RANT: RIGHTS OF THE OCCUPIED

 

I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THERE IS NOW a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and that the bombing has, for the moment, stopped. Palestinian deaths resulting from missiles and bombs the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) unleashed on Gaza during the 11-day siege stands around 248; Israeli records at least 12 people were killed from Hamas rockets. Good! Now we can relax and fuhgeddaboudit, forget about all that pesky “Middle Easternery” stuff. Who needs to watch that night after night on the news? Arabs fighting Jews! Jews fighting Arabs! Why can’t they  learn to get along?

AT LEAST the fighting is over. For now. Because the facts on the ground dictate peace won’t last, and we can expect more of the same in the future. I’m no expert, but the situation isn’t that difficult to understand:

Israel is a “settler-colonial” society (so is Canada, BTW) that has illegally occupied Palestinian land since WWII. Israel has relentlessly and unlawfully (according to numerous United Nations’ resolutions condemning its actions) acquired more and more territory belonging to the indigenous Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel proper, and has for more than a decade confined nearly two million Palestinians, in what has been described as the “world’s largest open-air prison”, to a tiny sliver of land known as the Gaza Strip. Jewish-American academic, scholar and fierce critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, Norman Finkelstein, describes the miniscule size of Gaza as the length of a marathon run (approximately 25 miles) by “two Central Parks” (in New York City) wide.

Further, a recent Human Rights Watch report—for the first time—has called Israel an “apartheid state” because of its suppression of Palestinian rights and freedoms. Retired American colonel, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Chief of Staff to Secretary of Defence Colin Powell during the Bush Presidency, also says that Israel is fast becoming an apartheid state, increasingly entrenched in an intractable and inherently unsustainable situation. Wilkerson says unless Israel drastically changes its policies and actions, in twenty years it “would be gone”, that the continued oppression of the Palestinian people will eventually lead to Israeli society becoming unworkable.  

Of course, there are a lot of moving parts to the story, not least of which is the United States position vis-à-vis Israel, and whether it will continue to give its unconditional support as it has, for example and shamefully, at the United Nations by blocking a proposed Security Council resolution criticizing Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza and demanding an immediate ceasefire. The Council was paralyzed in a deadlocked 14-1 vote, with America’s “no” vote blocking the resolution because it requires unanimous consent to be ratified. (As an aside, had toady Canada gained its much-coveted seat on the Security Council this session, the vote would have no doubt have been two opposed.)

 

However, it is interesting to note that American Secretary of State Antony Blinken, did not confirm Israel’s claim that the Hamas “control and command” infrastructure was ensconced in the AP (American Press) office tower that IDF forces bombed last week. One would normally expect America to automatically condone Israel’s attack on the Gazan high-rise, home to offices for a number of local and international news agencies. Does Blinken’s statement suggest there is some "light” growing between Israel and the United States, and that the US will go only so far in supporting Israeli policies? Is it a signal to Israel that they might have to “go-it-alone” from now on, that they will have to “shape up”, as Colonel Wilkerson puts it, and deal with their own problems? (Meaning Israel making peace with the Palestinians and, more broadly, its neighbours in the Middle East.) Overall, though, American policy towards Israel does not appear to be heading in this direction. On May 25, President Biden recommitted his country’s “unwavering” support, stating the United States will continue its $3B per year supply of military aid to Israel and that the Jewish state "has the right to defend itself.” But, what about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against a force that has controlled their land since WWII. After all, under international law, an occupied population has  the right to defend itself.*

It’s a mixed bag to be sure, but this time, there is more international criticism of Israeli policies than in the past. And today (May 26) I heard on the news that the United States is contemplating opening a consulate in East Jerusalem to open a dialogue with the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority despite Israeli objections. Progress? Maybe.

 

BOTTOM LINE: It’s becoming all too obvious that Israel must end its occupation of Palestinian lands and grant Palestinians complete autonomy in a “two-state” solution (which, frankly, given the amount of Palestinian land Israel has already illegally absorbed into itself over the years, that route is all but blocked), or else grant them full rights as equal citizens in a shared, secular state. The status quo is no longer acceptable to a growing number of people inside Israel and beyond. If the Israeli government does not heed the warnings, it will become more isolated and increasingly be seen as a pariah state among nations. Time will tell.

 

Cheers, Jake. 

___________________________________________  

 

* In this 1982 General Assembly Resolution supporting "the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples," the UN cites its concerns for the conflicts that were happening at the time in Angola, Namibia, South Africa, as well as Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The Resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle..." [italics mine]

 

ESSAY: A QUICKIE: TWO POEMS by ROBERT FROST

 

Below is a short, in-class essay that I wrote for a 4^th year poetry class on Robert Frost, towards the end of the last Ice Age. My prof, Randy, provides helpful criticisms when my rushed brain gears fused and started to grind. It has some good points. The grade is so-so, but Randy’s comments at the end are encouraging and helped me to work harder at writing a better essay for him later. Prof's comments in red.

 

 

In Class Essay

   Robert Frost (1874-1963)

BOTH “IN HARDWOOD GROVES” AND “SPRING POOLS” reflect a theme common to Frost’s poetry, namely the hidden forces or processes underlying nature. It is interesting to note that both poems suggest cyclically in these forces—the “same leaves over and over again!” in “Hardwood”, or with water that “still” [pun?] reflects the sky in “Spring Pools”. Frost seems to be describing typical natural scenes, but as is so common in his work, these scenes often suggest forces that are contrary to the reader’s normal appreciation of nature. We assume nature acts ‘naturally’; that the processes of existence carry on without a discernible guiding hand or logic behind them. [This sounds like a human projection. Not vague enough for my taste.] Frost often presents natural processes with the suggestion of some sort of rational force behind them.

In “Hardwood”, he suggests this with the image of leaves fitting the earth like a “leather glove”. Most suggestive is the use of the phrase “they must” that he repeats two times in describing the course of decaying leaves. The fact that the speaker insists the leaves must perform certain functions gives rise to the assumption that there may be [or could have been] an alternate set of processes that leaves may take, subtly implying a kind of ‘consciousness’ or choice. And the fact that they must “be put” beneath the “feet” of flowers that are “dancing” suggests conscious forces at work, [Things must fall down doesn’t suggest that gravity IS conscious] particularly with the anthropomorphic imagery of the flowers and placing leaves beneath them, like an offering, as they dance. Again, the reader asks who will place the leaves there and why do the flowers dance?  He concludes the poem with lines suggesting the possibility that there could be some “other world” that operates differently than our own. As is typical with Frost, however, our world’s processes seem distinctly otherworldly. [Nice.]

In “Spring Pools” there is a similar examination of natural processes: the melting of the wood’s pools created by the spring run-off and their connection to the flowers growing beside them. Frost states that both pools and flowers are similar. They both “chill and shiver”; a description more suitable for the effects of cold on human beings, but strange when used to describe flowers. Why do flowers chill and shiver, and how? Does the speaker suggest they are cold and that is why they shiver? In either case, the flowers have non-natural qualities to them: they have decidedly human ones.

However, Frost’s poetry is often ambiguous at these points. He does not provide a simple comparison of the flowers to a human being.

What I would like to focus on is this human-nature blend in such ambiguous syntax found in line 3 of “Spring Pools”: “And like the flowers beside them, chill and shiver,” where nature seems to have a rationality associated with it. [At least the trees are implied to have the powers of thought.] He continues to describe the process of the disappearing spring pools—they will not flow away. They will “be gone”, the roots of trees with their “dark foliage” will soak them up. Frost presents a contrast between the temporary existence of spring pools (and the flowers mirrored in them) [not in the poem] and the “summer woods”, a more permanent and over-riding force. The speaker tells us that the woods must [?] think before they use their powers: “Let them think twice”, again suggesting the idea of choice in nature [But trees can darken Nature. It is not clear that these thinking trees are IN nature.] that we saw in “Hardwood” there is also the suggestion, by implication, that there are contesting powers to those of the trees that will challenge their blotting up of the spring pools. The revision/substitution* “Let them” for “may well”, sees Frost more clearly presenting natural— but not quite ‘natural’—forces potentially competing against each other, whereas his use of “Let them” suggests a warning, perhaps, or a challenge or an appeal to these ‘rational’ natural forces. [Oxymoron?] In his poem, “Trial By Existence”, Frost’s imaginative portrayal of Heaven, we have a contrast between our limited knowledge (after we are born) of the processes that are supposed to occur there, with the depiction of heavenly processes known only to angels. This poem, coupled with descriptions of natural scenes and activities in “Hardwood” and “Spring Pools”, hints at our awareness of not-quite-natural natural forces.

In Frost’s other world, literally his “some other world” of “Hardwood”, and the implied other world of “Spring Pools”, suggested by the speaker’s warning “Let them think twice”, the type of controlling force or forces is unclear. Frost presents forces in a Christian context (“Heaven”) in “Trial By Existence”, for example, but it is a heaven that is not a unity; there are divisions, even challenges to God’s authority. There are voices questioning the need to choose mortal ignorance over eternal truth. The main point in “Trial”, is that Heaven is not as a Christian would typically conceive it; neither is the Christian God.

Similarly, in “Hardwood” and “Spring Pool”, the controlling forces are not clearly defined: it is not God in the Christian sense, nor is it especially pagan. Rather, such forces seem to lie underneath and support, act upon and conflict with (but ultimately contain) all of nature’s actions, which, of course, include all of humanity’s, as well.

  

________________________________________________________

 

* Not sure what I mean by this; it’s been a long time since I read the poems. There may have been some classroom analysis of Frost's emendations we'd studied earlier. 

 

 

PROF COMMENTS: but so many cultures cling to the idea that we are in Nature, but not of it.

A sensitive and meticulous style of reading as expected. Your sense of the "underlying" and the "behind" at the start of the paper seems vague, but the sharpened and the self-conscious ambiguity of your final formulation deals with all that. Randy.

Grade= 82

 

RANT: AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL: WILL IT HAPPEN? THE GREAT RESET: SHOULD IT?

 

SOME POTENTIALLY GOOD NEWS ON THE WAR in Afghanistan. U.S. President Joe Biden announced in mid-April that all American troops will be leaving by September 11/21, and so far, it looks like a pretty firm commitment. On the other hand, Trump already had an agreement to pull troops out by May 1, this year, so what is the reason for the delay besides Biden not wanting to honour policies made by the previous prez? (Also, the disposition of American “contractors”, i.e., mercenaries, in Afghanistan is undecided, and it's unclear whether they will continue to be funded* after the withdrawal.)

And to be honest, I’ll believe it when I see it; the last three administration said the same thing, and it’s been twenty years now. Canadian troops died over there (158) and American losses total (thus far) 2,372 soldiers, along with other Coalition forces over the years, not to mention all the death and destruction suffered by the Afghan people, and if we’re being honest, the reasons for continuing to fight over there have gotten seriously muddy over the years. I don’t think Afghanistan is much of a security threat to America, if it ever was, and it's time for that war-torn country’s government (or cabal of warlords) to come to terms with the rebel Taliban and end their civil war. Or not. It should be up to them. America’s withdrawal will hopefully allow a reconciliation process to begin. So, let’s see if Biden will be true to his word, or will it be more of the same blah-blah-blah and broken promises we’ve heard for so long.**

 

BUT FOR NOW, LET'S SET THAT CHEERY TOPIC ASIDE because I’d like to talk about something called the “Great Reset”, a term we’ve heard more of recently, and one which represents either a rich-dude’s wet dream or something more problematic.

In 2010, Richard Florida, an urban development theorist and professor at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management wrote a book called The Great Reset which envisioned how society could use the fallout from the financial crash of 2008-09 to “reinvent” or “reset” planning policies for cities going forward—to allow certain cities, because of their location, population mix, and global connectivity, to more readily adopt planning practices, public policies and infrastructure development which will ensure their dominant position in what Florida calls the “Third Great Reset” in America (The other two  resets being, IIRC: First, the industrialization and urbanization movements of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. Second: the growth of consumerism and suburbanization, beginning in the 1930s, with both government and business reorienting industries to take advantage of new technologies such as electricity, the telephone, the automobile, mass-production techniques, and so on.) The Third Reset entails using next generation technologies of the internet, AI, Blockchain and 5G systems, robotics and quantum computing. This powerful group of tools, Florida speculates, should be used by cities such as New York, Boston, and London that already have advantageous resources of infrastructure and “creative” populations (at least in certain districts).

    "Well! Babel me gob-smacked, Cap'n!"

To summarize his vision, think: “smart” cities and interconnectivity, rainbows and unicorns for tech-savvy, “start-up” promoters, information workers, blockchain 'miners' and the like. Florida envisions certain cities thriving and becoming hubs of productivity and “creativity” that would generate GDP growth and benefits for the rest of the country (apparently). Sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like gated communities with whip cream and sprinkles on top, and stale doughnuts for the rest of us. But that’s where the term “Great Reset” originally comes; it's the title of a book written by and for society's professional elites.

 

In an interesting turn of events, Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau made a bit of a flap in September, last year, when he mused in a “virtual” United Nations meeting about using the pandemic as an opportunity for the world to “reset” their economies. To be fair, he said it was “our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change."

Ah, me! So many words, so little said! He makes nice mouth sounds, but what do they mean? Are they “code” for an international left wing (or right wing—it gets confusing!) conspiracy to activate a global master plan to turn nine-tenths of us into serfs and slaves, while the rich harvest the rest of the world’s wealth, raking in pension funds, public lands and services, and people’s savings?  Fun times, indeed.

 

Another recent uttering of the words “Great Reset” came from the famed, golden city of Davos, Switzerland with the World Economic Forum (read: Uber-rich schmooze fest) that proclaimed:

“There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.”

 

For the last decade or so, the WEF annual meeting in the Swiss Alps has come equipped with heavy-duty themes and schemes which mostly boil down to making more money for people who can’t possibly need any more.  Klaus Schwab, confab organizer and chief courtier for the assembled lords and ladies of finance and industry, even wrote a book in 2020 with the Twitter-trending title of Covid-19: The Great Reset. (Please don’t buy it; Klaus doesn’t need the dough.) In it, he outlines a technocratic, globalist agenda which would involve, among other adaptations, biometric scanning and monitoring systems along the lines of those being adopted today in China.

 

It is a digitalized future that Klaus and his Davos buddies think the world should adopt, along with a  "stakeholder" capitalism and surveillance systems designed to monitor all aspects of an individual's life. It echoes Ida Auken's short dystopian WEF "thought experiment" article envisioning a city of the future, "our city", where the "internet of things" is ubiquitous and private ownership unnecessary in a world run by next generation Amazons and Ubers. Happy Days! 

Frankly, it should keep thinking persons awake at night unless, of course, personal monitoring devices on our night-tables chime-in to remind us to take a sleeping tablet. (But not the whole bottle!) Auken, a Danish Member of Parliament describes, with unintended irony, the "left-behinds" as quaint rustics, living obscure, disconnected lives in rural settings and abandoned villages, with everyone 'in-the-know' having moved into "our city". (No thanks, lady!) Oddly, the right wing government of Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro is critical of the 2021 WEF agenda and its "Great Reset" theme, calling the proposals "totalitarian"  and a vector for world-wide communism. (Stop with the irony already, you guys!) I guess they want their own, homegrown brand of totalitarianism. Each to their own.  

 

But, environmentalist Naomi Klein put the matter into perspective when she wrote late last year, in an article at The Intercept website, a crisp criticism of the Davos scheme: “In short, the Great Reset encompasses some good stuff that won’t happen and some bad stuff that certainly will and, frankly, nothing out of the ordinary in our era of “green” billionaires readying rockets for Mars.” Ouch! And scholar and food sovereignty advocate Vandana Shiva offers her analysis of the Davos initiative to reorganize the world's economic system, which the WEF website earnestly promises will “build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being” (with a trust fund). She says:

 

“The Great Reset is about multinational corporate stakeholders at the World Economic Forum controlling as many elements of planetary life as they possibly can. From the digital data humans produce to each morsel of food we eat.”

 

Couldn’t have said it better myself! The “Great Reset” is simply the latest clown mask the usual suspects wear on their way to steal what’s left in the bank vault; it’s a cash-grab, no matter how you try to disguise it.

 

So, the point I’m laboriously trying to make is this: while there are large-scale government and private sector initiatives currently tackling our struggles with the Coronavirus and planning for what comes next, in the end I feel small is beautiful⁺, and that our future will increasingly come to rely on local resources and local initiatives. Some cities will be important, others will fade from prominence depending on where they are and how they function for the people who live in them and in their surrounding communities--not, as Richard Florida envisions, re-developed for an elite “creative class” of professionals living in artificial, high-tech, gated communities. Small will be beautiful again, whether we like the idea or not.

There’s more to say on this, but I think that’s enough for now.

 

Cheers, Jake.

 

________________________________________

 

* It looks now quite probable these corporate 'guns-for-hire' will receive American backing after September and remain to perform a variety of functions going forward, but to what extent, if any, they will replace American combat troops in Afghanistan remains to be seen. Also, I wonder if Biden will withdraw American air power or will this move by his administration be just more smoke and mirrors? For so long now, Afghanistan has been a huge grifting operation for all the 'stakeholders' making piles of dough over there, and it's usually a messy and unrewarding task to cut down the money tree, so it's easier to just let the conflict continue. The whole thing is obscene! [And for those who are not fans of George Bush II, the Prez who got America into Afghanistan in the first place, here's a great short Rant by Richard Medhurst, a young, articulate and passionate blogger on YouTube.]

 

** Excellent interview on Aaron Mate's YouTube podcast "Pushback" with Scott Horton, the editorial director of "Antiwar.com" on some of the complexities surrounding the war in Afghanistan and a withdrawl of America's forces.  

+ small is beautiful is the title of a 1973 book by E.F. Schumacher which fell off my bookshelf the other day and hit me on the head. The subtitle reads: Economics AS If People Mattered, and that gives you an idea of what the book is about—local, small-scale solutions, sustainable and ecologically sound. Makes more sense, a lot more, than all the globalist wet dreams found at Davos.