A Tale Of Two Islands, by Vijay Prashad

Yes, we've been through hell and back:

The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was a hyperactive, deadly, and extremely destructive season, featuring 17 named storms, ranking alongside 1936 as the fifth-most active season since records began in 1851. The season also featured both the highest total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and the highest number of major hurricanes since 2005. All ten of the season's hurricanes occurred in a row, the greatest number of consecutive hurricanes in the satellite era, and tied for the greatest number of consecutive hurricanes ever observed in the Atlantic basin since records began in 1851.

But the point of this post is to contrast the approaches of two islands to the threats, and it's done effectively by Vijay Prashad. I'll let him "speak":

one island, a poor socialist state with infrastructure in grave need of modernisation, has slowly emerged out of the chaos caused by a hurricane’s wrath, while the other, a territory of the richest country in the world, cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.

You should read the entire article for yourself. Here is just a piece:

While Cuban journalists and brigades fanned Cuba to provide information to the authorities about destruction and reconstruction, Puerto Rico went dark. Communications collapsed and information about the damage was not easily available. While in Cuba the authorities tried to get exact information of the damage done to each home, in Puerto Rico the numbers thrown about were the price tag for recovery—between $40 billion and $85 billion is the estimated insurance claims that will likely be triggered by the devastation. It says a great deal about the different approaches to disaster: one makes sure each person is tended to and the other worries about the cost of the recovery.

READ IT!

*****

Oh, and a footnote related to Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis.

The extraordinary Ethiopian philosopher Zär’a Yaqob

Not only because of the advanced thoughts of Zar'a Yaqob, which must be attributed to his personal insight and no direct influence of a school or stream, his treatise is important for historical research. Especially in Hegel's philosophy of history, which ascribes no philosophical ambitions to Sub-Saharan Africa, Zar'a Yaqob offers a perfect counterexample, since he lived about 200 years before Hegel. Other racial theories find in him a counterexample. Wikipedia: Die freien Enzyklopädie

Casa del Libro:

Zar'a Yaqob means "Scion of Jacob" and is the name of a man who must be regarded as a significant thinker of the 17th century. He lived from 1600 to about 1693/94 u.Z. in the Ethiopian highlands. In this time of fierce religious conflict between the Catholic and Coptic churches, Zara Yaqob posed the question of truth and found in the human mind the only relevant instance of knowledge. At the request of his pupil Waldä Heywat ("son of life") he wrote his insights as a Hätäta ("essay") in the form of an autobiography. Waldä Heywat continued the book of his teacher with his own Hätäta. Zar'a Yaqob could not fall back on a rich tradition of science and philosophy in formulating his thoughts as did his contemporaries in Europe. Precisely for this reason, it is important to mention that the study of his essay by Claude Sumner results in a comparison of Zär'a Yaqob with Rene Descartes, which also shows that modern philosophy began in Africa at the same time as in Europe

Read more about this extraordinary African HERE, of which I will only highlight the following quote:

In chapter five, Yacob applies rational investigation to the different religious laws. He criticises Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Indian religions equally. For example, Yacob points out that the Creator in His wisdom has made blood flow monthly from the womb of women, in order for them to bear children. Thus, he concludes that the law of Moses, which states that menstruating women are impure, is against nature and the Creator, since it ‘impedes marriage and the entire life of a woman, and it spoils the law of mutual help, prevents the bringing up of children and destroys love’. In this way, Yacob includes the perspectives of solidarity, women and affection in his philosophical argument. And he lived up to these ideals. After Yacob left the cave, he proposed to a poor maiden named Hirut, who served a rich family. Yacob argued with her master, who did not think a servant woman was equal to an educated man, but Yacob prevailed. When Hirut gladly accepted his proposal, Yacob pointed out that she should no longer be a servant, but rather his peer, because ‘husband and wife are equal in marriage’.

What Exactly is 'Openness'?

A friend of mine posted a riposte of Angela Merkel to Trump which went like this: “It is not isolation and the building of walls that make us successful, but open societies.” I think we need to step back for a minute and ask what exactly is this "openness"? Surely open-mindedness is something that is emulated in liberal societies and we all probably agree that to have an open mind is desirable. Close-minded individuals, on the other hand, are to be avoided along with the attribute. That said, I think something is hidden here. "Openness" is sometimes uttered by politicians in the same breath as "free trade" (open trade or globalization), but they aren't the same thing. If they were synonymous, why does free trade or "globalization" also produce losers? Open-mindedness seems to us unequivocally positive while globalization obviously isn't (or at least not under certain circumstances). Someone, as we say in Spanish, might be trying to sell us "gato por liebre". As economists, we teach the so-called "virtues" of free trade (globalization), but with a very important caveat that is so easily forgotten. In my graduate international economics class, I teach the virtues of free trade, quantifying out of a very simple model what are called the "gains to trade". The principle "virtue", I tell my students, is precisely the enlargement of the "economic pie" resulting from specialization according to the comparative advantage of nations. It all seems simple, logical and quite reasonable when I demonstrate the concept on the board with numbers. However, I am also obliged to explain the caveat, which is that *free trade* produces both losers and winners. So while on the one hand, the economic pie is made greater by free trade, the latter must be followed by a redistribution of the pie in order to compensate the losers for their dire predicament which resulted directly from te implementation of said *free trade*. This is then depicted as a "win-win" for everybody because people are thereby able to partake in said enlarged pie. All good and well, right? Well, it so happens that things sometimes don't seem to turn out that way in the real world. President Bill Clinton explained the virtues of this free-trade induced *pie enlargement* when he sold NAFTA to the US public. The problem was that the losers were never compensated or compensated inadequately! We know that the Republicans do not believe in re-distributive policies, and Democrats seem as of late to lean more and more toward Republican policies, so there doesn't seem to be much prospect for re-distribution among the main political choices in America. Hence the losers were left to fester. The garment workers whose jobs "departed" for Mexico and China were not only never compensated, but the much heralded "retraining" of laid off workers from such "sunset" industries to enable adaption and subsequent employment in the "sunrise" industries which were to replace them was inadequate. ...And the politicians of both parties went their merry ways and forgot all about the "losers". The latter, to make a long story short, became bitter and elected Trump! So my point with this little ditty is that Trump is as much the fault of Liberals as it is the fault of those "Tea Partiers" who Hillary so disparagingly called "deplorables". Food for thought which I am uniquely capable of providing instruction on since it is my profession. Further reading on the subject is provided in the following PDF.

Originally published at LinkedIn.

Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter

The Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to English playwright, screenwriter, director and actor Harold Pinter nearly twelve years ago. Although Pinter had been stricken with a serious infection at the time of the award (he died a few years later), he videotaped his Nobel Lecture, "Art, Truth and Politics", and projected it at the Swedish Academy on the evening of 7 December 2005. It should be viewed by everyone (particularly Americans) who has the opportunity to do so:



Wikipedia:

Pinter's career as a playwright began with a production of The Room in 1957. His second play, The Birthday Party, closed after eight performances, but was enthusiastically reviewed by critic Harold Hobson. His early works were described by critics as "comedy of menace". Later plays such as No Man's Land (1975) and Betrayal (1978) became known as "memory plays". He appeared as an actor in productions of his own work on radio and film. He also undertook a number of roles in works by other writers. He directed nearly 50 productions for stage, theatre and screen. Pinter received over 50 awards, prizes, and other honours, including the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005 and the French Légion d'honneur in 2007.

This is How Empires Fall

The headline (above) is obviously an oversimplification. Nevertheless, given the premium placed on knowledge in today's advanced economies, THIS is a telling piece, and it must be read from beginning to end.

I share this fear:

I fear we are moving beyond a natural skepticism regarding expert claims to the death of the ideal of expertise itself: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople, teachers and students, knowers and wonderers—in other words, between those with achievement in an area and those with none. By the death of expertise, I do not mean the death of actual expert abilities, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors and lawyers and engineers and other specialists. And most sane people go straight to them if they break a bone or get arrested or need to build a bridge. But that represents a kind of reliance on experts as technicians, the use of established knowledge as an off-the-shelf convenience as desired.
(...)
The larger discussions, from what constitutes a nutritious diet to what actions will best further U.S. interests, require conversations between ordinary citizens and experts. But increasingly, citizens don’t want to have those conversations. Rather, they want to weigh in and have their opinions treated with deep respect and their preferences honored not on the strength of their arguments or on the evidence they present but based on their feelings, emotions, and whatever stray information they may have picked up here or there along the way.

This is a very bad thing. A modern society cannot function without a social division of labor. No one is an expert on everything. We prosper because we specialize, developing formal and informal mechanisms and practices that allow us to trust one another in those specializations and gain the collective benefit of our individual expertise.

Qiyan Music & Abdel Karim Ensemble

I am choosing to start off the New Year with some sublime music.

From the 8th to the 13th centuries, female slaves trained in musical composition and performance, the recitation and composition of poetry, the art of embellishing their conversation with entertaining literary and historical anecdotes, the crafts of calligraphy and shadow-puppetry, as well as other art forms, were one of the most elegant and refined expressions of Islamic culture in Spain. These women (Ar. qiyān) were major contributors to, and conduits for, the transmission of the arts during the golden age of Islamic Spain (Ar. al-Andalus).

Also, not to be missed:



Abdel Karim Ensemble, (above):

Formed by professional musicians from several countries (Syria, Egypt, Morocco and Spain) and under the direction of Abdel Karim, this ensemble has the purpose of studying and popularizing Arabic classical music. Its repertory includes music from throughout the Middle East, from Turkey to Egypt, ranging from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Abdel Karim Ensemble also performs Andalusian Arabic music, a genre that originated in Al-Andalus, Islamic medieval Spain, where it was cultivated as a poetic-musical form known as Muwashaha.

Syria Update

Elijah J Magnier, from whose blog I am quoting, below, has a pretty good track record in reporting on the Middle East. In his personal blog, he describes himself as a "Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 32 years’ experience covering Europe & the Middle East. Acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria."

His analysis in this particular POST includes a very cogent synopsis of what a Clinton administration policy might look like regarding Syria. As we should all know by now, there was recently a serious but perhaps futile attempt by the US and Russia to eke out a "seven days cease-fire during which humanitarian convoys would be allowed into besieged areas (in Aleppo, I assume) by both the belligerents." If anything, it was an attempt by the two principle suppliers of war machinery to this conflict to seek an alternative to the continued obliteration of the country by the belligerent parties. While we can engage in endless discussion of whether or not this was indeed a fool's errand, at least it was an attempt to begin seeking a different solution to the problem. Who knows what could have developed afterwards if it had succeeded? As we all now know, the "plan" was stillborn. There are some important indicators as to whom may have ultimately been responsible for the failure of the plan, but that isn't the most important "message" of the piece.

Elijah J M's analysis of the situation in Syria as stands is both thoughtful and well-informed, and merits being read in its entirety (everyone will undoubtedly arrive at their own conclusion as to who ultimately caused the plan to fail, but the whole truth may likely never be known, lost as often is the case in these situations amidst the "fog of war"). Nevertheless, there is one party whose actions are unequivocal, and Elijah J M makes this patently clear:

But what happened and why did the agreement failed?(sic)...
Al-Qaeda, excluded from the ceasefire deal, has no interest in seeing it working. Its forces, along with US vetted group of Ahrar al-Sham and Beit al-Maqdes attacked the Syrian forces south of Syria, at al Hader, supported by the Israeli Air Force. Twenty-one artillery positions were destroyed by the Israel Air Force hours before the attack along the Golan border.

Elijah J M's most significant attempt at a "prediction", however, is encapsulated in the title of the piece: The mistrust between Washington and Moscow portends a long war. In particular, he states:

"Hillary Clinton, if she becomes president, understands that the Kremlin is determined to protect its interests in the Levant; and that the war in Syria concerns Russia directly because it demonstrates success or failure in the Middle East. The US will do its best to see Russia and Iran drown in Syria and will not accept that the US administration has failed to reach its goal."

Considering the photos/reports of the tragic situation in Syria which the western (and particularly the US) mainstream media have chosen to highlight for some time already (as opposed, say, to those depicting the equally dire situation in other places like Yemen) we can only say (if we accept Elijah J M's eminently plausible "prediction") that such reporting is once more a reflection of the utter hypocrisy of western governments that have no intention whatsoever of seeing an end to this tragic conflict. The reports and photos of casualties in the western press are mere props in a politically motivated propaganda campaign of one-upmanship. The Syrian people be damned as long as the west can bleed the Russians dry in an ongoing proxy war which nobody can know the ultimate duration of.

A Thinly Veiled Threat to the Freedom of Speech in the U.S.A.

While I have been following these disturbing developments over recent years, the renown American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair (among other important issues) Robert Parry, has summed them up in a timely and hard-hitting piece that even shocked me to my core. While doing an excellent job of summarising and providing links on the subject of the United States propaganda onslaught against Russia, which revolves primarily but not exclusively around happenings in Ukraine, it is his observations in the latter part of his ARTICLE which shook me and should trouble the American public in general. He quotes a piece in the Washington Post:

“U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions. … “The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia’s ability to spread disinformation. … A Russian influence operation in the United States ‘is something we’re looking very closely at,’ said one senior intelligence official,” while admitting that there is no “definitive proof” of such a Russian scheme.

Parry correctly points out:

The danger of this investigation – and what a normal news media would focus on – is the U.S. government taking an unfocused look at how Russia supposedly influences the U.S. public debate, a probe that could easily cross the line into questioning the loyalty of Americans who simply dispute what the U.S. government is claiming about current events.

The following sent chills down my spine because in my own interactions with people on the social media, I have already been accused of this on several occasions:

In other words, any reporting or commenting on significant foreign policy issues could open a journalist or a citizen to a U.S. government investigation into whether you are part of some nefarious Russian propaganda/disinformation scheme. This McCarthyistic investigative style has already begun to have a chilling effect on public debate in the United States where dissident views on Russia, Syria or other hot topics are quickly disparaged as enemy propaganda. Almost anyone who questions whether a new, costly and dangerous Cold War is necessary is immediately tagged as a “Russian agent of influence,” a “Putin apologist,” or a “Moscow stooge.”

I want to take this chance to reiterate what I have been and will continue arguing every chance I get over the social media about this supposed new "Cold War" developing between Washington and Moscow, owing largely to the instigation of the former, but I will do it via a quote from someone far more eloquent than I:

"Western diplomats, politicians, and media are highly selective about tyranny. Boris Yeltsin’s state was not much superior to Vladimir Putin’s. Yeltsin used tanks to shell his own parliament. He waged a barbaric war in Chechnya. He blatantly rigged his own re-election with the aid of foreign cash. He practically sold the entire country. Russians, accustomed to corruption as a way of life, gasped at its extent under Yeltsin’s rule. Yet he was counted a friend of the West, and went largely uncriticized. Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who locks up many more journalists than does Mr. Putin, who kills his own people when they demonstrate against him, and who has described democracy as a tram which you ride as far as you can get on it before getting off, has for many years enjoyed the warm endorsement of the West. His country’s illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, which has many parallels to Russia’s occupation of Crimea, goes unpunished. Turkey remains a member of NATO, wooed by the E.U. As for Saudi Arabia and China, countries much fawned upon by the Western nations, the failure to criticize these for their internal despotism is so enormous that the mind simply refuses to take it in. But I need not go on. The current attitude toward the Putin state is selective and cynical, not based upon any real principle."

I can't really add much more perspective to that very congent observation. However, I want to end this post with the following, which was brought to my attention by a dear friend and former teacher. Please see it all the way through:

You have not lived...

Until you've witnessed this. I'm doing you a favor.



You're welcome!

The "Deep" State

This is the big story of our time. Whether you accept it or not is another question entirely.



...And for a current example of the "Deep" State pulling at strings to achieve its goal, you needn't go much further than THIS.

"The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics", by Martin Jacques

Very interesting article, this is...

"Few recognise that we are at the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate..."

Indeed!
I wish I could be as sanguine as the author. I just don't know. Perhaps he's correct, in which case we can expect a return to Rooseveltian (New Deal) policies. Will that work? Conventional wisdom claims that it wasn't so much the New Deal as it was the Second World War that ultimately helped overcome the Great Depression. I doubt that war is an option nowadays, but maybe the ruling class wants to go down that road regardless. It would certainly explain the bellicose language being deployed against Russia and China.

Of Silk Roads and the U.S.A.

Pepe Escobar has been reporting for some time now on developments in the Far East, among other places. Keeping tabs on Mr. Escobar is a good way to keep tabs on everything "China", including several promising Silk Road initiatives. His latest article for my favorite blogger gives the following enticing summary:

Thanks to a set of cross-pollinating political institutions, investment funds, development banks, financial systems, and infrastructure projects that, to date, remain largely under Washington’s radar, a free-trade Eurasian heartland is being born. It will someday link China and Russia to Europe, Southwest Asia, and even Africa. It promises to be an astounding development. Keep your eyes, if you can, on the accumulating facts on the ground, even if they are rarely covered in the American media. They represent the New Great -- emphasis on that word -- Game in Eurasia.

However I don't think these initiatives, as he asserts, lie largely under Washington’s radar. Washington is well aware of them and though it may currently not know if it should thwart or join them, I believe the latter choice will wisely prevail in the long run. To cite a recent Brookings paper:

Many major economies in Asia, such as Australia, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam want to be part of both Chinese initiatives (the AIIB and the “One Belt, One Road”) and the American-led effort to reduce trade barriers.
(...)
There is a risk that the competing initiatives of China and the United States will lead to regional blocs and a disintegration of trade, but it is more likely that Sino-American competition will lead to strengthened institutions and deeper integration throughout Asia-Pacific.

Read both articles in their entirety.

Rhiannon Giddens

Rhiannon Giddens: A kindred spirit in more ways than one:

When her white father and black mother wed, "it was a huge deal, even for Greensboro," Giddens notes grimly. "They had to go to another town to get a license."

Rhiannon Giddens is an American musician. She is known as the lead singer, violinist, banjo player and a founding member of the Grammy-winning[1] country, blues and old-time music Carolina Chocolate Drops. She is a native of Greensboro, North Carolina and a 2000 graduate of Oberlin Conservatory where she studied opera.

More Rhiannon HERE.

We’re Not Going Back!

A 2015 Celebration of African American Culture and Struggle, by the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Hon. Ras Baraka.

Letting the Neoconservative Cretins Lead

The wisdom of Robert Parry:

But just pause for a minute and contemplate what would have happened if President Obama had followed neocon advice last year and launched massive air strikes to take out Syria’s military over dubious allegations that it was responsible for a Sarin gas attack. Though Official Washington’s “group think” is that somehow, magically, the virtually non-existent “moderate” Syrian opposition would have taken over and everything would have worked out just wonderfully, the much more likely result would have been that radical Islamists, either the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, would have seized power. The black jihadist flag might very well have been flying over Damascus.

P.S. - The links are mine.

Of course, there are many wise individuals we seldom hear from:

It is time for the US to recognize that since it launched its war on terror, the scourge has only spread. The Afghanistan-Pakistan belt has remained “ground zero” for transnational terrorism, and once-stable countries like Libya, Iraq, and Syria have emerged as new hubs.

And finally, there is one chart that I urge any and every-one to view.

BLUE (The legendary piano of Yarmouk)

My usual joy in the piano gave way to melancholy as I watched a dystopian reality unfold in the video: five young men stand shoulder to shoulder facing the piano; they sing along despite the bitter cold that shivered in their malnourished bodies. They tuck their hands in their pockets and sing along with the angry piano notes: “O displaced come back, the traveling has been far too long.”

The legendary piano of Yarmouk

The Thrasybulus Syndrome.

“Violent remedies, though they make one safe from one aspect, yet from another . . . involve all kinds of weaknesses. ... Francesco Guicciardini

The relentless destruction of Gaza and its inhabitants continues, as well as the concomitant back-and-forth propaganda wars in the western media. Perhaps Americans should take the time to consider this excellent article by Professor David C. Hendrickson of Colorado College, titled The Thrasybulus Syndrome: Israel’s War on Gaza. Why Americans? Well, I'll let the good professor explain it to you in his own words:

No prudent foreign policy should ignore the motive for retaliation we give by recklessly using force in the Islamic world ourselves or by identifying the United States so closely with Israel. Adverting to this phenomenon two centuries ago, then-diplomat John Quincy Adams wrote that to take an eye for an eye allowed the allied powers ranged against France to “glut their vengeance for the wrongs” they had received from France, but Adams believed that they were “laying up stores of wrath for the day of wrath in revenge for those which they are inflicting.”

Boycott Israel!

A sample of United Nations Resolutions violated by Israel over the years:

# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation.
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem.
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

Ahad Ha'am's prescience

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (18 August 1856 – 2 January 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am (Hebrew: אחד העם, lit. one of the people, Genesis 26:10), was a Hebrew essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. He is known as the founder of cultural Zionism. Disturbed by what he saw in 1891, Ahad Ha'am wrote (among other things) about Jewish relationships to the native Arabs:

"We must surely learn, from both our past and present history, how careful we must be not to provoke the anger of the native people by doing them wrong, how we should be cautious in our dealings with a foreign people among whom we returned to live, to handle these people with love and respect and, needless to say, with justice and good judgment. And what do our brothers do? Exactly the opposite! They were slaves in their Diasporas, and suddenly they find themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only a country like Turkey [the Ottoman Empire] can offer. This sudden change has planted despotic tendencies in their hearts, as always happens to former slaves ['eved ki yimlokh – when a slave becomes king – Proverbs 30:22]. They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency."

Over a century later, this stands out as a sad sad commentary on humanity (our lackof it).

NELSON MANDELA 18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013

Bigger than Life:

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Xhosa pronunciation: [xoˈliːɬaɬa manˈdeːla]) (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary who was imprisoned and then became a politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the first black South African to hold the office, and the first elected in a fully representative election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid through tackling institutionalised racism, poverty and inequality, and fostering racial reconciliation. Politically an African nationalist and democratic socialist, he served as the President of the African National Congress (ANC) from 1991 to 1997. Internationally, Mandela was the Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1998 to 1999.

Nelson Mandela Digital Archive Project