Two Dogs

Often whilst procrastinating the answer comes through inaction. I decided I should read other peoples blogs, out of curtesy so I plugged Travis into the blogs above me and found this guys blog which had another link to religion of peace if there was ever a way to look at the world through a prism of hate these two sites offer the perspective.
Controversial? No, stupidity isn't controversy. You have to read particularly the first site to believe, I implore you check them out. The Holocaust is one of the most severe and brutal forms of genocide enacted on a people in history. The tragedy has been portrayed with sensitivity and beauty time and time again and the grief is never ending.
Then there are other attrocities, like the invasion of palestine and the treatment of it's people by the Nation of Isreal. I have reproduced Arundhati Roy's speech on September 11 in part:

September 11th has a tragic resonance in the Middle East, too. On the 11th of September 1922, ignoring Arab outrage, the British government proclaimed a mandate in Palestine, a follow-up to the 1917 Balfour Declaration which imperial Britain issued, with its army massed outside the gates of Gaza. The Balfour Declaration promised European Zionists a national home for Jewish people. (At the time, the Empire on which the Sun Never Set was free to snatch and bequeath national homes like a school bully distributes marbles.)

How carelessly imperial power vivisected ancient civilizations. Palestine and Kashmir are imperial Britain's festering, blood-drenched gifts to the modem world. Both are fault lines in the raging international conflicts of today.

In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.

In 1947, the U.N. formally partitioned Palestine and allotted 55 per cent of Palestine's land to the Zionists. Within a year, they had captured 76 per cent. On the 14th of May 1948 the State of Israel was declared. Minutes after the declaration, the United States recognized Israel. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan. The Gaza strip came under Egyptian military control, and formally Palestine ceased to exist except in the minds and hearts of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who became refugees. In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Over the decades there have been uprisings, wars, intifadas. Tens of thousands have lost their lives. Accords and treaties have been signed. Cease-fires declared and violated. But the bloodshed doesn't end. Palestine still remains illegally occupied. Its people live in inhuman conditions, in virtual Bantustans, where they are subjected to collective punishments, twenty-four hour curfews, where they are humiliated and brutalized on a daily basis. They never know when their homes will be demolished, when their children will be shot, when their precious trees will be cut, when their roads will be closed, when they will be allowed to walk down to the market to buy food and medicine. And when they will not. They live with no semblance of dignity. With not much hope in sight. They have no control over their lands, their security, their movement, their communication, their water supply. So when accords are signed, and words like "autonomy" and even "statehood" bandied about, it's always worth asking: What sort of autonomy? What sort of State? What sort of rights will its citizens have?

Young Palestinians who cannot control their anger turn themselves into human bombs and haunt Israel's streets and public places, blowing themselves up, killing ordinary people, injecting terror into daily life, and eventually hardening both societies' suspicion and mutual hatred of each other. Each bombing invites merciless reprisal and even more hardship on Palestinian people. But then suicide bombing is an act of individual despair, not a revolutionary tactic. Although Palestinian attacks strike terror into Israeli citizens, they provide the perfect cover for the Israeli government's daily incursions into Palestinian territory, the perfect excuse for old-fashioned, nineteenth-century colonialism, dressed up as a new fashioned, twenty-first century "war".

Israel's staunchest political and military ally is and always has been the U.S. The U.S. government has blocked, along with Israel, almost every U.N. resolution that sought a peaceful, equitable solution to the conflict. It has supported almost every war that Israel has fought. When Israel attacks Palestine, it is American missiles that smash through Palestinian homes. And every year Israel receives several billion dollars from the United States - taxpayers money.

What lessons should we draw from this tragic conflict? Is it really impossible for Jewish people who suffered so cruelly themselves - more cruelly perhaps than any other people in history - to understand the vulnerability and the yearning of those whom they have displaced? Does extreme suffering always kindle cruelty? What hope does this leave the human race with? What will happen to the Palestinian people in the event of a victory? When a nation without a state eventually proclaims a state, what kind of state will it be? What horrors will be perpetrated under its flag? Is it a separate state that we should be fighting for or, the rights to a life of liberty and dignity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion?

Palestine was once a secular bulwark in the Middle East. But now the weak, undemocratic, by all accounts corrupt but avowedly nonsectarian P.L.O., is losing ground to Hamas, which espouses an overtly sectarian ideology and fights in the name of Islam. To quote from their manifesto: "we will be its soldiers and the firewood of its fire, which will burn the enemies."

The world is called upon to condemn suicide bombers. But can we ignore the long road they have journeyed on before they have arrived at this destination? September 11, 1922 to September 11, 2002 - eighty years is a long time to have been waging war. Is there some advice the world can give the people of Palestine? Should they just take Golda Meir's suggestion and make a real effort not to exist?

Furthermore genocide is not new at any rate, think Maya, Mexica, Inca, Australian Aboriginies (sighted as 'blacks' by Winnie the Pooh above), Native Americans, Germans in Wallachia, Tibetans and too many tribes of Africa and the Middle East to Name.

It is hate pure and simple, there is not a single people on this earth I hate, not even a single person on this earth I hate or even consider worth hating. I firmly believe that when you want to keep a man trapped you trap yourself in the trapping of him, a handcuff binds the arrestor and the arrested, a guard and prisoner both are in a prison at the end of the day. The Zionists could learn from the Hindu Yogi's and expel violent thoughts from their minds, because violent and hateful thoughts can do you more damage than the damage intended by them.
Isreal at the end of the day is at war with itself.
In the Emperors New Clothes, the emperor cruised the streets in the nude and everyone was afraid to admit they couldn't see the clothes even the emporer himself, I think the true test of a leader is to walk around exposed and see if the people accept him. Everyone is entitled to a home and Isreal/Palestine is infact a sacred place to almost all people on the earth that everyone should have access too, I say lay down the borders, let the settlements go to whoever wants to live there, how can you conquer a nation that doesn't defend itself? obviously the problem goes deeper there are irreconcilable political interests in each religions self validation seeking tendancies, the uncompromising 'we want it all' position, why not let both have it all I'd say? It's not a fucking cake that needs eating, it's land that is going to be around for a while, whereas the people on both sides are not.

I picked up a daredevil comic which featured wolverine, he was telling a story to Echo who had known the Native Chief Wolverine knew:
'There are two dogs inside you, one that loves & one that hates, one of them has to win, which one?'
'The one you feed the most?'
Anyway the Chief had some new take on it picking up a minor technicality or something and the implications are lost to me now, but wolverines guess is the traditional answer to the riddle. It's right there and it's probably the answer to a lot of questions dividing the world at any given time.
I have a dog inside me that wags it's whole body giving it a duck like gait, it sniffs and snorts so hard it sneezes when it greets new people. it lays down for scratches at any given opportunity, that's my answer to the below post.
Morley would say I need hugs or a beating. I'd take both.