No Comic Relief

Extremism, Fellow Feeing, Political Violence, The Commons, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

You know things are bad when we look to comedy writers for wisdom.  But that is what I want to do today. Recently, John Oliver began his television show by setting aside his regular introduction and speaking from the heart without making any jokes. That is not like him. So he did not offer any comic relief. In fact he didn’t really offer any relief at all, but he did offer some wisdom. More than many of our political leaders. So I want to turn this forum over to him. This is what he said soon after the horrific violence committed by Hamas in its attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023:

 

“I want to briefly talk to you about what has briefly been a horrible day. The immense suffering in Israel and Gaza has been sickening to watch and we are not going to be covering in the main body of our show for a couple of reasons.

 

First, it was horrific and I don’t really want to tell jokes about carnage and I’m pretty sure you don’t want to hear them. And second, we are taping this on Saturday afternoon and you’ll be hearing it on Sunday evening or on Monday through an illegal VPN. I do know who I’m talking to. Given how fast things are moving a lot could change between the time I’m saying this and the time you hear it. I do have a few broad thoughts that I still think will still apply. They have to do with sorrow, fear, and anger.

Sorrow is the first and most overwhelming feeling. The images we have seen this week and onwards have been totally heart-breaking. Thousands dead in Israel and now Gaza will be devastating not just to the people in the region but to diaspora communities across the world. Whatever thoughts you have about the history of this region or the current state of affairs, and I have shared mine in the past on this show, it should be impossible to see grieving families and not be moved. So there has been sorrow this week and lot of it. And also fear. Understandable fear of further attacks in Israel, and those taken hostage, and fear about what is to come in Gaza, as Israel’s leaders seem intent on embarking on a relentless bombing campaign, mass displacement, and a potential ground invasion.

I don’t know where things stand in Gaza right now, but all signs seem to be pointing towards a humanitarian catastrophe. Israeli official announced plans to cut off food, water, fuel and power. Hospitals are running low on generators. This has all the appearance of collective punishment which is a war crime.

I think many Israelis and Palestinians are feeling justifiable anger right now. Not just at Hamas whose utterly heinous terrorist acts set this weeks’ events in motion, but also the zealots and extremists across the board who consistently thwarted attempts at peace across the years. Israelis and Palestinians have been let down by their leadership time and time again and I don’t have a great deal of faith in the current leaders in charge to steer us toward peace. But I do still have some hope because the easiest thing to do in the world after a week like this is to engage in blood-thirsty rhetoric. And there has certainly been plenty of that from those in power, but I will say I have been struck by the ordinary citizens, both Israeli and Palestinian, who have called for restraint this week and not revenge.

 

Just listen to how Noy Katsman, whose brother Heim was murdered by Hamas last Saturday, ended this interview:

 

“I just wanted to say one more thing that is the most important thing for me and I think for my brother was that his death not be used to kill innocent people. I don’t want anything to happen to people in Gaza like happened to my brother. And I’m sure he wouldn’t want it either. So that is my call to my government—stop killing innocent people. That’s not the way to bring peace and security to people in Israel”

 

Right! People want and are entitled to peace. I’m not going to tell either side how to get it. Certainly not in this accent [English] which has done enough damage in that region to last a fucking lifetime. But just know that all the people who want to live in that region are going to keep living there. So peace is not optional and will require some tough decisions. I can’t say where a peace process ends but it just has to start with that kind of an ability to recognize our common humanity.”

 

 

 

Acquiescing to Extremists is not the Answer

Extremism, Political Violence, True Believer, War Between Israel and Hamas

A cousin of mine has responded to one of my recent posts by saying, rightly so, that “Hamas has now proven to be nothing more than a ruthless killer and terrorist organization.” I agree. But I wanted to reply on my blog since not all of my faithful readers go first to Facebook. That is why I wish more people replied on the blog site rather than Facebook, but each has a choice and I am happy when people respond.

As I told my cousin in my Facebook reply (with a few additional comments and corrections):

There is no doubt that people have the right to defend themselves from attacks. Governments must defend their people from such attacks. There is also no doubt that Israel was subjected to a vicious by a terrorist organization, namely Hamas. Nothing Israel has done justifies raping, murdering, and killing innocent women and children.  I do no support what Hamas has done.  I renounce it unequivocally. That does not mean that Israel has an unlimited right to retaliate.

As Nicholas Kristof said in the New York Times:

“Israel has suffered a horrifying terrorist attack and deserves the world’s sympathy and support, but it should not get a blank check to slaughter civilians or to deprive them of food, water and medicine.”

 

I just heard on the news recently that, according to Hamas, and so far uncontradicted by Israel, that more than 4,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the Israeli siege and about half of these are children. Is that justified? Israel says unlike Hamas it does not deliberately attack children. But is Israel so reckless about whether or not civilians are killed that there is really no difference between that and deliberate targeting of civilians?

I also recognize that Israel is surrounded by murderous enemies. That makes a difference. How would we respond in the same situation? But Israel claims the higher moral ground. To justify that claim it must act accordingly. Using superior brutal military power to effect mass killings on Palestinians is not the way to do that. There is a better way.

I wish Israel had not turned its country over to its worst extreme elements when it elected Netanyahu and the religious extremists with whom he has aligned himself.

When two groups led by religious extremists do battle there is not much room to protect the innocents on either side.

You started it

2018 Trip to Iceland, Political Violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

A good friend of mine said Hamas was more to blame than Israel in their latest dispute because they started this current fight?  Is he right?

I suspect a lot of people would agree with him. After all, it was the common defense we used when growing up and our father or mother told us to stop fighting. ‘But he started it,’ we would shout out. We thought that was a good defense, but our parents rarely accepted it. Why was that?

In the current war in Gaza between Hamas, reputedly on behalf of the Palestinians in Gaza, Hamas launched a vicious attack against Israel about 2 weeks ago. So, you could say Hamas started it, but is it really that simple?

I don’t believe it is that simple, because really this dispute between Palestinians and Jews started 75 years ago, or earlier, right after the state of Israel was declared in 1948 and during that long history a lot has happened. Both sides have often acted badly. Frankly I have a lot of trouble figuring out which side is worse.

The recent brutal violence by Hamas was brutal beyond my imagination.  The retaliation by Israel has also been horrific.  As Democratic strategist Paul Gegala said,

“The violence was so barbaric that 14 days later, 200 of the 1,400 bodies can still not be identified. That is how savagely mutilated they were.”

As a result of the Israeli bombing and complete siege of Gaza  the crowded hospitals are running out of medicine, the fuel for generators in those hospitals needed for light and equipment is often insufficient and may soon run out, and physicians are forced to perform surgeries using sewing needles and patients are given vinegar as disinfectant and nothing for pain. No anesthetics in some cases. Think about that. Surgeries without anesthesia.

Recently, Israel has allowed some  paltry  supplies  of medicines to trickle in that are wholly inadequate for a population of about 2 million people under siege.

I am not saying the two sides are equivalent. I am just saying that  weighing the atrocities against each other is not that simple. Neither is it sufficient to say who started it all. That is impossible to untangle. Unfortunately, war and terrorism are ugly, and sometimes it’s is very difficult to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

 You pick which side you want to cheer for.

A Big Problem in the Middle East

Political Violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

There is a big problem right now in the Middle East and it is not just that Israelis and Palestinians are pummelling each other in a  brutal mayhem.  The fundamental problem is that both sides are de-humanizing each other. They are both to blame. As Hussein Ibish, an Arab Middle East scholar, said on CBS’s Sunday Morning:

“Nothing can excuse the terrorist rampage committed by Hamas. They murdered hundreds of Israelis and made no preparations for the 2 million people of Gaza to survive the inevitable retaliation. Israel is responsible for avoidable civilian deaths and for cutting off all basic necessities for the Gaza Palestinians now under collective attack. Civilian deaths could easily rise into the tens of thousands. How did it come to this?

 

The history is long a disputed. Yet today a structurally unsustainable inherently explosive situation prevails. In the territories controlled by Israel since 1967 there are roughly equal numbers of Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Muslims and Christians. All 7 million Jewish Israelis have citizenship and full human and legal rights as do the 1 million Palestinians citizens of Israel. But the 5 million Palestinians under occupation don’t.

 

In a world made up of states and their citizens the stateless Palestinians are unique because they have no citizenship in Israel and yet, no state of their own. The occupation forces Israelis and Palestinians into a toxic relationship of dominance and subordination. This unnatural relationship insures periodic outbreaks of atrocious violence.

 

The conflict involves individual and group malice on both sides. But structures of violence are hard-wired into any relationship defined by the control of one people by another in a contest for land and power. Israelis and Palestinians must stop dehumanizing each other.

 

Hams killed Israelis indiscriminately. Israel says it is confronting “human animals” in Gaza. People treated like animals sometimes act like animals. It’s a self-reinforcing shared pathology. Israelis and Palestinians must rehumanize each other and eventually cooperate in replacing the violent occupation and resistance with genuine coexistence. That can only be sustained between equals. Humans who respect each other’s full humanity recognizing that we are all no better and no worse than each other.”

 

The Israelis and Palestinians can continue their current relationship. Both have good reasons to do that, but then both parties must recognize that continuing in the way they are doing will ensure nothing better will happen. By now it is obvious to everyone that neither side will beat the other into submission. That status quo will ensure endless pain.  Then both sides will be deciding that they want the killing of women, children, the elderly, and civilians to continue.

But both sides must realize there is a better way.

The Case of Richard Thomas

Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools

 

Duncan McCue of CBC travelled to Penelakut, an island off the coast of B.C., and the site of the Kuper Island Residential School. The community has torn down the reviled building, but the dark memories of what happened at the nearly-century old institution linger. Survivors James and Tony Charlie gave him  a tour of their old school grounds, and they looked into the mystery of what happened to one boy, Richard Thomas, who did not make it out alive. He died at age 15. He was he was the brother of Belvie I blogged about earlier.

The only thing that was certain about Richard’s death was that it was not caused by natural causes. Richard was found dead hanging from a rope thrown over a light fixture where the students discovered the body. Some children suspected the priest who had been regularly mean to Richard for some reason also killed him. Others think Richard was driven to suicide by the intolerable repeated abuse that he suffered. The priest was charged with sexual assault in another case, but died before the trial.

The first few years at the school Richard actually wanted to become a priest. That was a big deal. Indigenous people rarely had such aspirations.

However, Richard’s enthusiasm for the priesthood dwindled after a few years in school. Days before his graduation from Kuper Island, Richard phoned home and let his family know how excited he was about his graduation. He also said when he got home he was going to talk about everything at the school. He did not say what it was.  His family never heard from him again. Two days later the police called and told the family Richard had committed suicide. They didn’t believe it. Why would a boy who was so excited about his graduation commit suicide so close to the glorious event? It made no sense.

The coroner told them it didn’t seem right and suggested they look into it.

Richard and Belvie’s mother tried to find out from the Oblates, a religious order who ran the school at Kuper Island. She was told, “You have heard all you’re going to hear.” People had told McCue that the reason Richard was upset was that he had heard his parents were divorcing. This was not true. They were never divorcing. They remained together.

Another story circulated through the school that Richard had been killed. Given the circumstances this made sense. Belvie believed Richard was murdered. Much of the podcast series by the CBC explores what happened to Richard Thomas.

The Police Investigate Kuper Island

Exploitation, Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

I will give a trigger warn ing here. Some of this post is very graphic and people might find it disturbing.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported about a 1939 police investigation into the Kuper Island residential school that had been sparked by a series of cases involving children running away from school/home. After months of archival requests, the CBC team got a copy of the report. It was a RCMP report about 6 boys who took 2 canoes from indigenous people on the island.

The RCMP officer who was investigating though did not do what officers usually did, namely march the kids back to school. He was actually interested. This officer actually asked the children for a statement. He asked the children why they had run away. 2 students said they did not want to go back because it was “ bad.” Another said a priest, whom he named, tried to commit “unnatural acts” with him. Parents of all 6 boys did not want to send their sons sent back to the school. The fathers were very angry. One threatened to go to the school with a shotgun. The officer suggested follow up was needed. As a result the RCMP gathered more than 50 statements. The officer said, “I am convinced conditions are not as they should be re the school.”

Here is a statement by one student:

“One day just before Christmas [name redacted] took me out on his boat. He told me to take my pants down in the boat as we were going to go to bed. “If I didn’t,” he told me, “I am going to throw you off the boat into the water.” He got into bed beside me. He tried to stick his thing into me. He could not get it in. So he asked me to play with his thing. I had to do it because I could not get away from him.’

 

There were multiple reports from girls who said the church Fathers were assaulting them in the laundry room. McCue said “the volume of statements here is staggering. This isn’t just one or two kids who are saying this. This is dozens of children.”

Then the Department of Indian Affairs [‘DIA’) got involved. What did they do? They tried to have the officers labelled as insubordinate! But they changed their strategy after reading the statements of the children. The priest who took the boy out in the boat was assigned to another mission in another province, where, of course, he was free to molest again.

A school employee was dismissed.  The Department of Indian Affairs (‘DIA’) arranged for him to leave the province too. As a result, the local Catholic Bishop sent furious letters to Ottawa. Bishop J.C. Cody wrote, “Though quite cognizant of certain breaches of morality, I fail to see any advantage in ruining an institution because of some individuals supposed or even real misdeeds.” He didn’t even care if the allegations were true! Since the suspects were out of the province the case was closed. No further investigations. No charges were laid.

Duncan McCue of the CBC reached what I believe was the right conclusion: “As far as the government and church were concerned, investigating and prosecuting wrong doers took a back seat to protecting the school’s reputation.” After full investigation nothing happened!

So, for Belvie, one of the girls at the school, the abuse continued. One day a father told her that her brother was sick and asked her to follow him to the infirmary. That was unusual because girls usually did not mix with their families or others in the school. There she met another man—one of the priests. He grabbed her and covered her nose and she passed out. When she regained consciousness, she was on the floor naked. She did not know what had happened. She went to the bathroom because semen was running out of her body. She was 11 years old.

Although Belvie did not report it to the authorities it is highly unlikely that anything would ever have happened. As Duncan McCue said, “In the 85-year history of the residential school at Kuper Island, only one person was ever charged—Glen Doughty. But it was clear there were many serial abusers at the school. Not just one bad apple as you so often hear. And it wasn’t only male employees. ”

Belvie made a startling remark about the nuns: “They had no time for us, unless they were sexually abusing us.” Belvie endured 5 years of abuse at Kuper Island, until she left in 1962. But her brother Richard had to stay. More about him later

 

Ronildus Maximus

Conservative, Right-wing Extremism

 

Rush Limbaugh worshipped him like no other. He called him “Ronildus  Maximus.” This is what Limbaugh said about why he liked Ronald Reagan so much:

“I have to rank Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Certainly of my life time. Ronald Reagan demonstrated that all you have to do is unshackle the American people. Let them exercise the freedom that is the natural yearning, God-given of the human being—and nobody can stop them. Reagan said, you know better than anybody else what’s best for you and you’ll do better for yourself if people just get out of your way.”

 

That was American conservatism in a nutshell and it is not entirely unattractive.  I would not call it right-wing extremism.

 

Ronald Regan put it this way: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it is just that they know so much that isn’t so.” That is a pretty sly critique, and again, not without its attraction.

Rush Limbaugh however was different.  Very different. He was a right-wing extremist.

 

Saint Ronald: The Great Communicator

Conservative, Indigenous--Indian Act

 

After he lost the nomination for the Republican Party’s representative in the presidential election of 1976 won by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan had many opportunities but turned them all down in order to host a daily radio show. Why would he do that? He knew a good opportunity when he saw one.  A daily radio show was his springboard to success.

Saint Ronald was known as “the Great Communicator.” Unlike his much more bombastic right-wing personalities he talked quietly and smoothly without aggression and most importantly, without hate. He did not spew hateful and vile rhetoric like his brethren. He talked reasonably. He was not an extremist. By right-wing standards, he was a moderate, though when I first took notice of him I thought he was a right-wing extremist. Compared to what came after him he was definitely a moderate.

Everyday, Reagan had a platform on national radio for his ideology.  He preached self-reliance: “Hand-outs are demeaning. They do violence to a man, strip him of his dignity, and breed in him a hatred of the total system.” Liberty: “Poor men want the same as the rest of us.  They want jobs and control over their own destiny.”  And small government: “We seek to harness the creative energy of private enterprise to achieve a solution to America’s crisis.”

Of course, by then “the Federal Communications Commission had chased most ideologues  off the airwaves with its fairness doctrine.” Yet something did change about that time. Jimmy Carter was President and enforcement of the doctrine fell out of favor. Carter was nothing if not moderate. He did not know he was slitting his own throat for this left an opening by allowing Reagan to get on the airways and attack Carter, gently of course as was his style, at least in comparison between him and those who preceded him and followed him.

According to Justin Ling, on the CBC podcast The Flamer Throwers, “It was like a shadow presidency.” 30 million Americans a week listened to him, and Reagan knew how to communicate. That was what he knew best. Had he been a candidate the election rules would have demanded that he give equal time to his opponent. As a result, he did not give up the mike until the last possible moment in the next presidential race.

His campaign for the presidency was “rooted in a supposedly golden American past.” He wanted a country, he said, that would allow a 6-year-old American girl to enjoy the same freedom that he enjoyed as a 6-year old American boy. It was honey-dripped nostalgia. Of course, African-Americans did not have quite the same golden nostalgia.  They knew the ugly side of America that Reagan and his supporters knew nothing about. They had never seen it.  They were blissfully ignorant of it and the same goes for the current crop of MAGA enthusiasts. As Reagan said during that campaign, “Let’s make America Great Again.”  Sound familiar? That was his line; so were the red baseball caps. So was the innocence. He was the winner and as he said, “It’s morning again in America,” to the gentle tune of caressing music.

For Republicans it was nothing less than “a golden age.”  It was indeed a golden age for the comfortable. He began a legacy of cutting taxes, limiting government, and selling soothing fairy tales. There was no need for critical race theory or rebellion. As Reagan said, “For Americans living today there isn’t any problem we can’t solve, if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done and then get out of the way and let us have at it.” It was a most comfortable message. It was the message everyone wanted so much to be true. So it must be true.

As Ling, said, “In 1987 he quietly got the government out of the way of Right-wing radio.” Thus he gave a huge lift up to all those who followed him onto right-wing radio. When he became president, Reagan axed the fairness doctrine entirely and as Ling said, “that brought right-wing radio roaring back.”  This set the stage for the personality with the greatest heft in the history of right-wing radio—Rush Limbaugh.  Reagan was to Limbaugh sort of like John the Baptist was to Jesus.