Newton's Third Law

It's been a strange month or so. One might think that, given my general proclivity towards written verbiage, that I might have scrawled some half-baked idealism on my blog in the time between my previous post and this one. Not so. Happy belated American Independence Day and all that jazz.

What brought me to put finger to keyboard is the current re-escalation of tensions between Hamas and Israel in the never-ending saga of a dispute that stretches back to a time long before internal plumbing.
Both sides might be equally vile, but, as in every conflict, it's the innocent that suffer the most. The teenagers who were murdered on both sides are tragic, and only reveals the barbarity of those who believe this conflict to have a true purpose aside from settling a feud about land and religion that has existed for far too long in human history.
Right now, it is Israel that has the stranglehold over Palestine, but not too long ago, it was the Palestinians who controlled the land. However much that is unlikely to change is indeterminate, given that Israel has a highly developed military and economy, but one cannot anticipate the rogue variables of tomorrow.
The only actors with enough influence to end this conflict reside in Washington, D.C. and Brussels (and within the capitols of all the EU states). Israel, the main power broker of the area, relies heavily on trade to both, and Gaza depends on aid from the EU.
There are many steps that the US and the EU should take, but these should be the main ones:

• Cessation of aid and trade to both countries until a general ceasefire can be agreed upon. 
• Hold accountable those in both Israel and Gaza who have broken multiple ceasefires and have continually retaliated to the other's actions.
• Draw up a two-state solution based on the previously agreed upon borders with exceptions:
• First, the blockade around the Palestinian territories will be lifted. There will be no imposition of Israeli tax on goods sent to Palestine. There will also be a cessation of Israeli settlement-building, and any illegal settlements will be razed, its residents moved, and the land given back to the PLO.
• Second, the PLO would be given a parole period during which it will have to clean up its governance within Gaza with the help of international observers, excepting Israel. Should a single rocket be fired from Gaza into Israel during the parole period, the treaty would be in abeyance. Israel can request transparency reports on progress.
• Third, should any rocket fire fall into Israel and should Israel retaliate, then both the US and EU would impose economic sanctions on the region. This is obviously indiscriminate and punishes both for one's initial actions, but this clause looks to prevent escalation that so often creates out-of-control circumstances.
• Fourth, all eligible voters in the Palestinian territories should be registered and a new election will be called, to be conducted by independent watchdogs from the UN, the EU, the OSCE, and the AU. As this is the creation of a formal new state, this is perfunctory.

It's not hard to get drawn into a laborious, protracted, vitriolic debate around this conflict, and it's honestly excruciating. I've seen friends become embittered acquaintances who merely tolerate each other simply because of this stupid conflict. Everyone deserves the right to self-determination and freedom from encumbering influences, including both Israel and Palestine. That's that.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Death of Bin Laden

I decided to interrupt my intense (/hyperbole) studying to talk about this most recent and surprising development: Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world for the last 10 years, has been killed by United States operatives in Pakistan. I'd just like to say that it doesn't matter. (Read on before you decide to vilify me.)
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.

I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Point of Ire

A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.

--EDIT--

Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."

This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?

"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.

Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.

I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?

Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Flotsam

So, this week there was a lot of hullabaloo about where some jejune character named "LeBron James" would play "basketball" next "season." I even saw that people in "Cleveland" burned his "jersey." (I'll stop with the quotes now.) I find it fascinating when we do something so symbolic, so powerful, to someone who plays basketball. Basketball. Seriously. It's not like he's killed anyone or is currently occupying your native country. He plays basketball.

For all I could have cared, he could have chosen to get a sex change and move to Reno; it would not have impacted my life in the least. I don't understand how people are so riled over this. Maybe it's just me.

I mean, there are more important issues to care about, such as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the current rise of Chechnyan rebels, the World Cup, large banks pilfering our money from under our noses, Glenn Beck's bullshit, civil war in Uganda, China's human rights record, global warming, pollution, alternative energy, the BP oil spill, the Republican fight to lift the ban on offshore drilling, Arizona's immigration law, rising unemployment, the degradation of American schools, or maybe even the search for Dick Cheney's heart. My point is, there are much more important things to care about and burn effigies for, and basketball certainly isn't one of them.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Paranoia and Confusion

A flotilla of ships carrying approximately 600 Palestinian activists and aid to Gaza was attacked by the Israeli Navy. The point of the flotilla was to raise awareness of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, started in 2007 because of Hamas' takeover of Gaza and which has caused a humanitarian crisis (as described by the UN) in the Palestinian region. 9 activists were killed. The exact details of the confrontation are not so clear.

The Israeli government claims that soldiers that rappelled down from helicopters were immediately attacked by the Muslim activists and had their guns stolen. It is on that basis that Israel claims that the activists shot first, incurring an Israeli response in kind. Several Israeli soldiers were injured, along with dozens of activists.

The activists on board claimed that the soldiers began firing immediately as they rappelled from the helicopters, ensuring an aggressive response from the activists. There is also a claim that the Israelis fired on the main ship before boarding it, wounding the captain.

Unfortunately, this is a serious incident which should be investigated by an independent party, or even several independent parties rather than the Israeli state. What is especially of concern is that the ships were boarded in international waters, so there is seemingly no reason that Israel should have boarded the ships in the first place. There were no ammunition weapons found on any of the ships, only small things like slingshots and switchblades. What kind of provocation a small, unarmed flotilla could invoke in this situation is beyond me.

The questions that need to be answered in this muddled situation are such:
1. Why did the Israeli navy attack the flotilla in international waters, and who gave such an order and for what reason?
2. Who actually shot first?
3. As Israel has allowed ships to pass through before, why not allow a peaceful delegation of activists with essential supplies through?
4. For what reason, if any, did the Israeli navy feel under pressure to act?
5. Did any of the activists actually take the soldiers' weapons and begin firing?
6. Were the activists provoked into action, or were the soldiers?

This is something that does not bode well for Israel at all, as this denigrates their international image to that of an evil dictator of the Middle East region.

I'd actually like some feedback on this one, as the repercussions of this event will be widespread and fierce.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg