17 November 2012

Jaques Fresco on Israel&Palestine

By Jaques Fresco, November 16th 2012, here.

HYPOCRISY OF SLAUGHTER:  Israel's Orwellian account of Gaza campaign

Israel’s assault on Gaza raises doubts that it has any interest in finding the lasting peace settlement it proclaims to want. Does the campaign have an alternative objective as part of a strategy to engineer a strike on Iran?

It’s probably the world’s most tragic never-ending story.For almost 65 years now, Israel has been bombing, maiming and humiliating the Palestinians, bulldozing their homes and placing Gaza in lock-down mode turning it into the world’s largest concentration camp.
In the latest outbreak of violence this week both sides are accusing the other, “You started it!”Who knows? At this stage, does it really matter anymore who started the violence?

On Wednesday 14th, an Israeli helicopter attack killed Hamas military wing leader Ahmed Jabari, triggering a violent reaction from Hamas which rained little rockets over southern Israeli towns, which in turn brought in more Israeli air attacks killing 19, injuring 100 and leaving six children dead.

Dejá-vù: it’s January 2009’s “Operation Cast Lead” revisited; this time they’re dubbing it “Operation Pillar of Defense.”

Clearly, Israel’s right-wing leaders do not want a peaceful agreement with the Palestinians. That’s why they’ve systematically sabotaged all possibility of reaching a two-state solution.
The last honest Israeli who tried to bring peace was Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, until he was gunned down in the streets of Tel-Aviv in November 1995; not by an Islamic fanatic, not by some mad Neo-Nazi, but by one Ygal Amir: an ultra-right-wing Zionist fanatic linked to both the fundamentalist Settlers’ Movement and Israel’s security agency Shin-Beth.

Since then, Israel’s extreme right-wing Apartheidists have called the shots and will continue doing so even more now that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has merged with Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu. Maybe this latest bout of Palestine-bashing is their way of celebrating their new Gross Partei…

‘Don’t worry about America…’

Former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon is infamously quoted as yelling to his colleagues during a heated debate in Israel’s Knesset in October 2001, that they need not worry about American reaction to Israel’s Palestine-bashing because “we the Jewish people control America!”
Watching how US politicians file through powerful Pro-Israel lobbies, think tanks and organizations like AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee -, the ADL and others, competing to give their most impassioned and dramatic pro-Israel speeches, one is tempted to believe Mr. Sharon’s candid words.

During the recent US presidential campaign both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each tried to give their most convincing Joe Biden-like “I-am-a-Zionist” speeches, to win over not just the Jewish vote and money in America, but also the Zionist vote which is represented by many non-Jewish born-again Christians.

So, when earlier this week US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice openly supported Israel and condemned Hamas’ retaliatory attacks describing them as “violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel“, one can hardly be surprised.

It doesn’t really matter who sits in the Oval office; whether Democrat or Republican, the US will always unthinkingly and unreservedly support Israel every time it decides to play a new round of Palestine-bashing.


Naturally, US and global mainstream media willingly oblige, having succeeded in drilling deep into the collective psyche the conclusion that “Terrorism” is always linked to “Islamic Fundamentalists”.
So, Hamas is made illegitimate before we even start discussions about a two-state solution. No matter that Hamas won the democratically held 2006 elections in Palestine; no matter that Israel itself was founded by violent terrorist groups like Irgun Zvai Leumi, Stern and Hagganah which later merged to become Israel’s – oh, so democratic! – Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Those Zionist terror groups were led by Israeli founding fathers later to become prime ministers (and even a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate!) like Menahem Beguin and Isaac Shamir, who in their “freedom-fighter” days blew up hotels with dozens of people inside them, assassinated UN envoys, carried out hundreds of targeted assassinations, and imposed policies of genocide by killing and maiming hundreds of thousands, and then driving off millions of Palestinian men, women and children from their homes and land using the most barbarous terror tactics.

Israel’s logic in Palestine seems to run like this: if Israel steals lands and homes and livelihoods from the Palestinians, they have no right whatsoever to complain; and if they dare fight back, then they automatically become “terrorists”. America, the UK and most of the EU seem to agree…

Good if I do it; bad if you do…
That’s why those countries have branded Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations”.
Basic political common sense, however, tells us that a nation’s armed forces – whether in the US, Russia, China, Brazil or Israel – must report to the civilian leaders of its Nation-State. But what happens if, like the Palestinians, you are not allowed to have a Nation-State? How can Palestinians defend themselves against Israel’s systematic terrorist tactics if they can’t have their own Nation-State and therefore no armed forces? That’s why Hamas and Hezbollah came into the picture to offer the prospect of some self-defense.

Sure, it’s easy to disqualify them as “terrorist organizations” but – using that same criteria – would the Western Powers today reclassify the French Resistance during world war two, for example, as a “terror organization”, simply because they refused to passively accept the German military invasion of their country? Should the Resistance have given up so as to avoid the Oberkommando in Berlin branding them as “terrorists”?

And what about the terror groups that assassinated Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last year or the ones wreaking havoc in Syria right now?“Freedom fighters”, I presume, because they violently oppose non-US friendly regimes?

The West must understand that you can’t have it both ways: either the French Resistance, and Irgun and Stern, and Hamas and Hezbollah, the Syrian and Libyan uprisings are all “freedom fighters” or, they should all be branded “terrorist organizations”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
All options on the table…
Going into full Baby-Bush-warmonger-mode, recently an IDF spokesman threatened not just the Palestinians but the entire world saying that for Israel, “all options are on the table…”

Powerful words coming from the only nation in the Middle East that has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and the behavioral track record that gives credibility to their willingness to use them.
So, Palestinians must brace themselves for ever increasing levels of violence in the days and weeks to come. Will this latest flare-up be used by Israel as an excuse to attack southern Lebanon where Hezbollah has its strong hold (and where Israel was routed when they last invaded Lebanon for the nth time in mid-2006)?

Are we seeing a crescendo of violence leading to armed attack on Syria in conjunction with Turkey/NATO and with the “Syrian Free Army” (aka, Al-Qaeda, CIA, Mossad, MI6)?
Is this all part of an Israeli strategy to “Secure the Realm” that has a unilateral military attack against Iran as Israel’s real and final goal?

More generalized violence in the Middle East will help to convince Obama (and the US military) to stop dragging their feet on Iran and to come on strong again in the region.
Israel is calling this latest shock and awe attack “Operation Pillar of Defense.” A Good Orwellian euphemism for Palestine-Bashing.

If Israel has decided to let all hell lose in the Middle East to set the stage for an attack against Iran, then it becomes clear that the violence should start (yet again!!) in martyred Palestine.

OK, so Israel starts a new Middle Eastern war in Palestine but… where does it end?
Palestine





08 November 2012

Putting Family Planning into a REAL Context

I am a Jane of many trades, but these days for a lot of the day most days, I work in public health logistics and reproductive health commodity security.

I believe that every person's reality is shaped by their experiences.
I think almost everything in life is a response to the conditions that preceded it.
I realize that empathy is very powerful.  

Family planning is an unfortunately contraversial topic in the country I live in.  In my country, people generally don't misunderstand the concept of family planning and often associate it with one of two simplistic ideas about birth control.

Despite working in a forward-thinking organization, the idiosyncrasies of ordering and delivering health supplies and life-saving commodities and the steadfastness need to broaden access to high quality and affordable contraceptives often push deeper more metaphorical, spiritual or philosophical  thoughts on working in family planning aside.

Below are a few videos that put family planning into a REAL context.
While my use of the word 'real' is accurate, it is also an acronym:
R - Radical    E - Extremist   A - Alternative   L - Loving
"The Taliban have perfected the way they recruit and train children... Step one, the Taliban prey on families that are large, that are poor, that live in rural areas..."  Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy invites you to look at children who are training to become suicide bombers in a completely different way, in her TED talk, "Inside a Taliban school" [8:09].  "We live in a modern, global world.  Terrorists have actually adapted to it."  Jason McCue frames terrorism as a failed brand and shares his insight into promising alternatives. [19:03]

Now, if you've watched those videos - hopefully you've learned something new.  
Regardless, you probably have some understanding of family planning in your head already. 
If so, how does it compare to this promotional video for a Family Planning clinic?  [4:37]

If you're still wondering what this post is about...
It's about YOU joining the empathetic civilization [10:40].

We must accept that every person's life is different and that we are each equally human.  That is a pretty radical idea, which - to my disappointment - is actually contrary to many people's opinion and unsupported by their life experiences.  Some believe that the poor among us are lazy, that the ill among us are useless, and that the rich among us are corrupt and the smart among us corrupting.  We should not battle ourselves to change minds and sway norms -- especially not in politics or governance.  Instead, we ought plant our hopes for the future in the hearts and minds of our children, and demonstrate how we wish our communities embraced them in our embrace of neighbors and strangers.

If we consider ‘family planning’ within a context of radical inclusion, despite extremist views, and allow ourselves to seek alternative, loving solutions, we can applaud ourselves for contributing to the planning of a global family and that's not just about birth control. 

07 November 2012

An Important Perspective

"Parents: please, please help our younger generation grow up understanding of both the good and bad side of each political party. Please.

Today I was talking to a newly-turned-14-year old girl that I love and adore, and she asked me who I voted for and upon telling her, I was told that I was voting against God. Wait -- what? My heart was pounding and I was so
, so sad.

She asked me why I would vote that way, and I tried to explain that both parties have their positives and negatives, but I am basing much of my vote on wanting college to be more affordable, wanting my mom to be able to get healthcare in her aging years, believing in women's rights in both wage and health, and if nothing else, as a Christian wanting to use my money for others who have been less fortunate than myself. I daily appreciate what the government can do for individual lives and the common good, and I am fine knowing not everyone agrees with that. I feel that sometimes adequately "caring for the least of these" requires some government support.

Again, this is how I feel right now, and I really am not trying to put down anyone who begs to differ, but I am trying to show there is not the "Christian party" and then "the ones who vote against God."

Both of our candidates are Christians. Both of them love America. I think both of them are probably really great guys who really want to do the best they can. Both parties do things that are against Christian beliefs, and both parties have policies that align with Biblical values.

As a Christian, I firmly believe I did not "vote against God" and it hurts my heart to the absolute core to have someone I love so much, and someone so young, tell me so. Today as a Christian, I voted for charity. As a daughter, I voted for health. As a wife, I voted for love. As a learner, I voted for opportunity. As a woman, I voted for freedom. As a citizen, I voted for peace. As a friend, I voted for equality. Next election, I will continue to vote for whichever candidate supports these values, no matter their political affiliation.

No one knows what the next four years will bring, but I do know how important it is for the next generation of voters to understand what this all means. Please don't pass on judgements or ignorance, but rather pass on knowledge and even some suggestions. I want them to be our presidents someday, and imagine the war this could turn into if we made it a battle of religions...."

GO BLUE and LET FREEDOM RING

06 November 2012

A note to the UNDECIDED VOTER

Do you remember reading in high school history class about the beginning of our country?  When the Republicans were the Liberal ones and then the Democrats came along amidst a few new parties and eventually we settled into a two party system in which the Republicans are conservative.  Now we are involved in a similar phenomena:  Democracy has been sold and imported globally as the best game around and two-party cold war left Democrats on top, and now that democracy is arriving to the proxy parties elsewhere, our fine Democrats world over sometimes turn out to become dictators. The future of politics is global and who we elect this year sets our tone, represents us, and determines our position globally.

Does that mean we should support the solid manager who will run our country like a fine-tuned business and keep us afloat as a nation in a rising global sea?

Does that mean we should support the demonstrated leader who will run our country like a family and represent us honorably in a global arena?

Think of all the people on this planet and vote accordingly.

Don't be discouraged about how I showcase Democracy, though - and terrorism is a failed brand, too.
Something better - more inclusive, more transparent, more representative  - awaits us but we have to work together to get to it.