An Israeli columnist and news anchor, Yair Lapid, wrote his perceptions some time ago of the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. I believe his article may help Americans see the conflict through Israeli eyes.
Hundreds of years of fighting, six and a half wars, billions of dollars gone with the wind, tens of thousands of victims, not including the boy who laid down next to me on the rocky beach of lake Karon in 1982 and we both watched his guts spilling out. The helicopter took him and until this day I do not know whether he is dead or survived.
All this, and one cannot figure it out.
And its not only what happened but all that did not happen - hospitals that were never built, universities that were never opened, roads that were never paved, the three years that were taken from millions of teenagers for the sake of the army. And despite all the above, we still do not have the beginning of a clue to the mystery of where it all started: Why do they hate us so much?
I am not talking about the Palestinians this time. Their dispute with us is intimate, focused, and it has a direct effect on their lives. Without getting into the "which side is right" question, it is obvious that they have very personal reasons not to stand our presence here. We all know that eventually this is how it will be solved: in a personal way, between them and us, with blood sweat and tears that will stain the pages of the agreement. Until then, it is a war that could at least be understood, even if no sane person is willing to accept the means that are used to run it.
It is the others. Those I cannot understand. Why does Hassan Nasralla, along with tens of thousands of his supporters, dedicate his life, his visible talents, his country's destiny, to fight a country he has never even seen, people he has never really met and an army that he has no reason to fight?
Why do children in Iran, who can not even locate Israel on the map (especially because it is so small), burn its flag in the city center and offer to commit suicide for its elimination? Why do Egyptian and Jordanian intellectuals agitate the innocent and helpless against the peace agreements, even though they know that their failure will push their countries 20 years back? Why are the Syrians willing to remain a pathetic and depressed third world country, for the dubious right to finance terror organizations that will eventually threaten their own country's existence? Why do they hate us so much in Saudi-Arabia? In Iraq? In Sudan? What have we done to them? How are we even relevant to their lives? What do they know about us? Why do they hate us so much in Afghanistan? They don't have anything to eat there, where do they get the energy to hate?
This question has so many answers and yet it is a mystery. It is true that it is partially a religious matter but even religious people make their choices. The Koran (along with the Shariah - the Muslim parallel to Jewish Halachah) consists of thousands of laws. Why is it that we occupy their preachers so much?
There are so many countries that gave them much better reasons to be angry. We did not start the crusades, we did not rule them during the colonial period, we never tried to convert them. The Mongolians, the Seljuk, the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the British; they all conquered, ruined and plundered the whole region. We did not even try to cross surrounding countries’ borders. So how come we are the enemy?
And if it is identification with their Palestinians brothers, then where are the Saudi Arabian tractors building up the territories that were evacuated by Israel? What happened to the Indonesian delegation building a school in Gaza strip? Where are the Kuwaiti doctors with their modern surgical equipment? There are so many ways to love your brothers. Why do they all prefer to help their brothers with hating?
Is it something that we do? Fifteen hundreds years of anti-Semitism taught us - in the most painful way possible - that there is something about us that irritates the world. So, we did the thing everyone wanted; we got up and left. We have established our own tiny little country where we can irritate ourselves without interrupting others. We didn't ask for much space to build our country. Israel is spread on a smaller territory than 1% of the territory of Saudi-Arabia, with no oil, no minerals, without settling on another state's territory. Most of the cities that were bombed this week were not plundered from anyone. Nahariya, Afula, and Karmiel did not even exist until we established them. The other katyushas landed on territories over which no one ever questioned our right to them. Jews lived in Haifa in the 3rd century B.C. Tiberias was the place where the last Sanhedrin (Religious Council) sat, so no one can claim we stole it.
However, the hatred continues. As if no other destiny is possible. Active hatred, poisoned and unstoppable. Last Saturday the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called again "to act to make Israel disappear," as if we were bacteria. We are so used to it, we don't even ask why.
Israel does not hope and never did, for Iran to vanish. As long as they wanted, we had diplomatic relations with them. We do not have a common border or a history of conflicts. And still, they are willing to confront the whole Western world, to risk a commercial boycott, to hurt their own quality of life, to crush their economy solely to passionately hate us. I am trying to remember if we ever harmed Iran. When? How? Why did he say in his speech that "Israel is the main problem of the Muslim world?" More than a billion people live in the Muslim world, most of them in horrible conditions. They suffer from hunger, poverty, ignorance, and bloodshed that spreads from Kashmir to Kurdistan and from dying Darfur to injured Bangladesh. How come we are their main problem? How exactly are we in the way of their happiness?
I refuse to accept the Israeli argument that claims "that is just the way they are". They said it about Jews so many times that we have learned to accept this expression. There must be another reason, some dark secret that because of it, the citizens of South Lebanon allow terror to rouse our quiet border, to kidnap the soldiers of an army that has gone from their territory, to turn their country into a wasteland exactly at the time they finally rested from twenty years of disasters. We have become accustomed to using worn expressions - "it's the Iranian influence" or "Syria is stirring the pot behind the scenes."
But that is just too easy an explanation. Because what about them?
What about their thoughts?
What about their hopes, loves, ambitions and their dreams?
What about their children?
When they send their children to die, does it seem enough for them to say that it was all worth while because they hate us so much?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
TELEPHONE MESSAGES - LIKE HISTORY
I can help you understand how history becomes history by playing a game called, Telephone."
Before the advent of recording devices, accuracy in reporting and memorializing events was a haphazard affair. Even today, with all the capacity for accuracy, glitches enter the game. Witnesses standing in different places see the events from the angle of their positions, figuratively and literally. And now I’ll explain the game of telephone. Try playing it with history students for their edification, and their education.
Kids (or adults) sit in a circle. A short message is written on a card and handed to the first child who whispers the message into the ear of the child who is sitting next to him. That child then whispers the message into the ear of the one next to him, and so forth. The last child in the circle then tells the group what message he heard – which is obviously going to be very, very, hilariously different from the message sent. Going back around the circle, each participant tells what he heard. Finally, the original message is read.
Often, the generally accepted versions of historical events are the messages told by the last participants in the circle (or the one who lived to tell the tale), believe it or not. And hopefully, there was no intentional revisionism in the transmissions. Ha! Ha!
Before the advent of recording devices, accuracy in reporting and memorializing events was a haphazard affair. Even today, with all the capacity for accuracy, glitches enter the game. Witnesses standing in different places see the events from the angle of their positions, figuratively and literally. And now I’ll explain the game of telephone. Try playing it with history students for their edification, and their education.
Kids (or adults) sit in a circle. A short message is written on a card and handed to the first child who whispers the message into the ear of the child who is sitting next to him. That child then whispers the message into the ear of the one next to him, and so forth. The last child in the circle then tells the group what message he heard – which is obviously going to be very, very, hilariously different from the message sent. Going back around the circle, each participant tells what he heard. Finally, the original message is read.
Often, the generally accepted versions of historical events are the messages told by the last participants in the circle (or the one who lived to tell the tale), believe it or not. And hopefully, there was no intentional revisionism in the transmissions. Ha! Ha!
Saturday, April 5, 2008
WHAT IS A HISTORIAN? IS HE TRUE TO THE FACTS?
My post below flows from the post of Luke-D., a historian in England who is concerned about the two questions above, and many more, about the role of a historian. First, his thoughts, slightly edited.
Following my thoughts yesterday about the actual act of studying history, I thought I would elaborate further on this point. I would therefore like to question just what the role of the historian is in today’s society.
The final qualification to that is important, I feel that to some degree the role of the historian has changed over time, and as a consequence today’s historians (of which I think I am part) are entirely different creatures to those who were involved in recording history 100, 200 or 1000 years ago. I see a clear difference between ‘recording history’ which, to my mind was the job of those employed by the victors, and actually being a historian.
This though opens up a whole new avenue of questions. The most obvious one to ask is what does the historian do if not record history? I feel the answer is simple. Historians (from a modern perspective) offer a comment on historical events. The historian in this case does not simply recite facts, but instead offers justifications for these ‘facts’. History therefore, simply put, is opinion. No historian can, by this logic, be wrong. They have their own interpretations of different events and they have considered the evidence to form a conclusion..
So, if historians can be wrong, there must be something which says that they are wrong. This limiter, as already intimated, is social values. There are topics which are taboo in all societies, and this necessarily means that they are not ‘open’ for discussion from anyone, except to conform to the already outlined social values.
To return then to the issue of what the historian does. If the historian does not simply record facts, then what do they do? There is the oft churned out line that historians are there to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. However, this flies in the face of my other premise, that is, history is cyclical. If we just run with this for a moment, the logical implication that it makes is that the historian is somehow failing to do their job because the history keeps repeating itself under new guises. The trouble with the cyclical history idea is that it is broad, sweeping, and vague. When the details are explored further there seems little which unites the two comparative periods. Nonetheless, I maintain that history does indeed act in cycles, albeit very large cycles. If therefore the historian is failing, what is their role in a world which will keep playing out similar scenarios dressed up in different clothing for the rest of time?
I’m not sure what the historians role actually is, and whether this is different to what it should be. Should historians be there to open the eyes of the people to varying understandings of events? Should historians by very much like political parties, you declare yourself as agreeing with one about something, and stick to that? Such thinking presumes the role of the historian is a public one. What about the personal aspect of studying history? Surely some people are historians due to a thirst for knowledge about the subject in hand? Should historians only want to further enlighten themselves, or should their concerns lie with educating more people?
Hi Luke,
At the risk of sounding like a pedant, I here describe my habit for finding explanations and meanings. The first place I look for explanations (definitions) is the dictionary. The editors choose the definitions, by agreement, from contemporary writings of all kinds, and place them in dictionaries in order of frequency of appearance in those writings. There are exceptions, of course, and they are so marked. O.E. - Old English is one such common marking for non-contemporary meanings when words are still in use or adapted to contemporary usage.
So - out with my trusty Merriam Webster, “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” of 1980. (I do use other specialized dictionaries as needed.)
HIS-TO-RY\ Latin Historia. Greek, inquiry, history. French, knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know: 1: TALE, STORY 2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) usuqlly including an explanation of their causes. b: a treatise presenting sysematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a sick person’s medical background 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval~) 4: a: events that form the subject matter of history b: past events c: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)syn: HISTORY, CHRONICLE, ANNALS - shared meaning element : a written record of events
A Historian is 1: a student or writer of history esp. one that produces a scholarly synthesis 2: a writer or complier of a chronicle
My response to your questions is that it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself or how one wishes to be called or defined. Whether you write for the victor with strong social or political leanings or you write against the victor with opposing views of the same events based on your own social and political (and economic) leanings, you are, ipso facto, a historian. What does matter is what one thinks of oneself and what one does. We who write history are not engaged in a contest to choose the best snapshot, the brightest, the most truthful or most faithful to the facts as they occur rather than as the historian sees them through the lens of his brain. I compare the historian to a mechanic. Both use the tools of their trade to produce a useful product. Some are more accurate or produce a better product than others. Some want the product to be shiny while other prefer the raw metal to show its true self. I think each historian must be true to him/her self, and it shall follow, as the night the day, thou can'st then be false to no man. (Plagiarism will get you everywhere.)
Frankly, I am more concerned with the writer of “his-story” who HAS a prejudice that is obvious. (Writing for the victor, e.g.) Then we can deal with it. It is the subtle, careful, thoroughly researched product that leads to sure conclusions that one must take care to inspect well. There is no absolute historical truth other than for those who believe in the unprovable.
So Historian - leave your mark on the face of the world for others to follow. That’s your role. It will be a combination of what you saw, heard, thought, and most assuredly, what you think you saw, heard, and thought as events unfolded before your eyes or as you researched them or saw them in your breathing moments on this earth. Do not fear inaccuracies. Yours will be as good as the next man’s. Stand firm for what you believe you saw. And stand firm for what you believe the meaning of events to be!
AND NOW, TO THROW SOME FUEL ON THE FIRE, consider this:
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: The Marxist theory of history that holds that ideas and social institutions develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base.
My understanding of this approach to history is that the winners write the history because it is the Power Elites, the winners - always, who control the material economic base and it is (and was) the Power Elites who bring about change, the building blocks of history.
Note: As an act of self-preservation by Power Elites, Marxian theory and eveything that flowed from it in attempts to change the world's operating system, have been tarred and feathered and run out of town because of the huge intellectual challenge to the existing material economic base of the social order and its exploitation of humanity's plebean masses for the benefit of the few. The concepts of socialism and communism remained in the "intellectual challenge" stage of existence for a few short years after their birth. They did not possess the material economic base or the means to survive the onslaught by the Power Elites masquerading, ala Stalin, under the cloaks of Communist and/or socialist leadership. And education of ignorance taught the masses to fight against communism rather than support it.
There have been exceptions to this plot. But the exceptions mimicked Power Elite functioning. The prime example is The People's Republic of China. Other regimes followed Chana's example rather than that of Western Power Elites. Yet equality of the masses with the Power Elite leaderships is nowhere to be found. The most corrupt of these regimes is in North Korea.
My questions, not as a historian, but rather as an ethical humanist, are, "Is communism as a social-economic system at all capable of overcoming existing Power Elites, and if it is, can it survive the drives for individual power that have exhibited themselves throughout mankind's history?"
My deeply thoughtful answer is, "No" to both questions.
Following my thoughts yesterday about the actual act of studying history, I thought I would elaborate further on this point. I would therefore like to question just what the role of the historian is in today’s society.
The final qualification to that is important, I feel that to some degree the role of the historian has changed over time, and as a consequence today’s historians (of which I think I am part) are entirely different creatures to those who were involved in recording history 100, 200 or 1000 years ago. I see a clear difference between ‘recording history’ which, to my mind was the job of those employed by the victors, and actually being a historian.
This though opens up a whole new avenue of questions. The most obvious one to ask is what does the historian do if not record history? I feel the answer is simple. Historians (from a modern perspective) offer a comment on historical events. The historian in this case does not simply recite facts, but instead offers justifications for these ‘facts’. History therefore, simply put, is opinion. No historian can, by this logic, be wrong. They have their own interpretations of different events and they have considered the evidence to form a conclusion..
So, if historians can be wrong, there must be something which says that they are wrong. This limiter, as already intimated, is social values. There are topics which are taboo in all societies, and this necessarily means that they are not ‘open’ for discussion from anyone, except to conform to the already outlined social values.
To return then to the issue of what the historian does. If the historian does not simply record facts, then what do they do? There is the oft churned out line that historians are there to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. However, this flies in the face of my other premise, that is, history is cyclical. If we just run with this for a moment, the logical implication that it makes is that the historian is somehow failing to do their job because the history keeps repeating itself under new guises. The trouble with the cyclical history idea is that it is broad, sweeping, and vague. When the details are explored further there seems little which unites the two comparative periods. Nonetheless, I maintain that history does indeed act in cycles, albeit very large cycles. If therefore the historian is failing, what is their role in a world which will keep playing out similar scenarios dressed up in different clothing for the rest of time?
I’m not sure what the historians role actually is, and whether this is different to what it should be. Should historians be there to open the eyes of the people to varying understandings of events? Should historians by very much like political parties, you declare yourself as agreeing with one about something, and stick to that? Such thinking presumes the role of the historian is a public one. What about the personal aspect of studying history? Surely some people are historians due to a thirst for knowledge about the subject in hand? Should historians only want to further enlighten themselves, or should their concerns lie with educating more people?
Hi Luke,
At the risk of sounding like a pedant, I here describe my habit for finding explanations and meanings. The first place I look for explanations (definitions) is the dictionary. The editors choose the definitions, by agreement, from contemporary writings of all kinds, and place them in dictionaries in order of frequency of appearance in those writings. There are exceptions, of course, and they are so marked. O.E. - Old English is one such common marking for non-contemporary meanings when words are still in use or adapted to contemporary usage.
So - out with my trusty Merriam Webster, “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” of 1980. (I do use other specialized dictionaries as needed.)
HIS-TO-RY\ Latin Historia. Greek, inquiry, history. French, knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know: 1: TALE, STORY 2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) usuqlly including an explanation of their causes. b: a treatise presenting sysematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a sick person’s medical background 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval~) 4: a: events that form the subject matter of history b: past events c: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)syn: HISTORY, CHRONICLE, ANNALS - shared meaning element : a written record of events
A Historian is 1: a student or writer of history esp. one that produces a scholarly synthesis 2: a writer or complier of a chronicle
My response to your questions is that it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself or how one wishes to be called or defined. Whether you write for the victor with strong social or political leanings or you write against the victor with opposing views of the same events based on your own social and political (and economic) leanings, you are, ipso facto, a historian. What does matter is what one thinks of oneself and what one does. We who write history are not engaged in a contest to choose the best snapshot, the brightest, the most truthful or most faithful to the facts as they occur rather than as the historian sees them through the lens of his brain. I compare the historian to a mechanic. Both use the tools of their trade to produce a useful product. Some are more accurate or produce a better product than others. Some want the product to be shiny while other prefer the raw metal to show its true self. I think each historian must be true to him/her self, and it shall follow, as the night the day, thou can'st then be false to no man. (Plagiarism will get you everywhere.)
Frankly, I am more concerned with the writer of “his-story” who HAS a prejudice that is obvious. (Writing for the victor, e.g.) Then we can deal with it. It is the subtle, careful, thoroughly researched product that leads to sure conclusions that one must take care to inspect well. There is no absolute historical truth other than for those who believe in the unprovable.
So Historian - leave your mark on the face of the world for others to follow. That’s your role. It will be a combination of what you saw, heard, thought, and most assuredly, what you think you saw, heard, and thought as events unfolded before your eyes or as you researched them or saw them in your breathing moments on this earth. Do not fear inaccuracies. Yours will be as good as the next man’s. Stand firm for what you believe you saw. And stand firm for what you believe the meaning of events to be!
AND NOW, TO THROW SOME FUEL ON THE FIRE, consider this:
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: The Marxist theory of history that holds that ideas and social institutions develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base.
My understanding of this approach to history is that the winners write the history because it is the Power Elites, the winners - always, who control the material economic base and it is (and was) the Power Elites who bring about change, the building blocks of history.
Note: As an act of self-preservation by Power Elites, Marxian theory and eveything that flowed from it in attempts to change the world's operating system, have been tarred and feathered and run out of town because of the huge intellectual challenge to the existing material economic base of the social order and its exploitation of humanity's plebean masses for the benefit of the few. The concepts of socialism and communism remained in the "intellectual challenge" stage of existence for a few short years after their birth. They did not possess the material economic base or the means to survive the onslaught by the Power Elites masquerading, ala Stalin, under the cloaks of Communist and/or socialist leadership. And education of ignorance taught the masses to fight against communism rather than support it.
There have been exceptions to this plot. But the exceptions mimicked Power Elite functioning. The prime example is The People's Republic of China. Other regimes followed Chana's example rather than that of Western Power Elites. Yet equality of the masses with the Power Elite leaderships is nowhere to be found. The most corrupt of these regimes is in North Korea.
My questions, not as a historian, but rather as an ethical humanist, are, "Is communism as a social-economic system at all capable of overcoming existing Power Elites, and if it is, can it survive the drives for individual power that have exhibited themselves throughout mankind's history?"
My deeply thoughtful answer is, "No" to both questions.
Friday, April 4, 2008
RESPONSE: ATHEISM IS NOT ANTI-RELIGION, BUT I AM
From: michael mey [mailto:poelyric@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:10 AMTo: NachumNormanSubject: Re: [HISTORY - THE STORY OF POWER] ATHEISM IS NOT ANTI-RELIGION, BUT I AM!
Most of the time it's easy to see the problem. Sometimes it's harder and some extra effort is required to suss it out. There is an endless list of problems in this world. Literally. Is it possible that all the problems we perceive are really just one problem that appears in many forms? Is it possible that all solutions are really only one solution that seems evasive and beyond our ken? I believe it is necessary to shift our index finger from pointing to the problem to focusing our mind entirely on the solution. It is very obvious one has been tried and the other has had only partial implementation. Obvious to the extreme. Do we not continuously repeat the same mistakes over and over again without respite? The solution is forgiveness. The problem matters not.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your response to my mini-dissertation on Atheism, religion, god, and me. Your suggestion that we focus on solutions, or rather one solution to all problems, seems to me to be a return to the god solution to mankind’s problems. Your statement that “I believe it is necessary to shift our index finger from pointing to the problem to focusing our mind entirely on the solution,” implies that all problems lie in the mind of humanity and then, “The solution is forgiveness. The problems matter not,” again brings me back to the higher power responding to humanity’s prayers for forgiveness. I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that when you say, “it is very obvious” a solution has been tried, do mean Jesus or some other higher power?
I’ll post your message on my blog and perhaps, someone will respond with a different interpretation of your words and their own view of my belief that religions have joined forces with Power Elites to the detriment of mankind.
Nachum
Most of the time it's easy to see the problem. Sometimes it's harder and some extra effort is required to suss it out. There is an endless list of problems in this world. Literally. Is it possible that all the problems we perceive are really just one problem that appears in many forms? Is it possible that all solutions are really only one solution that seems evasive and beyond our ken? I believe it is necessary to shift our index finger from pointing to the problem to focusing our mind entirely on the solution. It is very obvious one has been tried and the other has had only partial implementation. Obvious to the extreme. Do we not continuously repeat the same mistakes over and over again without respite? The solution is forgiveness. The problem matters not.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your response to my mini-dissertation on Atheism, religion, god, and me. Your suggestion that we focus on solutions, or rather one solution to all problems, seems to me to be a return to the god solution to mankind’s problems. Your statement that “I believe it is necessary to shift our index finger from pointing to the problem to focusing our mind entirely on the solution,” implies that all problems lie in the mind of humanity and then, “The solution is forgiveness. The problems matter not,” again brings me back to the higher power responding to humanity’s prayers for forgiveness. I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that when you say, “it is very obvious” a solution has been tried, do mean Jesus or some other higher power?
I’ll post your message on my blog and perhaps, someone will respond with a different interpretation of your words and their own view of my belief that religions have joined forces with Power Elites to the detriment of mankind.
Nachum
Thursday, April 3, 2008
HEADLINES - STERNLINES
The N.Y. Times - April 4, 2008, page A9, headline for an article written by stern-aperture Isabel Kershner, reads, Israel Slow to Admit Gaza Patients, U.N. Says. The mid-page headline reads, Delays cause 32 Palestinians to die, a report contends.
Well! What do you make of that! More Israeli perfidy!
Oh, Great New York Times, your brains, too, are in your stern aperture.
Buried in the article is the statement that of the thirty-two people who died, only one, ONE child applied for admission to Israel for medical care and that one child was held back at the Palestinians' request because his condition deteriorated and he died in Gaza! There were NO APPLICATIONS for admittance for any of the other 31 patients who died that day and they were unknown to the Israelis.
In 2006, more than 4,500 humanitarian cases were admitted to Israel according to W.H.O., the U.N. World Health Organization. In 2007, more than 7,000 Palestinian patients received permits to enter Israel from Gaza and to date, the number admitted is 2,300. That means that over 10,000 Palestinians will be admitted from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment this year.
And the rockets from Gaza keep falling on Israeli towns and cities. And the surrounding Arab countries and the brilliant Iranian president, Ahmadinajad and the Palestinians themselves, keep calling for Israel's destruction.
Is this a reflection on Arab or Islamic education and intelligence? "Kill the non-believers! They provide hospitals and doctors and surgery and health care for us and our children. KILL THEM!"
This is a clear indication that banging your head on the floor while praying is detrimental to brain cells.
Well! What do you make of that! More Israeli perfidy!
Oh, Great New York Times, your brains, too, are in your stern aperture.
Buried in the article is the statement that of the thirty-two people who died, only one, ONE child applied for admission to Israel for medical care and that one child was held back at the Palestinians' request because his condition deteriorated and he died in Gaza! There were NO APPLICATIONS for admittance for any of the other 31 patients who died that day and they were unknown to the Israelis.
In 2006, more than 4,500 humanitarian cases were admitted to Israel according to W.H.O., the U.N. World Health Organization. In 2007, more than 7,000 Palestinian patients received permits to enter Israel from Gaza and to date, the number admitted is 2,300. That means that over 10,000 Palestinians will be admitted from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment this year.
And the rockets from Gaza keep falling on Israeli towns and cities. And the surrounding Arab countries and the brilliant Iranian president, Ahmadinajad and the Palestinians themselves, keep calling for Israel's destruction.
Is this a reflection on Arab or Islamic education and intelligence? "Kill the non-believers! They provide hospitals and doctors and surgery and health care for us and our children. KILL THEM!"
This is a clear indication that banging your head on the floor while praying is detrimental to brain cells.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
ATHEISM IS NOT ANTI-RELIGION, BUT I AM!
WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT IS TOTALLY IMMATERIAL TO ME.
I am an atheist. So what? Everybody hates an atheist except other atheists. That's because we disavow the existence of a creation in peoples' minds that has been touted as the most important creation their minds can conceive of. When we atheists do that, we create enormous discomfort in the minds of believers.
God probably exists, if he/she/it exists at all, in the minds of believers that god exists. It is impossible to convince any believer that it is impossible to prove a negative. Like, "Prove to me that god doesn't exist." So forget that discussion. I really don't care if there is such a thing as god or whether god exists or not.
What amazes me is the gullibility created by people's need to believe in the existence of god. What is of major concern to me is that religion has exploited, from earliest times and continues to exploit for nefarious purposes, people's need to believe in god.
Questions, anyone? Like, "What specifically, are those nefarious purposes?"
The concept that the need to believe in god is exploited for nefarious purposes must be shocking to many and laughable to others. Allow an explanation and then the history.
God is a higher power, ineffable - incapable of being described in words, mighty and almighty, a provider of comfort for the inexplicable and terrible events of life, a being to whom one gives attributes above all the attributes of which humans are capable, the Power to whom one turns for retribution to be visited on one's enemies, and the haven (heaven) to which one's loved ones go in death. There's more, but you get the idea. These are intimate personal beliefs and feelings, raw and sensitive in time of need, providing forgiveness for earthly failings called sins, and the source of all good that befalls some believers. This is the power of ALL.
There are two ways to reach this higher power.; private prayer and prayer in religion.
Religion is the door through which one can reach god, in the words of the tradesmen of religion, the purveyors of religion, the ambassadors of god, the representatives of god on earth. Once a believer goes through the door of religion, one word is added to the personal belief system, "Obey." Now, the believer has a larger belief system to which others conform, giving validity and support to the individual. Two prices must be paid for admission to this wonderful new order; money if you have it - no matter how little you have, and obeisance to the god of the system as demanded by the self-proclaimed representative of god here on earth. That obeisance generally is exercised in wartime, to enable wars to take place and to "know" that god is on our side. There's lots of money to be made in war. Remember that!
Because the variety of scoundrels is as unlimited as is their creativity, so too the variety of obeisance is unlimited. It ranges from the manner in which you cross yourself or kneel in obeisance, to the obedience demanded that you kill the non-believer. The "non-believer" is anyone who does not adhere to the particular religion to which you adhere. The religion is whatever someone, not god, in the past said or now says it is. The idiosyncratic nature of religionists, past and present, demands that you bang your forehead on the floor or flagelate yourself with whips and chains, or you put your womenfolk believers behind a wall to separate them from the men in prayer to almighty. You may even thank god for not making you a woman.
If it were possible to quantify all of the comfort that belief has provided to all of the believers on the face of the earth and if it were possible to quantify the pain and anguish, the slaughter, dismemberment, torture, poverty, and loss of loved ones, that religions have caused on the face of the earth, AND if it were at all possible to suspend that belief in their religions long enough to enable individuals who adhere to the religions to weigh those two quantities on appropriate scales, I believe it would be extremely unlikely that any change would take place on earth in religiosity or adherence to religions or their leaders.
To achieve that desired (by me) state of non-religion and proceed to a life of caring ethical humanism, education of their children to that end by all peoples must be made mandatory to the same extent that religious education has been made mandatory in life on this planet.
And that is another session.
I am an atheist. So what? Everybody hates an atheist except other atheists. That's because we disavow the existence of a creation in peoples' minds that has been touted as the most important creation their minds can conceive of. When we atheists do that, we create enormous discomfort in the minds of believers.
God probably exists, if he/she/it exists at all, in the minds of believers that god exists. It is impossible to convince any believer that it is impossible to prove a negative. Like, "Prove to me that god doesn't exist." So forget that discussion. I really don't care if there is such a thing as god or whether god exists or not.
What amazes me is the gullibility created by people's need to believe in the existence of god. What is of major concern to me is that religion has exploited, from earliest times and continues to exploit for nefarious purposes, people's need to believe in god.
Questions, anyone? Like, "What specifically, are those nefarious purposes?"
The concept that the need to believe in god is exploited for nefarious purposes must be shocking to many and laughable to others. Allow an explanation and then the history.
God is a higher power, ineffable - incapable of being described in words, mighty and almighty, a provider of comfort for the inexplicable and terrible events of life, a being to whom one gives attributes above all the attributes of which humans are capable, the Power to whom one turns for retribution to be visited on one's enemies, and the haven (heaven) to which one's loved ones go in death. There's more, but you get the idea. These are intimate personal beliefs and feelings, raw and sensitive in time of need, providing forgiveness for earthly failings called sins, and the source of all good that befalls some believers. This is the power of ALL.
There are two ways to reach this higher power.; private prayer and prayer in religion.
Religion is the door through which one can reach god, in the words of the tradesmen of religion, the purveyors of religion, the ambassadors of god, the representatives of god on earth. Once a believer goes through the door of religion, one word is added to the personal belief system, "Obey." Now, the believer has a larger belief system to which others conform, giving validity and support to the individual. Two prices must be paid for admission to this wonderful new order; money if you have it - no matter how little you have, and obeisance to the god of the system as demanded by the self-proclaimed representative of god here on earth. That obeisance generally is exercised in wartime, to enable wars to take place and to "know" that god is on our side. There's lots of money to be made in war. Remember that!
Because the variety of scoundrels is as unlimited as is their creativity, so too the variety of obeisance is unlimited. It ranges from the manner in which you cross yourself or kneel in obeisance, to the obedience demanded that you kill the non-believer. The "non-believer" is anyone who does not adhere to the particular religion to which you adhere. The religion is whatever someone, not god, in the past said or now says it is. The idiosyncratic nature of religionists, past and present, demands that you bang your forehead on the floor or flagelate yourself with whips and chains, or you put your womenfolk believers behind a wall to separate them from the men in prayer to almighty. You may even thank god for not making you a woman.
If it were possible to quantify all of the comfort that belief has provided to all of the believers on the face of the earth and if it were possible to quantify the pain and anguish, the slaughter, dismemberment, torture, poverty, and loss of loved ones, that religions have caused on the face of the earth, AND if it were at all possible to suspend that belief in their religions long enough to enable individuals who adhere to the religions to weigh those two quantities on appropriate scales, I believe it would be extremely unlikely that any change would take place on earth in religiosity or adherence to religions or their leaders.
To achieve that desired (by me) state of non-religion and proceed to a life of caring ethical humanism, education of their children to that end by all peoples must be made mandatory to the same extent that religious education has been made mandatory in life on this planet.
And that is another session.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
HISTORY IN THE FAKING- OKINAWA
1945
Hey people, listen up. The Americans are coming and we won’t be able to protect you. You will surrender and lose face. And we will lose face for not being able to defend you. You’re going to be raped, tortured, and murdered by the soldiers. You will die in shame. Your ancestors will not hear you nor look at you. Your families on the Mainland will be embarrassed and deny that you are in their families so as not to stain their children and their children’s children with your shame. Your names will be erased from the face of the earth.
We plan to commit suicide and we will help you also to behave honorably. We will provide you with grenades that will enable you to pass quickly and painlessly into your ancestors’ world. When the Americans come, even they, savages that they are, will respect and honor you. And the honor of your village will be preserved forever.
1946
The history of World War II was created by the Western winners, simply because they were the more powerful. The military coercion of civilians to commit mass suicide in villages on the island of Okinawa as American forces approached to attack the island as the war was ending, has been described in Japanese history books written after World War II. Since the destruction of the Japanese Empire and its conversion to a democratic country by dint of the American occupation and the reorganization of the political, legal, and economic structure, re-education of the population away from militaristic and fascistic functioning has been generally successful. Also, with expanded exposure to the Western World resulting from enormous business success, modernization has forced many changes in the ancient culture and practices of the country. Committing suicide to alleviate shame is a pratice that has been substantially diminished.
2007
But history can also be re-written by the losers. In April of 2007, mention of the mass murders instigated by the Japanese military on Okinawa, was removed from the nation’s history books at the demand powerful post-war reactionary forces. Such shame must not be permitted to be perpetuated in young Japanese minds.
2008
And on Okinawa and in the courts of Japan and in the history books, the newly powerful have been rebuffed in their attempt to remove the story of the military involvement in the mass suicides in the villages of Okinawa. Right-wing forces that are a major part of today’s Japanese Power Elites, wish to return to that wonderful feeling of superiority by re-writing the history of that shameful period. But over 100,000 people rallied in Okinawa to protect their history. They successfully objected to the faking of history on their island.
TORA TORA
Hey people, listen up. The Americans are coming and we won’t be able to protect you. You will surrender and lose face. And we will lose face for not being able to defend you. You’re going to be raped, tortured, and murdered by the soldiers. You will die in shame. Your ancestors will not hear you nor look at you. Your families on the Mainland will be embarrassed and deny that you are in their families so as not to stain their children and their children’s children with your shame. Your names will be erased from the face of the earth.
We plan to commit suicide and we will help you also to behave honorably. We will provide you with grenades that will enable you to pass quickly and painlessly into your ancestors’ world. When the Americans come, even they, savages that they are, will respect and honor you. And the honor of your village will be preserved forever.
1946
The history of World War II was created by the Western winners, simply because they were the more powerful. The military coercion of civilians to commit mass suicide in villages on the island of Okinawa as American forces approached to attack the island as the war was ending, has been described in Japanese history books written after World War II. Since the destruction of the Japanese Empire and its conversion to a democratic country by dint of the American occupation and the reorganization of the political, legal, and economic structure, re-education of the population away from militaristic and fascistic functioning has been generally successful. Also, with expanded exposure to the Western World resulting from enormous business success, modernization has forced many changes in the ancient culture and practices of the country. Committing suicide to alleviate shame is a pratice that has been substantially diminished.
2007
But history can also be re-written by the losers. In April of 2007, mention of the mass murders instigated by the Japanese military on Okinawa, was removed from the nation’s history books at the demand powerful post-war reactionary forces. Such shame must not be permitted to be perpetuated in young Japanese minds.
2008
And on Okinawa and in the courts of Japan and in the history books, the newly powerful have been rebuffed in their attempt to remove the story of the military involvement in the mass suicides in the villages of Okinawa. Right-wing forces that are a major part of today’s Japanese Power Elites, wish to return to that wonderful feeling of superiority by re-writing the history of that shameful period. But over 100,000 people rallied in Okinawa to protect their history. They successfully objected to the faking of history on their island.
TORA TORA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)