walking and walking...

I started here...Along the way (notice the Coke bottle!!!)

Along the way...


Ended up here, at Katwijk aan Zee

Scenes from the beach

It's in the rain
Enya
© 2005 Warner Music Intl.

Every time the rain comes down,
close my eyes and listen.
I can hear the lonesome sound
of the sky as it cries.

Listen to the rain...
Here it comes again...
Hear it in the rain...

Feel the touch of tears that fall,
they won't fall forever.
In the way the day will flow,
all things come, all things go.

Listen to the rain...
(the rain...)
Here it comes again...
(a-gain...)
Hear it in the rain...
(the rain...)

Late at night I drift away
I can hear you calling,
and my name is in the rain,
leaves on trees whispering,
deep blue sea's mysteries.

Even when this moment ends,
can't let go this feeling.
Everything will come again
in the sound, falling down,
of the sky as it cries.
Hear my name in the rain.

Swarm of birds

The Dunes (Meijendael)

Beach: notice the bunker on the right. This stretch of coastline was part of the Nazi's 'Atlantic Wall', a fortiefied coastline that stretched from France to the Netherlands to prevent Allied invasion.

Dune
Skyline of Den Haag, watertower in the front.

 

Where did David go today?

Started on the beach just below 'Den Haag' and ended up at 'Katwijk aan Zee' ( literally: 'Cat neighbourhood at sea') 10km one way! : )

Long Long journey

Enya © 2005 Warner Music Intl.

City lights shine on the harbour,
night has fallen down,
through the darkness and the shadow
I will still go on.

Long, long journey through the darkness,
long, long way to go;
but what are miles across the ocean
to the heart that's coming home?

Where the road runs through the valley,
where the river flows,
I will follow every highway to the place I know.

Long, long journey through the darkness,
long, long way to go;
but what are miles across the ocean
to the heart that's coming home?

Long, long journey out of nowhere,
long, long way to go;
but what are sighs and what is sadness
to the heart that's coming home?

Roundup

It's been a while, mostly because I was away. But here are some things I read in the past month or so that are worthy of note.

• Freke Vuijst, ‘Bloggen tegen Bush’ [Blogging against Bush], p19-21, 1 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

Once again, the power of (left-wing) bloggers have been proven.

“What Bush does has nothing to do with a conservative ideology. It is fed by extreme theories about the unlimited power of the president, which has radically changed our political system and the core of our society, the Constitution. All the scandals of the past five yeaers confirm that this administration believes that it is above the law. And the checks and balances which were built in by our Founding Fathers, have unfortunately failed because Congress has neglected its supervisory function, the media, with some exceptions, are silent, and the judges are afraid to shout back at the government if they remove the ghost of national security from the closet. America’s last chance are the citizens themselves.” Glenn Greenwald

In what ways has Bush exceeded his powers to gain more power?

“In January the Boston Globe published a shocking article. The newspaper revealed how Bush at the signing of a legislation had for more than seven hundred times also signed a declaration in which it says that the president, should he deem it necessary, would not need to abide by the law. Similar singing statements were also declared by other presidents before as well. But they were exceptions and they were meant as a presidential instruction of the legislation. The declarations of Bush were of a completely other kind, they made it explicit that the president was above the law.” Glenn Greenwald.

“We are often painted as young immature radicals in their pajamas who are fulminating against Bush behind the computer. That image is not correct.

[…]

[I blog] following all journalistic guidelines. That surprised […] journalists. They had not idea that political bloggers were highly educated professionals.” Bob Geiger

Of course there are critics:

“It is fascism with a Mircrosoft-face” Culture editor of The New Republic

• Beautification of death

We’re all dead. Shocking, perhaps, to hear, but not surprising to realise that “in the long run, we’re all dead” (Keynes). People try to avoid talking about death, and avoid it like the plague, because it’s simply…’unnatural’. It’s taboo, it’s bad omen to talk about death.

But death t’s as natural as birth, only the opposite end of life. And we make it into such an elaborate ceremony and imagine that we’d like to death a dignified and beautiful death. Which is often not the case:

“[…] discussions about death are […] useful and good, even if it is just to over a counter balance to the myth of the ‘peaceful deathbed’. It may happen, just as well as the problem-free birth, but in practice it is often the screaming, uncontrollable panic, the complete chaos in which things run their course, with the added exasperating feeling that [this is not according to the norm]. Because the norm should be: father, mother, tired but content, well in bed at home, a heartening word for everyone, and then eyes closed. Renate Rubinstein talked about ‘the conspiracy of the normal’, and that is indeed it mostly appears to be: a conspiracy of the propagandists of ‘good nature’, who want to smoothly iron out everything that is in reality brutal and cruel. The death bed as a tea party, the death bed as refined circle of discussion.”

Stephan Sanders, ‘Samenzwering’ [Conspiracy], p96, 1 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

When you’re dead, you’re dead.

• Max van Weezel, ‘Koningin op kousenvoeten’ [Queen on stockings], 17 June 2006, p 23, Vrij Nederland

It’s happened before, so it’s not big news. That prominent people visiting mosques are refused handshakes should not make news. For Muslims, a man is forbidden to touch another woman, unless it’s his wife; it’s part of their culture and tradition. So when Queen Beatrix visited the Mobarak Mosque in Den Haag and did not shake hands with anyone out of respect, it should be accepted like in other countries. But parliamentarian Geert Wilders made a big fuss about it. And along with Rita Verdonk who also made a big fuss about it on a couple of occasions, people like them tarnish the image of the Netherlands as a multicultural safe haven.

“George W. Bush declared the war on terror but hastened to say that he had nothing against Muslims. Recently the American president publicly apologized for the word crusade that he had used in the Spring of 2002 in ‘the heat of the moment’. When last summer the underground of London was attacked, Tony Blair immediately said that he remained a proponent of the multicultural society.

I would know of no other country where primary and secondary issues are so confused as in the Netherlands. Where instead of terrorism, the religious conviction of people are fought against. Where the guaranteed freedom of religion in the Constitution for a great minority apparent no longer applies. In the rest of Europe no minister would [make a big fuss] because an imam refused to shake her hand. Rita Verdonk did just that.”

[…]

“The Dutch government can fare better not putting its energy in forcing imams to shake the hand of a woman against their belief. Rabbis after all do not do that either.”

• Carel Peeters, ‘Verlichters moeten romans gaan lezen!’ [Enlightened people must read novels!], 17 June 2006, p 84-89, Vrij Nederland

(Re)Assessing the meaning of enlightenment is essential to anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the modern world and society. Depending on your perception of what the enlightenment meant, and what it brought to humanity, the way you perceive society and its progress (or regress) will dramatically different.

“The core of the Enlightened Mind is the conviction that the use of reason, the ratio or the rationality will heal humanity and forever free it from the clutches of ignorance and dependence. Directly tied to this is the conviction that every person possesses an inalienable own value, and that he expresses it with his independence and maturity.”

How do different people perceive the Enlightenment?

“The neo-conservatives (and the conservative-liberals, the fundamentalists, and a part of the postmodernists) […] perceive the Enlightenment as the source of the shameful state in which our civilisation has landed in. the Enlightenment [had] provided for a fragmented society, shot-up freedom, godlessness, nihilism, a pornographic world, egoism and materialism.

For the large group of relativists and conciliators (where the postmodernists, multiculturalists and anit-globalists belong) […] the Enlightenment is associated with the conquering of the world, and thus with the current unimpeded rationalisation and globalisation. For relativists […] the Enlightenment is ‘a complex whole’ that has in the past two centuries brought us blessings (human rights, pluralism, welfare), a lot of calamity (communism, fascism) and a whole lot of dubious developments (chilling rationalism, capitalism, consumerism).

And then there are of course Enlightenment-fundamentalists [who] defend in a radical and simplistic manner the core ideas of Enlightenment philosophies (separation of Church and State, equality of man and woman, autonomy of the individual) against the absolute core ideas of (Muslim-) fundamentalism (unity of State and Religion, man has dominance, Allah has the final say).”

And it is these Enlightenment fundamentalists we should be aware of:

“Typical of the Enlightenment fundamentalists [especially against Islam is that their] whole approach of political and social problems is characterised by a lack of subtlety and [a] simplification of the heritage of the Enlightenment. They themselves see it as necessary radicalism, called upon by the extremism of political Islam […].”

• Willem Offenberg, ‘Kleine Draak pest Grote Broer’ [Little dragon bullies Big Brother], p74-81, 24 June 2006, Vrij Nederland

An article in Vrij Nederland about the Taiwan-China issue. There’s not much new, nothing that I’ve not already written about, but it’s interesting to see a long piece dedicated to the background and insights surrounding the situation.

On the importance of (peace in) the Taiwan Straits:

“Dozens of ships make use of this strategically important sea route which for the great exporters Japan, China and Taiwan is just as essential as the [English] Channel for West-Europe. Eventual reunification would also affect surrounding countries. China would then control the [busiest sea] route of entire Asia.”

On Taiwan’s (untenable and ridiculous) pariah status:

For most Taiwanese is union with the motherland not as unpreventable as it was for Hong Kong or Macau. Taiwan stands on its own feet and has a high, western standard of living. The island state can continuously be assured of American military support, such as is stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act. Even so, Taiwan remains a pariah. In 1971 it had to relinquish its seat in the United Nations to the People’s Republic of China. At the beginning of this year, at the outbreak of the bird flu in the region, Taiwan remained isolated from medical assistance of the World Health Organisation and other UN organizations.”

On how most Chinese see the issue of Taiwan:

“ ‘Militarily the Taiwanese [are no match]. If we want, we can wipe them off of the map…’

Most Chinese I speak to react just as militantly. Chinese saber-rattling can count on support from many, it appears. Often a polite discussion about reunification ends suddenly with a sharp: ‘They must reign themselves in, those Taiwanese, otherwise we [will obliterate them].’ Possibly the strong reaction is a result of a feeling of inferiority after years of [trailing behind Taiwan]. […] ‘Taiwan is Chinese territory as much as Tibet is,’ you often hear them say.”

On the intellectual and cultural differences between the two sides:

“[Taiwan’s reconciliation with its authoritarian past is] a sign of Taiwan’s maturity. China is not yet ready for this […] As long as China continues to suppress the dark pages in history, such as the whitewashing of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the bloodbath on [Tiananmen] Square of Heavenly Peace, there can be no reunification.”

On the West and the rest of the world’s double standards:

“In the meantime, the West still dances willingly to the pipes of the Great Dragon. The Chinese fever has also reached the Netherlands. Highly espoused principles about democracy and ‘evenhandedness’ go overboard as China approaches the status of superpower even closer.

The answer to the question which side the West shall choose in the even of an armed conflict, that of the Great or Little Dragon, dictatorship or democracy, is [according to Taiwanese professor Samuel Ku] also predictable. The West will remain pragmatic, he has no illusions about this. In contradiction to our ‘moral high ground’, a morally superior coupling of democracy and human rights, economic interests shall prevail.”

Here is an insight into the China’s murky workings and dealings of the ‘World’ Health Organisation.

• Oussama Cherribi and Pieter van Os, ‘Houd toch op Nederland vol te noemen’ [Please stop calling the Netherlands full], 15 & 16 July 2006, Opinion, p7, NRC Handelsblad

Recently an artificial lake was created in the north of the Netherlands for recreational purposes. The ‘Blauwestad’ (Blue City) is around 800 hectares. And an area twice that size (the size of Amsterdam) is planned for new housing. The creation of the lake involved flooding of vast treks of land that for many years stood idle, and was a project which attracted great attention. If the Netherlands has the spare land and money to create lakes for recreation, why do the majority of people believe that the country is “full”? Why do people here believe that there is not enough room for immigrants or asylum seekers? A great contradiction.

“[You] do not have to google for more than a minute to learn that […] Puerto Rico is significantly more densely populated, as are South Korea, Taiwan, and the state of New Jersey. Not to mention city-states like Singapore, and urban agglomerates like Los Angeles, Atlanta and New York. In the latter, ten million people live in a region that is one fortieth [of] Dutch land area.

Of course the border between densely populated and over populated is relative. It is but what you call a country and what a province. We know this better than anyone else, because for centuries we governed Java, that as a country with more than 114 million inhabitants would today be the most densely populated in the world. ”

Problems of the Netherlands being ‘over populated’ were in the past politically incorrect, but today seems to have become the norm in public opinion. It is not just a wrong reflection of reality, but also greatly damaging, for the economy and the country’s international reputation. Where does the opinion that the country is ‘full’ come from? From problems of integration and from problems within the allochtonous population who have been socially and economically left behind.

“[…] problems exist with the integration of big groups [of the population], often unemployed guestworkers who came to the Netherlands since the sixties. Especially through the side effects of the welfare-state and the difficulty that allochtones encounter on the job market, in a certain way they have passed employment onto a young generation, together with all the criminality and other difficulties thereof. But they are problems that require thorough solutions from the Minister of Social Affairs in particular. They call for a sensible reform of a stagnated welfare-state, [and] not for a Minister for Integration with little plans like a ban on speaking a foreign language in public space […], neither [does it call for] futile civic examinations or for refusing to talk to an imam who does not give you his hand [to shake].”

And it’s pointless to point everything that’s wrong with the country to the immigrants. In times of economic stagnation, people have a tendency to do this.

“Of the participants in the current football world championship, to name but one embarrassing example, coincidentally only the Ivory Coast achieved less economic growth in the past year than the Netherlands. And the Ivory Coast is torn apart by a civil war.

As long as politicians continue to behave like agents of patronage and do not have the spine to force xenophobia back, there is no escaping from the vicious circle downwards, economically, socially, and in international relations.”

• ‘Stellingen’ [Statements], 15 & 16 July 2006, Opinion, p7, NRC Handelsblad

“The way in which humanitarian law, as is laid down in international conventions and treaties, is being ignored by the international community in humanitarian crises in developing countries, stands in stark contrast with the strictness with which the Dutch government enforces its asylum policy.”
Jan Geer van Uffelen, Wageningen University

“Nationalism exists with the grace in lacking knowledge about [one’s] own culture.”
R.C.E. Teszelszky, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

“It would be beneficial to the quality of media reporting if now and then the eagerness for news of journalists yields place to eagerness to learn.”
Barbra van Gestel, Universiteit Leiden

• Another look on sex tourism

“The basis is that for as long as in Third World countries, the sexual interests of North American and European men are a perfect match for the feeding (economic) interests of local women, the business of matchmakers will thrive.”

• A cabinet in crisis

Marcel ten Hooven, ‘Om het behoud van de macht’ [About the maintenance of power], p14-20, 8 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

The coalition government between the CDA (Christian Democrats), VVD (Liberal Party) and D66 (Democrats-66) fell due to a number of issues that were already simmering beneath. The Ayaan Hirsi Ali affair simply sparked the fire waiting to ignite. And though Minister Verdonk’s unprofessional behaviour underlined the misplaced priorities of the current government. It seems that government would rather save one minister than earning trust and credibility in the eyes of the public.

“The biggest problem with Minister Rita Verdonk is that she does not know [how] to separate herself in the egomaniac [she is] from her [government] function. Such a separation is not a matter of abstract administrative law, but desirable to prevent arbitrariness in the relationship between the state and the citizens.”

Worse, there seems to be no room for compromise or any other way other than the chosen way:

“In the policy of Verdonk [the] averseness to compromise manifests itself in […] impatience and in the ambition to solve the problems with the integration of Muslims and other allochtones within one generation, in a ‘shortcut to enlightenment’.”

And I wrote before already, the way the AHA affair played out exposed the ex-parliamentarian Hirsi Ali to disproportionate pressure from the government. Here it is described again, but on a more general note:

“Due to the unequal power relation with the state, citizens must be able to blindly trust that their interest are in safe hands with the government. That demands a sense of responsibility with politicians and appeals to their ability to act with integrity, care and transparency. The ‘all’s well, ends well’ extenuation of a minister who shifts the responsibility of her own failing to her victim is then misplaced.”

The governing coalition seems to have lost its original self-proclaimed mission to bring trust and unity back into society:

“According to [Prime Minister Balkenende restoring the lack of confidence] required an ideologically outstanding leadership, with far reaching reforms of the welfare state as the objective. The goal was not only [reforming the welfare] benefits system […] but expanding the say of citizens over their own lives, at the expense of the bureaucracy.”

What does this new ideology (or great moral calling of the CDA) entail? According to Piet Hein Donner, the CDA Minister of Justice:

“The basis for communal involvement of people with the government and society should be sought in the understanding that fundamentally different views of life living together [as a community] is not a self-evident, but requires continuous prudence, empathy and self-restraint.”

Instead, the AHA affair, among others, has illustrated how it governs on the basis of political capital and pragmatism. Gone are the aforementioned traits of ‘prudence, empathy and self-restraint’. That Verdonk pulled in votes for the VVD was not a secret, but why should the CDA and the prime minister be concerned for Verdonk’s political wellbeing and sacrifice political stability to shelter her from criticism? Just shows how hypocritical and stubborn the current administration really is.

• On gated communities

The conflict in Lebanon did not just expose the cruelty of terrorists and a state which reacted disproportionately, as well as the incompetence (or perhaps compliance?) of the international community to prevent a man-made humanitarian crisis. It also underlined the phenomenon of ‘gated communities’: that some people’s lives are worth more than others because they are of a different nationality. Once more, we human beings have managed to create that sense of belonging—or not—based on trivial criteria like identity and race. A global apartheid, in a community of men and women:

“[…] but the whole idea that the world more and more appears to be like a global village is pertinently wrong: gated community, that is the word. There, behind the gate, stand the wrong passport holders, here the right ones. We are all brothers, till the customs do us part.”
Stephan Sanders, ‘Vuist’ [Fist], p82, 29 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

• Joschka Fischer, ‘Van oorlog tot vrede’ [From war to peace], p80-81, 29 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

The former German Foreign Minister argues that the current crisis in the Middle East is an opportunity for peace. Behind the exchange of fire on two sides, neither is wholly guilty, but neither is wholly innocent either.

“The current war in Lebanon is not a war of Arabs against Israel, but much more a war of radicals which reject every reproach toward Israel. In fact, it is about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad on the Palestinian side, Hezbollah in Lebanon and further [about] Syria and Iran. This ‘rejection-front’ has sought escalation for three reasons. First of all, in order to go against the pressure from the Palestinian people on Hamas to recognise Israel. Second of all, to ground the democratisation process in Lebanon. And in the third instance, to force the continually escalating conflict about the Iranian nuclear programme to the background, and to show the West what they are capable of.”

[…]

“[the rejection-front] has proved the return to a status quo in Lebanon impossible. The rejecters have made their hegemonial claims to power, by Tehran especially, visible to the whole world.”

So more a desperate attempt for attention and to achieve selfish political ends (with all means necessary) than a self-justified end to struggle for the sake of the Palestinian people. Israel is not helping in its staunch (read murderous) retaliation campaigns:

“Israel has a key function […]. The country has twice already pulled back to internationally recognised borders, namely from Lebanon and Gaza, and twice the answer from over the border was the answer. Land for war, and not land for peace was the anwer. Israel’s right to exist is being threatened after all those years of peace talks, which were conducted on the basis of the pricinple of the two state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace with its Arabic neighbours appears further away than ever. The country is falling back to a strategy of military superiority.”

[…]

“On the other side of the destruction and misery, has the recognition of a new strategic threat [against Israel] not led to renewed reflection?”

One side should bite their pride and stop this ‘ey

e for an eye’ skirmish before it descends into regional chaos. And Israel, being the militarily superior power, as well as the ‘odd one out’ should take that bold step.

“Israel, at the moment, has only engaged itself in massive [a] deterrence [campaign], but it would be good to use the political possibilities of this war as well, and take the initiative from the position of power [it possesses]: with a comprehensive peace offer to all parties who are prepared to recognise Israel, not only in words, but also in deed, and who is sincerely prepared to refrain from violence.”

• Janneke Donkerlo, ‘De ingeburgerde illegaal’ [The integrated illegal], p26-33, 29 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

In the current climate (read: trend) of expelling illegal immigrants, VN takes a look at a number of illegal immigrants who have built up a good life here, and are no less Dutch than the average Netherlander.

“Thomas [has been] illegal in the Netherlands [for] twenty years, Dimitri seven years, Anna six. Illegal, so what? Anna has never been arrested. Just like Dimitri and Thomas they behave very decently, more decently than some Netherlanders perhaps. If you behave well—lights on your bike, [stamping ticket] in the metro—the police leave you alone. Only if you make a mistake, do you attract attention.”

• Just came across a fascinating fact that escaped me. It appears some years ago scientists in Japan managed to breed an embryo using just two egg cells. Bryan Sykes wrote at the time that this development may one day make men redundant in reproduction.

• TV and Internet on the train!
  

As soon as December this year, people travelling on the train here in the Netherlands may be able to enjoy the comforts of home: wireless internet and TV screens!

• Man receives €2.144.607,90 energy bill

A man came back from holiday to find that in the two months he was away he ‘used’ 20.000.000 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 102.284 cubic metre of gas. When he called the energy company Eneco to protest, a telephonist said that he must first pay the bill, and then they can look into the matter. Of course, the company later admitted there must have been a mistake, and that he didn’t have to pay after all.

I use Eneco too, and really their billing and customer services are just poor. Hope I don’t get a €3million bill because of that…

Fireworks or something else...?

 

Fireworks and bombs

Just returned from the firework festival at Scheveningen.

To be honest the firework display was a little disappointing. A lot of the ‘high shooters’ were hidden behind dense fog and clouds that they were little more than flashes of light in a thunder storm. I guess that left something to the imagination.

Still, it was beautiful, all those sparks and explosions in the air, mirrored on the surface of the sea to give it that double effect... And it was that mirror effect that triggered a thought in my mind. Reflection, if you like.

The longer I watched and the more I heard the loud and shocking bangs that trembled and echoed everything in the surroundings, the more I was reminded of the events in the Middle East (or elsewhere for that matter). That ear-piercing shrill of shooting fireworks, the dense smoke escaping from the ends of each and every explosive as it soared into the heavens before disintegrating into a million little sparks, the heart shuddering detonations.

What difference is a firework display from exchange of fire between warring parties?
I cannot know because I’ve never been through war.
But many in the world have.
I could only imagine.

When I just closed my eyes while I sat on the beach, those explosions could have been Scuds, Katushyas, Patriots, Exocites, Tomahawks raining down on us. We didn't flee to air raid shelters, we didn't fear and feel buildings tumble and crumble around us. Instead we were drawn to the lights, the spectacles, the illusions and dazzles that played out before us in the skies. We watched in awe and silence as the miraculous display of lights and sounds took our breath away. We even raising our hands to clap when the show ended, silently hoping it never would end.



Elsewhere people dare not watch. People tremble, people pray, in a last ditch attempt for mercy and for dear life. People howl and weep as mindless killers take their beloved ones away. People raise their hands to the heavens and to the 'other' in a sign surrender, hoping the show-down would soon be over.

Where I was, people lost themselves temporarily in a daze and indulged in sensory pleasures in the company of family and friends.

Elsewhere, people are lost in a permenant nightmare, traumatised by the physical and emotional pains, not knowing how much longer they may have the fortune to enjoy the company of family and friends.

The irony...the contrast.

Writing from Beruit

Weblog of Abdelkader Benali (in Dutch)

An excellent and insightful personal account of events from this Moroccan-Dutch writer from within the war-zone. Really evocative writing, expressing the torments of a healthy mind trying to deal with the unhealthy chaos taking place.

14 July

“Children play on the streets, in this way they escape from the business of their parents and the violence above their heads, they release their energy and linger for a moment in a self-made world.”

15 July

“Peace is pointless, but war is even more pointless. War may have no name, it does not deserve one.”

16 July

“Time and space were changed by the situation. That sounds crazy, but come down here and you will understand it immediately. An example: toothbrush and razor, very simple things for a man. Now, that toothbrush has gotten a special meaning because he came to become part of my survival baggage. I brush my teeth, and am crazy about my toothbrush. My adoration for the toothbrush knows no limits.”

17 July

“More death, more infrastructure struck and [there is] the growing realisation that Israel is busy with a campaign of revenge lacking in any kind of logica, and that pays respects to nothing and no-one. Up till now, only Lebanese have bee hit, and no one of the Hebollah-faction yet. This is ‘shock and awe’.”

“Refugees are the dead who are still breathing.”

18 July

“The BBC, CNN, they hang onto the lips [words] of my friends here, if they are in the mood to speak. But they have become a little tired from the repeated stories that Hezbollah is a peculiar movement which does the country more bad than good. What they say about Israel is later cut out. The audience would find that [only too] confusing.”

“You see people [who are] excited and people who cannot take the tension and nerves and seize at every opportunity to leave. Then you have people who are dangling in between, back and forth, to and fro, like a star that makes the passage through space every night. I belong to that group.”

“Every time if I want to get myself laughing, I do something ridiculous: I say Hezbollah in the way that the Israelis say it: the Arabic s’s become sharp z’s and it shorts short, as if Hezbollah is one word instead of three: Party of Go. I break out laughing, thanks to the Israelis specialists. I am afraid, thanks to the Israeli army and the population, half of whom according to me do not know they are being deceived (but who am I to say that from here) by their leaders. Leaders who do not want to exchange soldiers for Lebanese prisoners, leaders who want to speak the language of war. They have found a partner in the conflict: Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah leader].”

22 July

“The Middle East stands in flame and the Dutch reader is sedulously searching for the hero and the bad guy. The bad guy, Hezbollah, would quickly be found if Israel did not cause so much destruction and death with so much men and force. Is Israel not also a bad guy in this insane story? In collective memory the [average] Netherlander [has been prepared] to see Israel as the possible bad guy—evens now [as] the Dutch media is carefully sketching a more critical image. Israel is the land of milk and honey, the land that proliferates itself as a western country and sometimes, if it suits her, as an exotic fruit in the perverted Middle East, a bastion of enlightenment and reason. That image is now being tainted, by it will revive itself, because the collective memory is more difficult to bombard than a residential district.”

Conflicting consent

Cartoon by Thomas Boldt, The Calgary Sun

The failure to reach a concrete plan to stop the conflict at Rome is being interpreted by Israel as consent by the international community to continue its offensive!

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.

Shocking...

--
FROM: Joschka Fischer, ‘Van oorlog tot vrede’ [From war to peace], p80-81, 29 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

Meanwhile, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer argues that the current crisis in the Middle East is an opportunity for peace. Behind the exchange of fire on two sides, neither is wholly guilty, but neither is wholly innocent either.

“The current war in Lebanon is not a war of Arabs against Israel, but much more a war of radicals which reject every reproach toward Israel. In fact, it is about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad on the Palestinian side, Hezbollah in Lebanon and further [about] Syria and Iran. This ‘rejection-front’ has sought escalation for three reasons. First of all, in order to go against the pressure from the Palestinian people on Hamas to recognise Israel. Second of all, to ground the democratisation process in Lebanon. And in the third instance, to force the continually escalating conflict about the Iranian nuclear programme to the background, and to show the West what they are capable of.”

[…]

“[the rejection-front] has proved the return to a status quo in Lebanon impossible. The rejecters have made their hegemonial claims to power, by Tehran especially, visible to the whole world.”

So more a desperate attempt for attention and to achieve selfish political ends (with all means necessary) than a self-justified end to struggle for the sake of the Palestinian people. Israel is not helping in its staunch (read murderous) retaliation campaigns:

“Israel has a key function […]. The country has twice already pulled back to internationally recognised borders, namely from Lebanon and Gaza, and twice the answer from over the border was the answer. Land for war, and not land for peace was the anwer. Israel’s right to exist is being threatened after all those years of peace talks, which were conducted on the basis of the pricinple of the two state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace with its Arabic neighbours appears further away than ever. The country is falling back to a strategy of military superiority.”

[…]

“On the other side of the destruction and misery, has the recognition of a new strategic threat [against Israel] not led to renewed reflection?”

One side should bite their pride and stop this ‘eye for an eye’ skirmish before it descends into regional chaos. And Israel, being the militarily superior power, as well as the ‘odd one out’ should take that bold step.

“Israel, at the moment, has only engaged itself in massive [a] deterrence [campaign], but it would be good to use the political possibilities of this war as well, and take the initiative from the position of power [it possesses]: with a comprehensive peace offer to all parties who are prepared to recognise Israel, not only in words, but also in deed, and who is sincerely prepared to refrain from violence.”

Summary of the World

Interesting and thought provoking summary of the world from Nationsonline
There's also tonnes of useful information about individual countries and the world in general! Site worth a visit

If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

81 would be from less developed countries with a gross income per capita and year of US$ 3,580, 19 would be from developed countries with a gross income per capita and year of US$ 22,060. There would be 61 Asians, 12 Europeans, 13 Africans, 9 would be from South America and the Caribbean, and 5 from North America including Canada. 75 would be non-white, while 25 would be white. 60 would mistrust their own government. No wonder, that the governments mistrust their people. 60 would live within 62 miles of a coastline. 50 would be female, and 50 would be male. 50 would rely in some manner on coastal and marine habitats for food, building sites, transportation, recreation, and waste disposal. 48 would live on less than US $2 a day. 48 would lack access to basic sanitation. 47 would be urban dwellers. The world's urban areas are expected to surpass rural areas in population around the year 2005 29 would believe in witchcraft. 25 would live in substandard housing or have no home at all. 20 would live on less than US $1 a day. 17 would be under 18 years old. 16 would lack access to safe drinking water. 16 would be unable to read and write. 14 would suffer from malnutrition. 10 would live in least developed countries. 8 would have Internet access from home. 4.5 would be citizens of the United States 1 would be infected with HIV/AIDS. 1 would be near death, and 1 would be near birth. Only 1 would have a college education. Half of the entire village's wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people, and most of them would be citizens of the United States. When one considers our world from such an incredibly compressed perspective, the need for cooperation, tolerance and understanding becomes glaringly apparent.

Culinary delights

Did some last-minute shopping at the supermarket on Sunday, and managed to pick out bits from here and there and cook up this for my visiting cousin and his wife...


Stampot [Dutch hodgepot: mashed potatoes with spinach, peper and salt seasoning] with rookworst [smoked sausage]

Grilled garlic-flavoured salmon with Italian mixed herbs

Steamed mussels with seafood seasoning, challotes, white wine

Stir-fried paksoi with shitake mushrooms and garlic

I CAN cook! : ) 

Sorry excuse for war

Day 12 of the conflict.

Two members of your armed forces are kidnapped, and an entire country and its innocent civilians must pay for this radical move by a lonesome terrorist organisation. Talk about disproportionality!

But two soldiers to Israel, a state that’s a black sheep in the predominantly Islamic and Arabic Middle East, is a big deal:

“[the] abduction of the soldiers was particularly combustible. As it is, such acts strike deep into Israel's soul. It is practically a sacred notion in the Israeli military that nobody is left behind. And because the nation has a citizen's army and Israel's population is so small, hostage taking is felt intimately; if it's not your son or your neighbor's son, it could be.”

Lisa Beyer, ‘Hate Thy Neighbor’, p24-29, 24 July 2006, Time

Israel is bitter that Hamas has managed to make the transition from a military force to a political force in the Middle East. From the very beginning Israel has refused to cooperate with the newly democratically elected government, and still claims that it is a terrorist organisation, on par with other organisations like the Hezbollah—the one responsible for sparking the current conflict—or Al Qaeda for that matter.

“Hizballah is the wild card. There is always the possibility it could try to order up terrorist attacks against Israeli and Western targets around the world. If pushed to stop fighting, the group could lash out against its critics in Lebanon, unleashing the forces of civil war that ravaged the highly sectarian country for 15 years until 1990, and creating a new field of instability even as the U.S. struggles with crises in places like Iraq and Iran. Israel's strikes against Lebanon have provoked Shi'ite radicals in Iraq, who are threatening to attack U.S. troops in retaliation.

[…]

[…] Hizballah, which was created in 1982 to resist Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon, has internal political incentives to act against Israel. […] Hizballah counters that given the weakness of the Lebanese Army, a disciplined guerrilla force is needed to deter Israeli aggression. And what better way to remind the country of that aggression than to provoke some by capturing a soldier or two?”
Lisa Beyer, ‘Hate Thy Neighbor’, p24-29, 24 July 2006, Time

But Israeli stubbornness and refusal to engage in dialogue is dangerous, and the hardened reaction to invade Lebanon and bomb whatever it pleases has again robbed Israel the image of ‘victim’ in the Middle East, and exposed the aggressor for what it really is.

“Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted on us?”

Lebonese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, 20 July 2006

To be fair, Israel is simply seizing an opportunity to disarm, or at best if possible decapitate Hezbollah, which among with other extremist (Palestinian) militants often fire home-made rockets into Israeli territory

“Most Israelis know the offensive has come at a heavy price--to civilians on both sides, to Lebanon's infrastructure and to Israel's reputation abroad. But from the government's point of view, it is necessary and it is working.”

Lisa Beyer, ‘Hate Thy Neighbor’, p24-29, 24 July 2006, Time

“It is true that Israel is no longer fighting for its existence as it did in 1967 and 1973, when Arab forces penetrated the country. Today's issue is the degree of pain the enemies of Israel's hardline policies can inflict. The state is secure but this crisis has heightened every Israeli's sense of individual insecurity.”

Jonathan Steele, ‘How could both sides have blundered so badly?’, The Guardian, July 21, 2006

In war casualties are not restricted to only military personnel. You do not shell cities and claim it was done as ‘self-defence’. What nonsense! Such indiscriminate attacks on civilians amount to war crimes and blatant violations of international law. And when you start blockading ports, cutting off power supplies and water, erecting barriers and checkpoints to prevent the flow of much needed food and medicine into already destitute areas, do not be surprised that the word ‘fascist’ comes to mind. Fascist, justified and upheld by the belief that they alone are the true inheritors of the ‘holy land’, and that all others who reside there are only third-class citizens susceptible to the whims and mercy of an ultra-religious state, which seeks shelters and approval from an equally belligerent and self-interested superstate governed by Bible-clenching neo-cons.

“The post-9/11 era has marked a new high in Israeli-U.S. relations, with Washington abandoning its past practice of criticizing Israel when it acts severely toward the Palestinians or other Arab parties.”
Lisa Beyer, ‘Hate Thy Neighbor’, p24-29, 24 July 2006, Time

And the conflict on the borders is just the frontline, frontline masking the continuing atrocities and refugee crisis in Gaza.

Violence only begets violence. And we’ve seen this in the last few days, that every time Israel attacks Lebanon, rockets are sent flying over Israeli territory. And the world’s greatest military force does nothing; not a even condemnation, just a few words of urging ‘restraint’.

“The most alarming aspect of the unfolding crisis in the Middle East isn't how many actors are jumping in. It's who is opting to stay out. Hamas, Hizballah and Israel are directly involved; Iran and Syria by proxy; Lebanon against its will. The U.N. is dispatching its mediators; the European Union is contemplating doing the same. But the U.S., despite colossal strategic stakes, threats to its own security, potential repercussions in Iraq, not to mention staggering loss of life, remains on the sidelines. The world's sole superpower is also its only no-show.”
Robert Malley, ‘Time to Start Talking’, p30, 24 July 2006, Time

Underlying this non-intervention in a cause that obvisouly calls for the world’s one and only superpower to be involved—if not out of moral and peace concerns, then at least out of trying to prevent the escalating tensions from drawing members of the ‘axis of evil’ into the conflict—is the belief that:

“[…] engagement is a reward, misbehavior ought not be rewarded; ergo, misbehaving parties are not to be engaged. The thinking is that isolation, ostracism and, if need be, sanctions are more likely to get troublesome actors to change their ways. And so the list of diplomatic outcasts only grows. Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hizballah.”
Robert Malley, ‘Time to Start Talking’, p30, 24 July 2006, Time

Or perhaps the Americans simply have too much (mess) on their hands, given the situation in Iraq, and a defiant Iran. Or perhaps the US are sitting by and even tacitly supporting, or even rejoicing at, Israel’s bullying of its Arab neighbours.

The EU is at least trying to do something, if only debate up till now, but seems genuinely preoccupied with the escalating war.

[...] there are actually four wars, or species of war, going on in the Middle East just now: in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That is in addition to the occupation of the West Bank, the tension arising from Iran's perceived nuclear ambitions and Syria's involvement with the Hezbollah militias.
Peter Sain ley Berry, 'Anything is possible but the violence first has to stop', EUObserver, 21 July 2006

In the wise words of remarkable and eruditory statesman, King George W. : “Stop doing this shit!”

TV War—on the televisation of war in Iraq

Letter to Israel—by a Lebanese blogger

Heart wrenching—a story from the other side of the conflict: the civilian side.

“The Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre said 10 cars carrying civilians and three or four motorcycles had been hit by Israeli missiles yesterday. Red Cross ambulances were no safer […]”

A refreshing analysis from the left—Tariq Ali on the current crisis.

“[…] Israel's actions today we can detect many of the elements of hubris: an imperial arrogance, a distortion of reality, an awareness of its military superiority, the self-righteousness with which it wrecks the social infrastructure of weaker states, and a belief in its racial superiority. The loss of many civilian lives in Gaza and Lebanon matters less than the capture or death of a single Israeli soldier. In this, Israeli actions are validated by the US.”

Possible diplomatic solution in a real humanitarian crisis:

“[…]Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, to denounce them as "a violation of humanitarian law".

"It is horrific," he said as he toured the ruined Haret Hreik district of Beirut yesterday. "I did not know it was block after block of houses. "It's bigger, it's more extensive than I even could imagine."

Israel’s indiscriminate attacks:

“In a powerful speech to foreign diplomats on Wednesday, the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, pointed out that Israel was not only killing civilians and destroying huge chunks of the country's infrastructure, but had also hit army barracks. "Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions? Is this the message to send to the country of diversity, freedom and tolerance?" he asked.”