Snippet 6 -- U.N. Names Complicit Companies

The U.N. human rights office on Wednesday released a list of more than 100 companies it said are complicit in violating Palestinian human rights by operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank -- a first-ever international attempt to name and shame businesses that has drawn fierce Israeli condemnation

The list’s publication after repeated delays escalated a looming showdown between Israel and the international community over its more than half-century policy of building settlements in the West Bank.  Emboldened by a new U.S. Mideast initiative, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annex Israel’s more than 100 settlements, while the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague has indicated she will soon launch a war-crimes investigation into settlement policies.

The list included well known global companies, among them consumer food maker General Mills and supermarkets, tech and communications giants Motorola Solutions and Altice Europe, and infrastructure companies like France’s Egis and Alstom, and British company JC Bamford Excavators.  112 firms involved in practices that raised human rights concerns, such as settlement construction, security services, banking and equipment that was used to demolish Palestinian property.

In a statement, Netanyahu called the rights council “unimportant.”

But there are other international companies, including travel firms like Airbnb, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Booking.com and Opodo. Many offer vacation rentals in the settlements.

Associated Press

Politics 6 - Israel/Canada

When I initially began this Blog site, it was not my intention to write about any one subject, e.g., Politics, more than once each month.  But reading the Canadian media this morning has annoyed me so much that my patience has disappeared.

I am referring to the behaviour of Mr. Baird, Canada’s Foreign Minister, at a committee meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly yesterday, where he voted, No, together with only six other countries;  Israel, the United States and four small South Pacific island nations – Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, for resolutions against Israel.

I doubt if anyone reading this could point to these islands on a map and, thus, we can be excused for any suspicious thoughts we may have for their behaviour.

It is especially annoying as we know that Canada’s, so-called, majority government only received one-third of the popular vote at the last election, and it seems to me, as I read the newspapers today, that many who did vote for this government are also expressing great disappointment today.

It amazed me that Mr. Baird could state, “This series of resolutions against Israel is generally one-sided, and unbalanced ...”  Does he not realize that the resolutions are “one-sided and unbalanced” because the rest of the world does not accept Israel’s terrorism.  Additionally, if both Russia and China would not abstain or veto against these resolutions, we should see a very different Middle East.

Mr. Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, said that it will affect the role Canada can play in the Middle East.  In the past, Israel asked Canada to intervene with Arab governments to moderate criticism. “I don’t think that would be possible today,” he said.  I agree.

Politics 5 - Utopian Conflict

The probability of war in a state of Utopia can be assured if it happens to be inhabited by human beings.  Humans often yearn for greater things, just as explorers sought for something beyond the rainbow creating the need for sailing ships, which led to conflict and, thus, the enthusiasm for building stealth fighter jets, which would be pointless if unused ... would they not?

Ownership is a form of power and (as we know) ultimate power ultimately corrupts.  The human animal is possessed of this characteristic much more than other animals and, therefore, finding a Utopia on this Earth is unlikely, unless .... 

In the Utopia that I would have mastery over, there would be a major constitutional statement made, apart from the usual Freedoms, which would be the prohibition of any form of military conflict.

Ha, what a dreamer this guy is!

Well, I agree that the world is unprepared for such an idea today.  Therefore, let us discuss a future possibility.

Obviously, a form of deterrent must be developed — remember, we are dealing with human beings — and policing would be necessary.

Thus, each country would have a defence system composed entirely of armed UAVs (drones) controlled by highly advanced intelligent computers with decision-controls unable to be overridden by humans, and capable of determining the probable type of any threat and dealing with it — purely as a defensive action, and incapable of escalating into an extended attack mode.

It is also assumed that a future U.N. should have full and fair powers, without any veto, throughout the world, that would mandate this idea globally.  The result, hopefully, would be a world free from conflict and free from effective human interference.

Politics 4A — An Addendum

Open Note To The Prime Minister

Sir, as you know, the Canadian biassed system of government elections gave your party a majority of representation in the House of Commons.  Nevertheless, you should never forget that the majority of Canadians did not vote for you.

Therefore, your recent pro-Zionist stance at the U.N., something that was not evident in your election manifesto, although not surprising considering your record, comes as a huge annoyance to those pro-Palestine voters among us who believe that we are in the majority.

Many of us belief that the Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a huge international problem that will only worsen if Israel continues to build on occupied land and ignore the U.N. General Assembly resolutions against it.  For example, would you be prepared to send the Canadian Forces to assist in the future defense of Israel, or accept their use of nuclear weapons?

Therefore, considering the global consequences of your action, I demand that you institute a Canadian Referendum on the subject for or against Israel’s unacceptable behavior ... or even an abstention.

P.S., I realize that you are unlikely to read this, but I feel much better for having written it.

Comments please.

Politics 4 - A Palestinian State

I do not think that there is one subject to be discussed that avoids politics.  Even religion cannot be discussed without involving politics.  One of my posts discussed tipping in restaurants in which I avoided the possibility of a government ban on the subject.  Could we discuss organic foods without the Ministry of Food applying some regulations?  Could I spank my child’s bottom without the police knocking on my door?  Could I walk my dog in the park without a regulatory-designed leash ... well, probably, that will be next.

Could a tiger nurse orphaned piglets?  Could a polar bear play harmlessly with tethered husky dogs?  Could a lion hug and lick a woman who had cared for it earlier?  I am sure that some of you have seen these videos, but I digress ... could humans live together in peace?

Time and time again the U.N. has asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, constantly, they refuse.  Iran has signed, has permitted inspections, yet we demand that only Iran provide discrete details, because Israel says that it “knows” that Iran poses a nuclear threat.  Israel bombed a nuclear power station in Iraq where, later, international experts could find no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the ruins.  Later, the U.N. released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accused Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish).  Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

Finally, let us diligently read UN General Assembly Resolution 3376 (one of many) that states:  "Reiterates all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem"

Now, today, a slight, usually quiet man, President Mahmoud Abbas, stood in front of the U.N. General Assembly to cheers and almost tumultuous applause, to say that he believed that it was time for Palestinian statehood ... and I am one person who believes that this day has been a long time coming.

I wonder if you agree with me?

Politics 3 - Jerusalem

I wonder if the name Jerusalem is a religious or political thought in your mind.  Certainly, it is a city of religious significance, but today, politics overshadows almost all forms of religion there.  Of course, some choose to bring religion to the fore, specifically, Judaism and Islam, and one is bound to question the position of Christianity in all of this.

In this discussion, I wish to focus on the political aspect of Jerusalem.  What is Jerusalem — is it Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or all the above?  In my view it is all the above, in which case, for either one of the two present antagonists to decide its future without consultation with the others is doomed to failure.

Therefore, what is the answer?

In my opinion, there is only one answer, and I have never seen it mentioned before ... division.  At least, I have not seen it mentioned in the following way.

Now, before you look for the Comment button, please continue.

Presently, the Israelis declare, without any consultation, that Jerusalem will always be the capital of Israel.  At the same time, the Palestinians say that it should be the capital of Palestine (There shall be a Palestinian State).  It seems that the Christians will have no say in the matter.  Therefore, the situation may be described as a solid stalemate.

The answer can be seen by using the Vatican City as a model — a city state within a state.  It works perfectly.

Jerusalem must become a city state, bordered by Israel and Palestine, but governed by neither of them.  The city could be controlled (governed) by a representative group of all three religions within the population and, citizenship and security (for example) for residents could be equally state controlled within the city.  There may be a request for U.N. Peacekeepers initially because, as a religious city, citizens will not be permitted to carry arms ... amongst other things.

Finally, the capital of Israel would be Tel-Aviv and the capital of Palestine could be Ramallah, regardless of the agreed borders of the two countries.  The latter requires a separate discussion.


I wonder what you think of this idea?