Oh dear! Israel’s “moral” army – again.

It is very unfortunate that it is necessary to question, again, the Israeli Government’s assertion that it has the “most moral army in the world”.

Recently an Israeli Court has convicted Israeli Army reservist, Sgt. Elor Azaria, of manslaughter for shooting dead a severely wounded Palestinian attacker. Now, it has been reported, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will call for him to be pardoned for this cowardly and totally unprovoked attack - by an army medic – no less.

The question that should be asked is, to be ethically and morally unbiased, what would have happened if the situation had been reversed and the (now dead) Palestinian had been accused of killing a wounded Israeli soldier (the said Sgt. Elor Azaria)?

I know the answer, and so do you.

I suggest that no quarter, no mercy would have been extended to the Palestinian. He would have been shot in retaliation – or at best, if captured alive – would have been condemned as a “terrorist” and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Israel cannot claim that history, the admittedly appalling treatment that has been meted to Jews since time immemorial, gives them licence to claim the “moral” high ground while still indulging in self pity and making excuses for blatantly racial acts such as that carried out by Sgt. Elor Azaria.

Sgt. Elor Azaria should be condemned and serve out the sentence the court decides. To do otherwise will just enflame the Palestinians and push any “peace” even further into the future.

The Israeli’s have to understand and accept the hard truth that every action has a cause – and an effect. The to me (admittedly an outsider and a non-Jew) unfair occupation of Palestinian land is the primary cause of the “unrest” between the Israelis and Palestinians. No compensation is, or has ever been offered – merely the reference to the “God given” Biblical historic “right” of Israel to the land.

This is an entirely spurious argument. Should Japan be given back to the original Ainu? Should the Iberian peninsular be returned to the Celts? And then should America be returned to the original inhabitants – the North American “Indians”? What about handing Australia back to the “first people” the Aborigines?

Come on! Get real. Everyone, yes everyone, is a descendent of an immigrant – we all came out of Africa. We all have traces of Neanderthal genes.

No one has any God given or Biblical or any “right” to any land anywhere. But it is only fair, the ethical and moral thing to do, to offer compensation or reparation for land and houses “commandeered” from Palestinians.

Hasn’t Israel been given billions of Euros as “reparation” for the properties, in Germany and other countries, confiscated by the Nazis?

What is the difference, morally and ethically, between what the Israeli’s are doing and what the Nazis did? Both actions are actions on a spectrum – the Nazis at the appalling extreme end (10) with the Israelis round about the middle (say 4 or 5 out of 10).

Both are wrong.

It just is a matter of degree. A pardon for Sgt. Elor Azaria – would be wrong. Totally, morally and ethically, wrong.

Amended Feb 21, 2017:-

Sgt. Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting dead 21-year-old Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank, last March and jailed for 18 months.

Amended Nov 21, 2017:-
The Israeli courts have rejected a plea for this man's pardon! Pardon! Thank God someone in Israel has the moral understanding to see that a wrong is still a wrong.

Azaria had told a colleague that Sharif, who had stabbed another soldier, "deserved to die".

A wife makes a home

There is no doubt about it, as far as I am concerned. After nearly a year since my wife died, I definitely agree with the old saying that a (loving) wife makes a home.

Women have the ability, that I think most men don’t have, to make a place “homely” – very difficult to define. There is a warmth, a comfort, an ability to arrange furniture, photographs on a dresser, how the cushions are arranged on a sofa, the tidiness in the kitchen, the look of a made up bed – little things – to make a place look “nice”. Certainly all different from the way that I do it on my own.

I am a reasonably tidy person but I don’t always see the incongruity of the way I do things. I mean I use one plate, one bowl, one cup, one glass, one spoon, one fork, one knife – these are kept on the drip tray after they have been washed. Why put them away in the cupboard or drawer? I’m just going to take them out again! But I do make the bed every day! I sleep on alternate sides for a week at a time - then I change the sheets. Aren't I good!!

And I do (really) close the lid of the toilet (water closet? - whatever) after use!

The house is clean (sort of). I do dust and I do use the vacuum cleaner but I am not regular in their use. I clean when it becomes obvious – not a really good practice!!

And cooking – most people’s taste buds would not have evolved enough to appreciate my cooking! Very basic - healthy with lots of vegetables and fish - but no “frills”. Not cooked with the loving care that my wife applied. I cook because I have to eat. Still, I am in good health apart from some age related problems (a few aches here and there) but I am taking no medication at all. Which is good for 76. No?

But still, without a wife (after 36 years of a close and very emotionally rewarding marriage) the house is most certainly not the same. It is a place to sleep and eat but not really a home like it was.

Oh well! Not much I can do about it is there? Life carries on regardless.

Note: I am going to add a big one - one that I, at least, didn't miss until it wasn't  there - social contacts. Women (and my wife in particular was very good at this) are good at generating and maintaining social contacts.
I am not!!

'Twas a famous victory!

December 31, 2018 - added: - Well it seems as if Assad has really won this time! But at what cost in human lives and materiel? With the Americans deciding to pull out of Syria and Iraq, this gives free reign to Assad's allies, Iran and and Russia. Good luck to the Kurds and any others in opposition to Assad, still in Syria! Assad will have a field day with any opposition still in the country.

If you thought his father, Hafez al-Assad was bad - who killed 20 000 opposition countrymen and women - I'm thinkin you ain't seen nothing yet! Son of Hafez, one Bashar al-Assad, has presided over at least 200 000 deaths, millions displaced and the cities and infrastructure destroyed. Now there is no one to stop him!

And in spite of various claims to the contrary, ISIS, that murderous fundamentalist Islamic group has not been defeated or destroyed. Weakened? Yes. Destroyed? No.

March, 15. 2018 - added:- According to the latest news with the assistance of both Russia and Iran the "rebels" who have been fighting to free Syria from the murderous regime or Bashar al-Assad have been all but driven out of Syria. Likewise the ISIS, at least what is left of them have also, more or less, been defeated. So, shortly, there will be proud proclamations that Syria is free!

The trouble will be rebuilding a shattered country. Aleppo - formerly a large thriving city - is now absolutely devastated. And there are many similar situations. And what about the people - homeless, injured, refugees in their own country?

This will be no "victory"; this will be an example of brute force applied indiscriminately to prove a point.

Sept, 15. 2017  - added:- According to the latest news what I have written below is coming to pass. The Russians are now in control of much of what was ISIS controlled Syria. So be it.

I wonder at the “victory” the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad will inherit after his "civil war" is over. He will win but he does not have the ability to do it his own.

With Russian help he will win. But at what cost?

What I fear is that what was a country with an ancient history – stretching back thousands of years – I fear it will be in ruins. My concern is what will remain after the “victory”?

Cities devastated; infrastructure in ruins; half the population (about 12 million out of a total of about 24 million people) either dead, injured, displaced or homeless. For what? So Bashar al-Assad can claim “victory” and satisfy his ego and support the legacy of his megalomaniac father?

As my one loyal reader knows I like poetry. Now there is a poem by Robert Southey (1774-1843) called “After Blenheim”, which satirizes the concept of “victory”, which I believe is very appropriate in this situation. I won’t burden my reader with the whole poem – just the last three verses. They will give some idea of the gist:-

…..

‘They say it was a shocking sight

            After the field was won;

For many a thousand bodies here

            Lay rotting in the sun;

But things like that, you know, must be

After a famous victory.’

‘Great praise for the Duke of Marlboro’ won

            And our good Prince Eugene.’

“Why ‘twas a very wicked thing!”

            Said little Willelmine;

“Nay …. Nay … my little girl”, quoth he,

“It was a famous victory.”

‘And everybody praised the Duke

            Who this great fight did win.’

“But what good came of it at last?”

            Quoth little Peterkin:-

‘Why that I cannot tell,’ said he,

‘But ‘twas a famous victory.’

As always in war it is the innocent, the women and children, who suffer the most.

What a "famous victory" Bashar al-Assad will have won!

The dangers of simplistic slogans

It seems to be fashionable, or the cool thing, to reduce complex issues to simplistic 3 or 4 word slogans.

If history is any guide slogans repeated often enough, are assumed as truths. Belief in these slogans leads to a steep inclined plane which propels all involved lower and lower into ever more harsh and deplorable policies. Apathy by the educated and predominantly self proclaimed elites in any country you care to name, who conflate identity with skin colour; skin colour with ethnicity; ethnicity with criminality (drug dealers and rapists); and ethnicity with religion (“they worship a different God”); religion with a need to compile a register, to make a list of all such people the easier for them to be kept under surveillance – such conflation is self destructive. It will lead very quickly to concepts of national and racial purity, and is only a short step from barbarism.

What follows is a damning statement about the dangers of apathy in the face of slogans and propaganda, by the German theologian Martin Neimöller, who had been imprisoned by the Nazis:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

If, today, now, the words Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, “illegal immigrants”, Afghanis, Syrians or whatever are substituted with any of the above, the picture presented would be a bleak one indeed.

Euthanasia? All life is terminal!

While I appreciate that the Hippocratic Oath in effect stipulates physicians should  “do no harm”, this is not the end of the matter.

To only allow (or disallow) a “terminally” ill person to decide when they wish to end their life is looking at this problem from the wrong end. It is not if they are ill, terminally or otherwise, but a person’s quality of life – their perception of that quality, which should be the main issue.

Recall and understand that all life, repeat ALL life, is terminal – we cannot escape the end. It is terminal! Sooner or later we all die – ill or not. Palliative care, however well administered, will not halt this process. Furthermore it is impossible to accurately determine the exact time or date in the future as to when a person will die. So to stipulate a time or date (following the Victorian “model”, six months is suggested), sometime in the future which may determine whether or not a person is “allowed to die” is regrettable, to say the least. 

Furthermore, why should anyone have to “live” according to another person’s expectations? We have no “right” to interfere. It is not our life; it is not our choice.

We, and by “we” I include all humans, were presumably born to live in the world. Now if a human being decides, because of the status of their health, that the life he or she is currently experiencing in the world is not a “quality life”, who is to say they are wrong? We, you or I, cannot experience that person’s view with all the emotional, stressful or painful events they may have suffered or endured during their life to date. How can anyone, other than the person concerned, determine what level of “quality” is acceptable or unacceptable? 

We can have no idea how this expression of life plays out; or how life events (particularly their health) affect a person’s outlook, towards themselves or others – no one can “know” this except the person concerned. They make a choice based on such experience – good, bad or indifferent. It is their decision. You or I are in no position to say they are wrong. 

Similarly, what evidence, what insight do we have such that we can proclaim that a particular person’s view or expression of life (as currently experienced) is wrong and that we (or at least the “experts”) alone know better? We may not like or approve of their view but - so what! 

Likewise, what evidence is there for the “experts” to state that those who wish to end their life may be suffering from a “mental disorder” (hence the proposed requirement - for a totally subjective - psychiatric assessment on any person wishing to end their life). Disordered from what? From “normal”? As far as I can determine there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “mentally disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they “wrong”? Or are those who condemn euthanasia just being intolerant and lacking in understanding, compassion or empathy? 

Then there is widespread over prescription of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications (remember that, allegedly, one in five people (1 in 5) will, allegedly, suffer from a “mental illness” in their lifetime). There are many reasons why all concerned should be critical about psycho-pharmaceutical drug treatment, such as uncertainty regarding the causes of mental disorders, the problematic accuracy of the few diagnostic tools available, poor understanding regarding the mechanism of drug actions and their many side-effects together with the related problem of publication bias. Then there is commercial conflict of interest, [Note:The reanalysis of the – originally ghost written - GlaxoSmithKline Study 329 relating totheir antidepressant drug formulation paroxetine,Paxil, (also known as Serotax or Aropax) provides an illuminating, if unfortunate, example of these issues]. 

Also there is extreme pain. Anything that results in an actual or perceived loss of personal control will (possibly) bring about a loss of dignity and of “hope” - those most subjective attitudes of mind.

Furthermore for some to say that only God can decide when any person dies is surely a gross over assumption – how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will, that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?

Then what about those who say that the legalization of euthanasia would see the end of compassion? Surely it would be more compassionate to allow someone who wishes to end their life to do so in a private setting of their choice, with (possibly) family and friends in attendance?

Far rather this than, to get their way, forcing a person to take extreme actions – starving, drinking or drugging themselves to death; shooting themselves; jumping off a high rise building or cliff; driving at high speed into the support column of a freeway overpass or into a tree on a country road; consume rat poison or drink some corrosive liquid (such as ammonia) and take four days, in agony, to die.

Recall also that the British philosopher David Hume (1711 –1776) said, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.” 

Finally I will repeat a quote, from the Indian sageJiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. 

There we have it – in a nutshell! 

Perfect verbal abuse? Try Shakespeare

If you think you may have heard some good verbal abuse or takedowns recently (relating to certain politicians) it may be good to brush up on your Shakespeare.

For instance how about this one from King Lear (Act II Scene II):-

Earl of Kent. Fellow I know thee.

Oswald. What dost thou know me for?

Earl of Kent. A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass gazing, super serviceable, finical rogue; one trunk inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in a way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

Oswald. Why, what a monstrous fellow are thou, thus to rail on one that is neither known to thee or knows thee.

Earl of Kent. What a brazen-faced varlet art thou, to deny thou knowest me! Is it two days ago since I tripped up thy heels, and beat thee before the king? Draw you rogue: for though it be night, yet the moon shines; I’ll make a sop o’ the moonshine of you: draw you whoreson cullionly barber-monger, draw. (Drawing his sword).

Politicians take note!!

A masterful use of English and without vulgarity or a four-letter  “f” word anywhere.

NOTE: Definition of a pandar = a pimp.

            Definition of cullionly = mean or base.

Never touch save out of love.

In today's world with many people, who should know better, being accused of domestic violence and inappropriate sexual behavior it maybe worthwhile to take some time and read what follows:-

Some of my readers may know that I find solace in poetry. Some time ago I “discovered” the American poet Max Ehrmann. He wrote with great depth, pathos and understanding of the human condition.

For instance, take the lines of the title of this post – from a poem called “Her Acceptance” – the last two lines are:

“Still let us both be owners of ourselves,

And never touch save out of love. – Kiss me.”

Those last words are so, so important – “never touch save out of love”. Here a woman accepts a proposal of marriage from a man – but she comes with nothing. No inheritance; nothing except her love (these line were written I think in the early 1900s). And she warns him that there has to be more that attracts him than her youth, which will fade with the years and she reminds him that with young children she will be a burden on him. Seeing him work long hours in sad drudgery will “pierce me to the soul”, and that she will suffer with him because she knows that she “Shall be a weight upon his back”.

Even with all this she understands that love is what will hold them together and advocates that they “never touch save out of love”.

These are wonderful words with a sentiment that, while many adhere to, quite a few, unfortunately and tragically, do not.

.