering...
Looking at the news today, it occured to me that Renaud's recovery was probably complete. He is back wit a new album and a song against Sarkozy. France's cultural particularism is that at a certain moment in its history, only one person become to symbolise an aspect of the French society, and Renaud is the symbol of tolerant France and also the one that will not surrender to American cultural kitsh and America's neo-con and neoliberal values.
Here is an excerpt of his new song portraying a typical Sarkozy voter:
Elle est facho.
Elle a surtout la nostalgie du sabre et du goupillon.
De la nation, de la patrie, débarrassée d'l'immigration.
Dit qu'l'ancien temps était béni, comme disent la plupart des cons.
Regrette le temps des colonies, la peine de mort légalisée, de l'avortement interdit,et maudit les jeunes filles voilées.
Et elle lit National hebdo.
Elle est facho.
J'lui souhaite qu'un jour si elle a un môme,
y s'retrouve à 18 balais,plein d'éducation et d'diplômes,d'idées rebelles, d'humanité.
Et qu'il lui dise, tes vieux discours manquent singulièrement d'amour.
Qu'il rajoute à la triste dame,reste donc le nez dans ta merde.
J'suis amoureux d'une musulmane,
j'vote écolo et j'fume de l'herbe.
Espérons qu'ça lui fera la peau.
A la facho.
Espérons qu'ça lui fera la peau.
A la facho.....qui vote Sarko
16.9.06
Lining up to enrich Uranium
I found the link to the article 'Lining up to enrich Uranium' published by the IHT on Alain Gresh's blog. The article is an attempt to widen and enrich the actual debate on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
15.9.06
14.9.06
War Crimes in light of the latest Israeli agression on Lebanon
I used to argue with my husband whenever I was angry about the situation in Palestine that Israel was committing the same crimes Nazis committed against Jews in concentration camps, war crimes and crimes against humanity. My husband, with his usual calm, would tell me that this was an exageration and that my inclination to exageration when I am emotional was due to my middle eastern culture and background. I would then move the argument to facts and he will end up with one fact to counter my argument, Nazis killed Jews systematically , in great numbers, over a short period of time and with the intent of exterminating them.
Well what do you think Israel is doing in Palestine since the second intifada ? And what do you think of the latest Israeli war on Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure ? And what do you think of the US and the UK wars in Iraq ?
Actually, there is a legal definition for War crimes and nobody is contesting this definition but as every other law, its interpretation can vary slightly with the context.
Amnesty has already accused Israel of war crimes over its latest agression on Lebanon. However, Amnesty is accusing Hezbollah now of war crimes claiming it targeted civilians in Israel. So I am resorting here to my husband's argument. Hezbollah didn't kill as many civilians as Israel did in Lebanon, over a short period of time and with the intention of exterminating a part of the Lebanese civilian population who was targeted the most by this war, shiites.
The excellent Alain Gresh reevaluates the recent Amnesty report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. You won't find this kind of serious and rigourous reevaluation in any publication in Israel, the US and the UK. In French.
UPDATE: 'Decision to drop cluster bombs monstruous'
Read UrShalim
Johnathan Cook criticizing Human Righst Watch's biases in its characterisation of war crimes in Lebanon
Well what do you think Israel is doing in Palestine since the second intifada ? And what do you think of the latest Israeli war on Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure ? And what do you think of the US and the UK wars in Iraq ?
Actually, there is a legal definition for War crimes and nobody is contesting this definition but as every other law, its interpretation can vary slightly with the context.
Amnesty has already accused Israel of war crimes over its latest agression on Lebanon. However, Amnesty is accusing Hezbollah now of war crimes claiming it targeted civilians in Israel. So I am resorting here to my husband's argument. Hezbollah didn't kill as many civilians as Israel did in Lebanon, over a short period of time and with the intention of exterminating a part of the Lebanese civilian population who was targeted the most by this war, shiites.
The excellent Alain Gresh reevaluates the recent Amnesty report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. You won't find this kind of serious and rigourous reevaluation in any publication in Israel, the US and the UK. In French.
UPDATE: 'Decision to drop cluster bombs monstruous'
Read UrShalim
Johnathan Cook criticizing Human Righst Watch's biases in its characterisation of war crimes in Lebanon
Readings on terrorism and 9/11
I have a confession to make. We don't own a TV. We have a monitor to watch movies. We took this decision when our children were still young. There was a mourning period since my husband and I, living as immigrants in Canada, were cut from our cultures of origin, not being able to watch TV5, the French channel, and Bernard Pivot interviewing with his usual witt, French and francophone writers...But this decision did a lot of good to our children who are great readers now. My son read 'Les rois maudits' in its integral version, 6 books, when he was 10. The same year he read Michel Tournier's masterpiece 'Vendredi ou les limbes du pacifique'. I remember him laughing out loud at certain passages from his room.
When 9/11 occured we, unlike many other people, didn't watch the reverberating images in a closed circuit of the planes hitting the towers, the smoke, the screams, the panic and the final collapse. We were well informed through newspapers and the internet. I remember that this year I started a subscription to Le Monde's online edition which allowed me to archive their articles and organise them in specific folders on their site.
Recently, after reading an excellent article written at the time by Pierre Tristam on 9/11 and featured recently on his blog, I opened my archives of this period. A great wealth of opinions and articles appeared on terrorism then and it was difficult to know which will become obsolete five years later and which ones will stand the test of the changes that were to come. To my great surprise, I found another gem. The article is 10 pages long and is by Jean Baudrillard, French sociologist and Philosopher and its title is 'L'esprit du terrorisme'. I am making it available to the readers of this blog. The article was also published in an english version by Harpers in february 2002.
Al-Qaida votes for Sarkozy
It looks like Al-Qaida is entering the French electoral contest in support of Sarkozy who was visiting Bush recently !
Al-Qaida leaders have a real talent for communication and for making their message heard by choosing the good moment. This week, there was an occasion for them to express their support for Sarkozy during his visit to Bush on 9/11.
However I think that this time Al-Qaida miscalculated because it is early for the French electorate to be influenced by Al-Qaida's statements and their threats might well produce the contrary inFrance
The New York Times is also showering praise on Sarkozy. Read Ohdave's post.
Al-Qaida leaders have a real talent for communication and for making their message heard by choosing the good moment. This week, there was an occasion for them to express their support for Sarkozy during his visit to Bush on 9/11.
However I think that this time Al-Qaida miscalculated because it is early for the French electorate to be influenced by Al-Qaida's statements and their threats might well produce the contrary in
The New York Times is also showering praise on Sarkozy. Read Ohdave's post.
The Lebanese Daily Star on Blair's visit to Lebanon
The Lebanese Daily Star's editorial on Tony Blair's visit to Lebanon is worth mentioning. I didn't expect this from the Star !
Does the word 'Terrorism' end all argument ?
No, according to Geoffrey Wheatcroft.
''Sixty years ago the sort of atrocity that Israel's leaders habitually condemn helped bring the country into being''.
''Sixty years ago the sort of atrocity that Israel's leaders habitually condemn helped bring the country into being''.
13.9.06
C'est arrivé près de chez nous
On December 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a 25-year old man, entered the École Polytechnique of the University of Montréal and gunned down 14 female students before killing himself. Lépine did apparently this horrible act because he was not admitted to study at Polytechnique where, according to his own twisted mind, the affirmative action policy of the school towards females has secured places for these students at his own expanse.
This tragedy happened two years before we left Paris to settle in Montreal. At the time, we were in discussions with my husband's potential employer in Montreal and we considered calling off the scheduled interviews, meetings and job's and immigration procedures. However, getting to know Quebecers and Montrealers, we came to realise that this was a peaceful community which abhorres violence and that Montreal was a place where our children can grow up safe. The Polytechnique tragedy was commemorated, a national day for remembrance was decided, a monument was erected, colloquia were held on the subject and the young women's parents, supported by the community and by Canadians at large, actively and successfully lobbied the government for a country wide gun registry and a ban on the sale of heavy arms.
The gun registry was finally put into motion three years ago by the liberal government and more or less successfully completed. Last January, conservatives were elected with a slight majority to form a government. They immediately criticised the gun registry program calling it off, arguing it is costly.
Today, a man walked with an assault riffle into Dawson college at 12:44 p.m. in downtown Montreal and started shooting at students in the cafeteria. The police arrived quickly, three minutes after the first shooting. After an exchange of fire, the gunman was killed. before he was killed, he was able to inflict life threatening injuries on some 14 students and kill one of them, 8 are actually in critical condition. Students were running everywhere in the college and outside. Some locked themselves in the offices and rooms that were available. A state of panic has descended on the college, its surroundings and the city.
Students were communicating with the outside with their cellphones. One student, Michel Boyer, told CTV news: "I'm only 19 and to have flashes of your life and the people that you love going by you, it should not be allowed."
Dawson college is located in the heart of downtown Montreal and hosts some 10000 students. I go in this area with my family very often. There is an entertainement center and movie theaters which are less than 50 meters from the college in a building, the Montreal Forum, that was not long ago, the home of the Montreal Hockey team, the Canadians. In 1993, I watched, from the 12th floor of the Montreal General Hospital where I was working, the Canadians climb Côte-des-neiges (the snow hill) between the Forum and the hospital in a victory walk celebrating their Stanley cup win. Today, the Côte must have been busy with ambulances transporting wounded and traumatised students to the hospital.
Recently, there were similar public shootings in Toronto area. I fear these events are becoming more frequent in Canada and that we are no exception anymore to the fascination for arms and violence that has taken hold of America and that is eating our societies and our youths. And as long as we allow people to own heavy weapons, we allow insanity to become murder and we do this in contempt of life, of the lives of our own children, under the cover of good governance caving to the pressure of powerful arms lobbies whose only concern is to maintain their industry and their profits alive.
It occured to me that America's imperial wars, which are supported by our Canadian conservative government, proceed with the same political, financial and commercial logic combining insanity and heavy weaponry to kill indiscriminately innocent youths and civilian populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon
We hear many reasons to all this violence. 'Our Democracy and Freedom require heavy sacrifices', four French Academics were writing in Le Monde yesterday in defence of Israel's war in Lebanon. Lets hold our doubt for a second and believe them. Can they tell us in defence of what the same administrations that support wars support relaxed gun laws allowing people to own guns and all sorts of weapons to their liking ?
At the bottom of the problem of violence in our cities and violence we inflict with our armies on others lie two simple facts:
- Guns and weapons exist. There is somebody there who invest and employs people to fabricate them and sell them. There are people in this chain making profit from this sinister industry and there are people who buy them. At the end, these weapons are going to be used in a moment of insanity, in a moment of despair, in a moment of loss of control, in a lapse of consciousness, in a moment of criminal calculation...
- And why do people use them against other people ? Because they can.
We send our armies abroad to conduct wars against terrorists and we let terrorists from within and from abroad thrive in our own cities and among people we cherish most. We let foreign citizens and our soldiers die abroad and we fail to protect our citizen at home. We let civil wars make their way among civilian populations abroad and we let some of our citizens, and the most dangerous among them, arm themselves against other citizens in our apparently peaceful cities.
We have to open our eyes and realise that allowing citizens to own guns and heavy weaponry is allowing crime to take hold of our cities and our countries. We have to open our eyes and realise that sending our armies abroad is not protecting us from terrorism at home and that there is no benefit for ordinary citizens in both policies.
The only 'benefit' that these policies are producing are the ones that are being cashed by the death industry, the arms industry, the silent and sinister sponsor of our pro death and pro war governments.
Boyer, the 19 year old student, is right: ''to have flashes of your life and the people that you love going by you, it should not be allowed.'' Yes this should not be allowed.
This tragedy happened two years before we left Paris to settle in Montreal. At the time, we were in discussions with my husband's potential employer in Montreal and we considered calling off the scheduled interviews, meetings and job's and immigration procedures. However, getting to know Quebecers and Montrealers, we came to realise that this was a peaceful community which abhorres violence and that Montreal was a place where our children can grow up safe. The Polytechnique tragedy was commemorated, a national day for remembrance was decided, a monument was erected, colloquia were held on the subject and the young women's parents, supported by the community and by Canadians at large, actively and successfully lobbied the government for a country wide gun registry and a ban on the sale of heavy arms.
The gun registry was finally put into motion three years ago by the liberal government and more or less successfully completed. Last January, conservatives were elected with a slight majority to form a government. They immediately criticised the gun registry program calling it off, arguing it is costly.
Today, a man walked with an assault riffle into Dawson college at 12:44 p.m. in downtown Montreal and started shooting at students in the cafeteria. The police arrived quickly, three minutes after the first shooting. After an exchange of fire, the gunman was killed. before he was killed, he was able to inflict life threatening injuries on some 14 students and kill one of them, 8 are actually in critical condition. Students were running everywhere in the college and outside. Some locked themselves in the offices and rooms that were available. A state of panic has descended on the college, its surroundings and the city.
Students were communicating with the outside with their cellphones. One student, Michel Boyer, told CTV news: "I'm only 19 and to have flashes of your life and the people that you love going by you, it should not be allowed."
Dawson college is located in the heart of downtown Montreal and hosts some 10000 students. I go in this area with my family very often. There is an entertainement center and movie theaters which are less than 50 meters from the college in a building, the Montreal Forum, that was not long ago, the home of the Montreal Hockey team, the Canadians. In 1993, I watched, from the 12th floor of the Montreal General Hospital where I was working, the Canadians climb Côte-des-neiges (the snow hill) between the Forum and the hospital in a victory walk celebrating their Stanley cup win. Today, the Côte must have been busy with ambulances transporting wounded and traumatised students to the hospital.
Recently, there were similar public shootings in Toronto area. I fear these events are becoming more frequent in Canada and that we are no exception anymore to the fascination for arms and violence that has taken hold of America and that is eating our societies and our youths. And as long as we allow people to own heavy weapons, we allow insanity to become murder and we do this in contempt of life, of the lives of our own children, under the cover of good governance caving to the pressure of powerful arms lobbies whose only concern is to maintain their industry and their profits alive.
It occured to me that America's imperial wars, which are supported by our Canadian conservative government, proceed with the same political, financial and commercial logic combining insanity and heavy weaponry to kill indiscriminately innocent youths and civilian populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon
We hear many reasons to all this violence. 'Our Democracy and Freedom require heavy sacrifices', four French Academics were writing in Le Monde yesterday in defence of Israel's war in Lebanon. Lets hold our doubt for a second and believe them. Can they tell us in defence of what the same administrations that support wars support relaxed gun laws allowing people to own guns and all sorts of weapons to their liking ?
At the bottom of the problem of violence in our cities and violence we inflict with our armies on others lie two simple facts:
- Guns and weapons exist. There is somebody there who invest and employs people to fabricate them and sell them. There are people in this chain making profit from this sinister industry and there are people who buy them. At the end, these weapons are going to be used in a moment of insanity, in a moment of despair, in a moment of loss of control, in a lapse of consciousness, in a moment of criminal calculation...
- And why do people use them against other people ? Because they can.
We send our armies abroad to conduct wars against terrorists and we let terrorists from within and from abroad thrive in our own cities and among people we cherish most. We let foreign citizens and our soldiers die abroad and we fail to protect our citizen at home. We let civil wars make their way among civilian populations abroad and we let some of our citizens, and the most dangerous among them, arm themselves against other citizens in our apparently peaceful cities.
We have to open our eyes and realise that allowing citizens to own guns and heavy weaponry is allowing crime to take hold of our cities and our countries. We have to open our eyes and realise that sending our armies abroad is not protecting us from terrorism at home and that there is no benefit for ordinary citizens in both policies.
The only 'benefit' that these policies are producing are the ones that are being cashed by the death industry, the arms industry, the silent and sinister sponsor of our pro death and pro war governments.
Boyer, the 19 year old student, is right: ''to have flashes of your life and the people that you love going by you, it should not be allowed.'' Yes this should not be allowed.
11.9.06
Radio Canada morning edition: on 9/11, Islam and what's love got to do with it ?
I was not going to join the chorus of 9/11 commemorations and if I didn't hear the following comment on the radio this morning I might not have mentioned 9/11 on this blog today. This is not to say that I was not affected by this event. I think 9/11 affected, not only the victims, but every human soul in the world in a way or another and for a long time to come. However, listening to the radio this morning, I heard something from an auditor which I thought was worth mentioning.
I only listen to the radio when I am driving. After I left my daughter this morning at the train station, driving back home, I tuned to Radio Canada French and the morning edition hosted by René Homier-Roy. He was asking his Quebec listeners the following question: 'what changes did September 11th bring into your life?' (Qu'est-ce qui a changé pour vous ou dans votre vie après le 11 septembre ?)
One listener gave an interesting personal perspective on 9/11. He said that before 9/11 he had only negative préjugés about Islam and Muslims and 9/11 incited him to look beyond his préjugés, he wanted to know more. By doing so he met a Muslim woman with whom he fell in love. He was able to see problems related to Islam from her perspective, this is not to say that 9/11 can be explained or forgiven, he added, but that the other perspective is often missing when discussing Muslims and Islam in the west.
Bref, 'Faites l'amour, pas la guerre'.
I only listen to the radio when I am driving. After I left my daughter this morning at the train station, driving back home, I tuned to Radio Canada French and the morning edition hosted by René Homier-Roy. He was asking his Quebec listeners the following question: 'what changes did September 11th bring into your life?' (Qu'est-ce qui a changé pour vous ou dans votre vie après le 11 septembre ?)
One listener gave an interesting personal perspective on 9/11. He said that before 9/11 he had only negative préjugés about Islam and Muslims and 9/11 incited him to look beyond his préjugés, he wanted to know more. By doing so he met a Muslim woman with whom he fell in love. He was able to see problems related to Islam from her perspective, this is not to say that 9/11 can be explained or forgiven, he added, but that the other perspective is often missing when discussing Muslims and Islam in the west.
Bref, 'Faites l'amour, pas la guerre'.
7.9.06
Images of the Israeli agressions in Gaza and Lebanon and Muslim public opinion
The photo above was taken last sunday in Istanbul, Turkey, near the Eyyup Mosque. The banner was displayed in many places in Istanbul by a human rights group in a donations drive effort for the people of Palestine and Lebanon. Behind the banner there was a tent hosting a charity bazaar. The place was crowded. The little girls on the photo were accompanied by their mother and little brother who stood at the left, outside the picture. My attention was first focused on the banner trying to understand what was written on it. I noticed the girls when I decided to take a photo because I was waiting for the crowd who would gather in front of the banner to clear. The little girls kept going back and forth between their mother and the center of the banner pointing to the images of the latest Israeli agressions in Gaza and Lebanon and they did this for the whole time I was there, about ten minutes. The most famous (or infamous) photographs of the Israeli agressions were on the banner: the little Israeli girl signing the bombs with a 'from the children of Israel to the children of Lebanon' . Finally I decided to include them in the picture and they were still standing there when I left. I wondered what the girls were saying to their mother and what their mother might have told them about the terrible images.
The Eyyup mosque stands at the base of the Pierre Loti hill and is visited mostly on sundays by families. After the prayer, entire families, as well as couples, walk up the hill through the cemetary or take the cable car to the top to gather at the terrace of the Pierre Loti Café and sip tea or coffee while enjoying the scenic views of the golden horn and Istanbul. On this particular sunday, the mosque and the bazaar were busy with families coming to celebrate the 'Sunnet' of their 10 year old boys. The celebration is meant to mark the beginning of the age of manhood for boys who are dressed for this particular day like princes and courted by their little brothers, sisters, parents, grand'parents and the extended family.
I wondered what all these Muslims, living in a secular country like Turkey, might have felt inside them by seeing the images of the Israeli agressions on the banner ? What might they have discussed between them and with their children on the topic while sitting and chatting at the Pierre Loti café after the prayer ?
Terrible thoughts crossed my mind: whatever the causes of the recent Israeli agressions on Arab and mostly Muslim civilians, there was no rational and moral justification and no explanation for it, whatever the impact of these agressions, their main and most durable fallout seems to be the misunderstandings and the hate they were building between people of the middle east for generations to come.
I had an irrational fear :
As the war on terror is, from the point of view of USrael, a war on Muslim terror;
and
As the war on Muslim terror is producing casualties mainly among civilians, therefore Muslim civilians, and a lot of opression if we think of Iraq, AbuGhraib and Guantanamo;
and
If there was to be any 'rational' justification to all the nonsense produced by the war on terror (and there may not be any);
It follows that the war on terror's main apparent 'rational' intent is to inflame Muslim public opinion.
Communities tend to stand together in the face of danger and challenges. Since the end of the Ottoman empire, between unjust authoritarian regimes and western opression via Israel's hegemonic wars in the ME, the majority of Muslims in the ME were never able to taste the luxury of individualism that is the immediate and main consequence of a peaceful life and economic development. The absence of physical and moral danger on individuals and of the fears that accompany them are the necessary and sufficient conditions for personal development. No fool will stand alone in the face of oddities. Other animal species have understood this before us. The most common understanding of the theory of Natural Selection is that selection favours genes. However this unimodal and mainstream explanation of selection and adaptation was always challenged by other ones which state that selection is also exerted at the individual and at the group-species levels, and not only at the gene level. Few years ago, philosopher Elliott Sober and biologist David Sloane Wilson wrote an authoritative essay on the subject titled 'Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behaviour' which became instantly a necessary reading in the field in which they argue that the psychology of unselfish behaviour finds its roots in its biology and that genes and individuals might have played a secondary role in evolution when the selection pressure was more challenging for the survival of the group. Because the survival of the individual and the dissemination of its genes in the species depend mostly on the survival of the group.
The 'War on Terror', as conducted by the US and Israel in the ME, is cementing Muslim communautarism to the extent that this communautarism is reaching secular Muslims in secular countries and Turkey is a clear example. I was in Istanbul the day after the last terrorist attacks in Turkey. I left Istanbul the day after the parliament voted the participation of their armed forces in the multinational force in Lebanon. From my discussions with Turkish people, I felt a strong support for Lebanese and Palestinians and I was not wrong in this impression because I found a poll published by the Economist in its August 19th-25th issue in which more than 60 % of Turkish people claimed they sympathise more with Palestinians than with Israelis while less than 3 % claimed the contrary. In its latest issue, the Economist publishes an article arguing that the radical Islam temptation is running high among kurds. In defense of this thesis the article lists the fact that it was a Muslim group called the 'Kurdistan Freedom Falcons' that claimed the responsibility for the latest attacks against foreigners and the fact that radical Muslim temptation existed before among kurds but was used by Turkish authorities to fight the marxist PKK. This temptation is being fueled by 'anti-Israel and anti-American passions running high across Turkey' and being particularly dangerous in kurdish regions. While I don't agree completely with their analysis because I don't think that the Islamist temptation among kurds can add a particular or an additional menace for Turkey because, Islamist or not, the kurdish separatist issue is destabilising for the region and kurds may turn out to be, as they were before, the sacrificial lamb of conflicting interests, I do hope that Turkey will succeed in resolving these complexe issues related to its future because this is a country where Islam has proved to be able to coexist with secularism, development and the individual quest for the good and ordinary life outside communautarist temptations*.
However, I fear that some on both sides of this wide fabricated conflict that is the 'war on terror' who are not interested in having this model of Islam in Turkey may try to destabilise it through the Kurdish separatist issue. Awakening Muslim communautarist temptations is erasing differences of opinions within communities and between communities of Muslims not only in diversly Muslim and secular Turkey but also worldwide.
The 'War on terror' is a dangerous imposture meant to produce or provoke on the ground a reality for its 'rational justification' out of false premices. By bombing, humiliating, intimidating and menacing Muslim innocents at a large scale to supposedly avenge the misdeeds of the few, Israel and the US and western countries who are accomplices of this imposture are making sure that there will be no Good Muslims and Bad Muslims, but only Muslims !
Israel's last agression on Lebanon and willingly indiscriminate shelling of lebanese civilians is a clear example of this tactic.
* You can read here a previous post I wrote about the quest for ordinary life as a modern moral value.
Bush and Al-Qaida: The tragi-comic Convergence
The Middle East Memo with his usual verve about the converging interests of Bush, his neo-cons mentors and Al-Qaida.
Candide's Notebooks rich and diverse blog has few recent posts on Bush, Al-Qaida and the war on terror.
Candide's Notebooks rich and diverse blog has few recent posts on Bush, Al-Qaida and the war on terror.
5.9.06
Israel's Civil Aviation as Weapon Carrier
For those who visit this blog and find it desperately silent, I recommand Candide's Notebooks. Yesterday it had a posting on Israel's civil aviation El-Al transporting weaponry from the US to Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006
