Should Palestine get its own state?

The history of Zionism is long and baroquely complex. This Judaic philosophy of nationhood and return to the ancient homeland was made possible partly by the cultural value placed upon celebrating agricultural feasts, calling for rain according to the seasons of ancient Israel even in Russia, and the importation of sacred vegetation from ancient Israel. When muslims took over the area, their tolerant attitudes towards other religions coexisting with them permitted the Jewish community in Palestine to revive. This revival suffered a drastic setback during the Holy Wars of the Crusades around 1000 AD, when all but about 1000 Jewish families survived the slaughter and subsequent exile. After Saladin regained control of the area on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish rulers occasionally invited members of the Jewish diaspora back to Palestine to settle. Because of ghettoization in many European cities, this prospect became very attractive, and once again the Jewish community experienced a time of revival.

These cultural memories, combined with the occasional emergence of would-be messiahs who called for a return to Israel, kept alive the idea of return. Indeed, if we think of a nation of people, as Zionism treats Jews, as a body, then we can think of the original exile as a trauma. As Freud, himself a Jew in the fraught atmosphere of Vienna during the rise of the Nazis, noted, behaviour is often outside of conscious control, shaped in part by the occurrence of trauma and its memory. In remembering trauma, we often become transfigured, made over as we were at the time the trauma happened. The return of Jews to their original homeland became in the popular imaginary of Jewry a kind of therapy: a guided return to the site of trauma in order to resolve the “issue” and heal the wounds of the collective psyche.

There were several precursors to the formal emergence of Zionism as a coherent ideology. In 1808 a group of Lithuanian Jews settled in Palestine and forged an agricultural community there. A rabbi named Zvi Hirsch Kalischer petitioned the wealthy Rothschild family to buy Palestine or at least the Temple of the Mount for the Jews in 1836. Another rabbi named Rabbi Solomon Hai AlkalaI believed and taught around this time that redemption was only possible through a return to the ancient homeland. Then, in 1896, Theodore Herzl formally founded the doctrine of Zionism: the idea that the Jews were a nation, a people, and that to enfranchise themselves politically and economically, they needed a state. The next year, there was a conference at Basle, and the focus of Zionists was to procure a state through diplomacy.

Britain favoured the idea, and negotiated with Herzl to build the Jewish State in various places such as Cyprus, Uganda and Palestine. All this diplomacy never amounted to much, but his practical program of encouraging Jews in the diaspora to immigrate to Palestine, especially in the face of of pogroms and other anti-semitic activities in Russia and Europe succeeded. Soon Zionist leaders, in the colonialist fashion of the period, started to discuss plantation plans that included Arab labour much like the plantation system in Algeria, a French colony. The oppression of Jews deflected onto another group: the Arabs.


It has been fashionable for the left to condemn Zionism because of the trouble in the Middle East, and because of its historical association with colonialism. But this does no justice to the breadth of Zionism as an ideology. Some Zionists, in fact, were socialists who envisioned a Jewish State as the only road to true political enfranchisement, and who also founded the kibbutz movement, heavily informed by utopian and socialist sentiments. On the other hand, there were (and are) Zionists who openly discussed the purposeful displacement of Arabs who had long been settled in the area. As it is, the Arabs still do not have a formal State in an area they have lived in for over a thousand years. This just repeats the historical wrong of the exile of the Jews… and the viscious cycle continues.

What makes a Genocide a Genocide?

I heard a man from Columbia University questioning the unanimous condemnation of the situation in Darfur as a bonafide genocide by US officials. The African Congress has been hesitant to come to the same conclusion because it recognizes the ideological motivations behind naming some events genocide and not others. Genocide becomes something "over there," perpetrated by "monsters."

He argues, however, that we hesitate to call the colonization of the Western Hemisphere genocide when we teach history, which was exactly what it was. First Nations populations were as high as almost 100 million when settlers first arrived (hardly an uninhabited continent at all), and dropped to as low as 6 million! Sure, many died from smallpox, but many were simply slaughtered. And the middle passage’s name itself is a euphemism.

Many slaves never survived the middle passage; some preferred to throw themselves overboard in the middle of the ocean than live in the filthy conditions imposed upon them. For that reason, they had nets around to ships, because the slave owners did not want their "property" to get damaged. And even some abolitionists were not pro-emancipation. They wanted to abolish the slave trade, but continue to harness the labour power of slaves through the rape of women already in slavery. These were people who founded our countries. It’s one thing to be proud of your heritage; it’s quite another to sweep all the bad things our ancestors did under the rug. That aside, we still need to find forgiveness in our hearts, or else the cycle of vengeance continues.

African-americans and first nations have inherited this legacy of genocide that still weighs on all humanity. In Canada this legacy finds expression in the contamination of water on reservations. Many of them have been on boil water advisories for years. Let's be honest and call it what it was. Although we might not like to admit it, not only are there monsters overseas, there are monsters in our governments, and there are probably monsters in our family trees.

Rumsfeld - Foot in Mouth Again!

Rumsfeld Quotes!

In April 2003, after news images circulated of Iraqis looting Baghdad, Rumsfeld dropped this gem:

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here." Then he went on to say that looting was not uncommon (as opposed to common) for countries that experience significant social upheaval. Does Katrina ring a bell? Or Watts?

"Stuff happens." Such a stunning polite turn on a pedestrian obscenity! How very tidy of him!

General Richard Myers towed this binary line: "This is a transition period between war and what we hope will be a much more peaceful time."

On the location of Saddam Hussain on April 12, 2003 (soon after the war began), Rumsfeld said: "I do not personally have ... enough intelligence from reliable sources ... that would enable me to walk up and say that I have conviction that he's dead, I also lack conviction that he's alive." It's a tightrope walk having such power, I suppose. You're constantly negotiating between war and peace, death and life, bad things and wonderful things. Here we are, two and a half years later, and still no "peaceful time." And just what are those "..." hiding?

Sometimes I think this dumb act is exactly that - an act ("I do not personally have ... enough intelligence"). I think that these folks are smart enough to make other smart people laugh at their slip-ups, and yet appeal to your average joe. I was wading through my files as I was moving, and I dug up a CNN article that had these quotes in it.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia

This blog is a little more personal than most of my previous ones, but I will try to link it to current political issues as well. My partner's cat, Lily, has shared his life for nineteen years, and mine for a year and a half. She is a very sweet tempered tabby, who often seeks to be beside us. She has her own chair, and she often sits with us during dinner. One night, he was at a party and a friend of his brought him the cat as he was leaving and told him that it was being abused. He took her home, and Lily found a loving home.

Yesterday, she had 4 incidences of diarrhea and 3 of vomiting. She is loosing weight and looking increasingly frail and fragile; she gets comfortable with difficulty. We are considering the difficult possibility of euthanasia. I bring this up because I support euthanasia in both pets and humans. Sometimes pain and chronic discomfort is too much of a cross to bear for the afflicted, and it hurts loved ones to watch the steady decline. Life is not a value in itself; it must be accompanied by a modicum of pleasure, happiness, and comfort. The erosion of these things and the ascendancy of agony and trouble leach the dignity from life.

I sympathize with the buddhist's mission to eliminate suffering from life. The interconnectedness of phenomena means that the enlightened person cannot enter Nirvana for the simple reason that it is a selfish act to leave behind the unenlightened in the province of suffering. You cannot become enlightened without shedding your attachment to the self, such that the self-interest necessarily accompanying the act of choosing to enter Nirvana disqualifies you from enlightenment. Therefore, the bodhisattva, or enlightened one, chooses to remain outside of Nirvana to help others achieve enlightenment. In other words, no individual can enter Nirvana in good faith until we all can.

Lily has been an angel in our lives, and I wish her well whatever happens to her after she leaves us.

My Political Pet Peeves and the Invisible Truth

My Political Pet Peeves and the Invisible Truth

Geothermal Energy: An Alternative to Oil and Electricity as a Source of Heat?

A building in Kitchener, Ontario has jumped on the vanguard of alternative energy; they heat their business with geothermal energy. They built a series of pipes leading straight down into the ground. The pipes are empty, and because the earth, mostly solid, takes a lot longer than air to cool down, it is quite warm as little as 100 feet into the ground. Because warm air rises, this air travels up the pipes and into the building. Brilliant and simple, isn’t it? Much simpler than transporting oil across the world (even though it might be produced a few hundred miles away) to be sold to a distributing company, which then sells it to other sellers, who then sell it to consumers.

Do you liked smoked salmon, or other types of smoked fish? Apparently, more and more companies, rather than using oil or electricity to create the heat to smoke fish, are starting to use Geothermal energy. George Bush and some of his administration have gone on the record as saying that the environment doesn’t matter because Jesus is going to come any day now. But really, protecting the environment is a win-win situation. If you believe in God, then how can you dare profane the world he created by willingly destroying it? If you believe in the earth as an organism, then you are doing right by it through protecting the source of all life through protecting its various essential organs.

How George Bush can claim that the environment doesn't matter, and his actions speak louder than his words with his refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord. He now wants to develop petroleum resources in a National Wilderness Area in Alaska! His logic baffles my mind...

A Review of Paris, Texas

I saw a movie the other night that blew me away. I forgot that I had already seen it until about 2/3 of the way through it. Although you might be asking yourself “How can it be that good if you forgot all about it until over half the movie was past?” don’t be fooled. This was a potent film, and apparently it won some prestigious prize at the Cannes film festival. It devastated and crushed me to a pulp with its tragic beauty.

The movie I speak of is Paris, Texas, directed by Wim Wenders, a German filmmaker who I love, but I think I tend to underestimate him sometimes. It starts off with a man walking through the desert around Big Bend National Park in Texas. He finishes the water he carries, and much later we see him stumble into a man’s shack, root around in his icebox, and eat some ice cubes. Then he passes out. When he wakes up, a doctor is tending to him, but cannot get any information whatsoever out of him. Rooting around in the stranger’s clothes, he finds a phone number and calls it. It turns out to be his brother.

The brother travels from Los Angeles to Texas to pick him up, but he has disappeared. We learn that he and his wife have been missing for four years and that his brother and his wife have been raising their son as their own. For nearly the whole trip home, the seemingly amnesiac man, Travis, doesn’t speak, much to his brother’s frustration. I won’t go into much more detail, but at his brother’s Travis finds out where his wife is living and he kidnaps his own son to go find her. Near the end, you finally hear their story as told by Travis, who maintains a stoic silence through much of the movie. Their story is heart-rending… Sad and beautiful at the same time, and full of moral complexity.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone: the cinematography is beautiful, the music is inspired and suits the content brilliantly, and the screenplay was written by the playwright Sam Shepard. It is really a tri-national collaboration between Germany, France, and the United States. I suppose it’s possible that I wasn’t ready for this movie the first time I saw it.

Oh, the Iron Knee!

The Struggle for Water

Passports Required at Canadian Border?

It has been a hot topic of debate whether or not the United States and Canada should require passports at the border between the two countries. Among the arguments against it is that it would be bad for business. Some say that a small percentage of Americans have passports, so this might reduce the flow of tourists north. This would restrict the movement of people across the border. While the European Union as an economic bloc has been moving towards the freer (that word looks funny) movement of people as well as goods across national borders, the NAFTA bloc (drafted by bloc-heads?) has been falling apart. As well, the United States has put in place tariffs on softwood lumber coming from Canada that directly contravene the stipulations of NAFTA, and both the Canadian lumber industry and the American consumer are suffering as prices of this commodity in the US rise.

On the other hand, the normalization of international relations between the United States and Canada is necessary at this juncture if Canada wants to maintain independence in the world economy. We have the second largest oil reserves in the world, according to the somewhat ineffective method of calculating reserves by only regarding the statistics of proven reserves. We also have huge water resources. If the United States continues to levy tariffs on lumber imports, the Canadian government will look to sell its oil to China and India. Furthermore, the current practise of selling the huge majority of petroleum produced in Canada to the United States must stop. If Canada, a net petroleum exporting country, sold its oil within its borders, rather than importing oil from unstable areas, we could lower our own fuel pricesinsert sarcastic dig at Canada's trade policies here. The requirement of passports would constitute one such measure of normalization. Several vigilante patrol groups on the American side have confronted visitors, demanding passports long before this measure has even been introduced. Talk about crazy... They show a total disrespect for international citizenry. Next time they need water, they shouldn't expect to their northern neighbour to help them out in a bind... Shooting yourself in the toe anyone?

The Struggle for Water (next century's oil?)

There has been a dispute over the milk river watershed, which meanders both through American and Canadian soil between Alberta and Montana. The irrigation in Alberta has diverted water from the watershed, leaving water supplies depleted downriver in Montana. This dispute is covered by a treaty over a hundred years old. This is not the only dispute, though. There has been talk of diverting water from the Lake of the Woods into the United States. NAFTA is fuzzy(a lack of clear borders) about water issues. The US cannot legally divert water from water that naturally exists in Canada, but as soon as we start treating it as a commodity, it comes under the jurisdiction of NAFTA, which is far from clear on the subject. Canada should use their water resources as leverage to require that the United States strengthen its sustainable development policies. Air and Water, after all, cannot be confined in borders like humans can. Air pollution from Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Chicago all end up in Canada, which in term affects the integrity of our natural resources.

NAFTA needs renegotiation. While it disgusts me that goods have freer movement than people, I think that in the current political climate the requirement of passports at the border mightn't be the worse thing that happens. What do you think about this issue?
©Trevor Cunnington

A Critique of Knowledge: Modern Day Bodysnatching

I know people romanticize and idealize knowledge. I do it myself. But some cases inevitably arise where knowledge is harmful.

In the late eighteenth century, a phenomenon called "bodysnatching" proliferated. People would dig up corpses from graveyards and sell those corpses to Medicine. The demand for corpses was so high that there was a famous murder case where the murderer killed someone for the expressed purpose of selling their body to the medical establishment. The will to knowledge became complicit in the production of immoral behaviour.

In the United States, when a homeless person dies, their body automatically goes to science. In other words, property ownership has become integral to the definition of the human being. A human being should be entitled to human rights, right? Isn't it a fundamental right to decide what happens to your corpse after death? If so, then doesn't this trample all over the humanity of the homeless? Truly, the homeless do not even own their own bodies in the United States.