Annapolis and the refugee question

We are witnessing another attempt at trying to find viable solution for the troubles in the Middle East. Whether it will be more successful than previous ones is yet to be seen.

Sifting through the blogosphere to see the general pulse of the reactions to today's events I found an interesting link on The Washington Note, a link to a letter that was addressed to President Bush and Secretary Rice, and is signed by an impressive list of heavyweight politicians, academicians, and other important personages. They present there a list od recommendations, like the creation of the two states, the redivision of Jerusalem, and so on. But one item in particular caught my attention:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

I was always puzzled by this issue in the past. How can it be possible that there are Palestinian refugees, even actual refugee camps, still in existence 60 years after the creation of Israel and the flight of the original refugees? The majority of those people are not even alive any more, we are talking about second and third generation "refugees" - and I won't even get here into the issue of having people there from other Middle Eastern countries who voluntarily joined these refugees, to live with them and support them in their goals, whatever those may be. This happens to be a unique phenomenon in the world, and it would be a worthwhile project to thoroughly analyze it and look for the reasons behind it.

I cannot help comparing these Palestinians refugee issues to all the others I have observed throughout my life. I also consider myself a (former) refugee. My grandparents and parents in Eastern Europe were stripped of their wealth by the Communist regime, my grandparents actually physically deported one night with only the clothes on their backs, and so we, the younger ones, fled at the first opportunity to North America where we resettled and built a new life for ourselves. Over the decades I saw similar fates unfold, from Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Somalia. My mother for years volunteered to help these newcomers to Canada resettle, sharing with them her experiences and expertise in coping with the new life. I remember our former Prime Minister Jean Chretien publicly announcing on TV that Canada will open its gates to such and such number of Palestinian refugees. Why did so few of them answer that call? I always wondered...

I always wondered why Jordan failed to resettle those who initially took refuge within its borders in 1948, after all roughly 50% of the Jordanian population is considered to be "Palestinians" with close family ties to people west of the Jordan river. What is more, I still cannot fully understand the reasons behind the events of "Black September", and the expulsion of said refugees from Jordan. Or the inability of Lebanon to accept and absorb some of those refugees, instead having massive refugee camps to this day, way up in the north of the country, like the Nahr el-Bared camp where those intense fights occurred earlier this year between the refugees and the Lebanese army. And why is it that all over in the rich Arab world, instead of taking these Palestinian refugees in, absorb them and resettle them, they exploit them, using them as cheap labour, making them live in squalor amidst the sparkle and abundance, and then send them back into those artificially maintained "refugee camps" when they tire of them.

And finally, how can you call people "refugees", whose parents already were born where they are now? It would not even occur to me to consider my children or my grandchildren who were born here in Canada "refugees". What an odd situation where second and third generations of people still need to be considered for resettlement.

But let us return to this issue that was touched upon in the open letter:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

Refugees in all corners of the world feel a "deep sense of injustice", including myself. Yet I made sure that I did not poison my children's soul with it. The world has seen much worse tragedies than my family's or of those Palestinians fleeing out of possible harm's way in 1948. What about the refugees of Rwanda or present day's Darfur, who not only lost everything but also witnessed their families being butchered? Rest assured, they were and will be taken care of, resettled, building a new life for themselves somewhere, while the Palestinian refugee camps will see a fourth generation being born and raised as "refugees". I wonder why...?

The above excerpt from the open letter asks for both financial compensation and resettlement assistance. It is not clear who does it mean to be targeted for this task. Should it be entirely the responsibility of Israel to step up to it? Then what about the Jewish refugees, and I don't mean the victims of the European Holocaust, but the close to a million refugees who fled from their ancestral lands all over the Islamic Middle East, often literally fleeing for their lives? To quote: "As a matter of law and equity, no just, comprehensive Middle East peace can be reached without recognition of and redress for the uprooting, under Islamic regimes, of centuries-old Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa." Israel, having already the experience in absorbing and resettling the survivors of the Holocaust, absorbed and resettled these refugees from Arab lands in a matter of fact way, without much fanfare. Yet, aren't they entitled to redress and compensation the same way as the Palestinian refugees are? Why is there no mention of them in the open letter?

There are, of course, answers for the above questions, just that they are hidden in the murky cesspools of politics and ideological warfare. One thing is sure, blame lies somewhere for those still flourishing Palestinian refugee camps, for the generations of refugees kept in poverty by their fabulously rich brethren, raised on a steady diet of hatred, used as cannon fodder, or more accurately live bombs, in a blind war against "The Jews". When things will settle and the victims of this decades old injustice will recuperate their senses enough so they can look around, no longer blinded by the propaganda that keeps shaking the red flag of "Zionism" in front of them, they will realize that it is not "the Jews" who are the true cause of their plight. I wonder what social upheavals will ensue when that happens. I wonder...

The final goal of the Al Qaeda Jihad, spelled out...

Wow!!! I just chanced on a video in which Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby explains in crystal clear words the true reason for their Jihad.
---

Al Gore, the environment, and the presidency

Interesting controversy surrounds 2008 US presidential candidate, Al Gore. True, he was awarded this year's Nobel prize based on his work in raising awareness on global warming. But, boy, is that topic controversial! I am not talking about the opinions of average citizen facing average citizen. Top scientists are questioning the accuracy of the data in his presentations and the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and criticize the choice of Gore for the prize. (Well, the Nobel prize committee can be criticized for a number of their previous blund..., ahem, choices.)

By now most everybody is aware of the fact that the film became subject of legal action in the UK. The courts then found that the film was indeed misleading, pockmarked by inaccuracies, some provable, others questionable, and decided that it carried a fair amount of political propaganda.

If you are one of those who is still itching to read what those inaccuracies they found in the film are, here they are. I lifted them off of the website of the UK New Party, you can visit their site and see the full original article there.

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Now, to return to my own opining again, it does seem rather suspect that all this hoopla arose so conveniently just before Mr Gore's announcement of his entering the electoral race. After all, good publicity or bad, it doesn't really matter. Any publicity is GOOD for the long run (think of Paris Hilton...). I am just wondering whether publicity of this sort is befitting someone who vies for one of the most influential positions in the Western world. If people will turn a blind eye to the inaccuracies and praise (venerate) him for what he represents in the present day cult of "Human Made Environmental Disaster", then what differentiates the environmentalists from the religious?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to create the impression that I reject the idea of man's negative impact on the environment. I am totally for continuing the efforts to clean up our act and clean up the world. Up to now I did not have any intention to question (openly, that is) any claims the environmental movement presented regarding the urgency of the situation, even when observing their political gains and growing clout in some countries. After all, it doesn't hurt to become as clean as possible, as soon as possible. Stepping up the efforts to develop clean, cheap sources of energy, finding solutions to our garbage issues, etc., can only benefit all of us. And if the world will still keep on getting warmer after that, at least we know that it is not our fault. But I do not like to see the issue being hijacked for personal gain.

I am sure Al Gore is not the only one to have resorted to such practices, people are human after all. I am certain that there were other mis-uses anywhere where Green Parties made gains. But his position is too visible. Past US presidents and/or candidates were scrutinized and chastised for things like the smoking of an occasional joint in their distant reckless youth. Shouldn't people scrutinize the methods presidential candidates use to gain people's sympathy and support? And if irregularities are found, shouldn't they be responsible for them?

I cannot help making a small parallel between this case and a news item I read a couple of days ago about an applicant for Canadian citizenship, Parminder Singh Saini, who in his youth hijacked an airplane, was convicted, served 10 years in jail, eventually gaining full pardon for his past actions. Thirteen years ago he claimed refugee status in Canada and was accepted. He apparently is a "model citizen" now, a lawyer about to pass his bar exam, by all accounts a person who could do a lot of good work in and for Canada. The problem is that he came here under an assumed name, hiding his past. If anyone asked my modest little person to pass judgment over him, I would say that he must be held responsible for the means he used in order to gain entry into Canada. He has to be rejected now, and advised that he should go back to India and apply under his real name. Past can be forgiven, people can redeem themselves by proving their present worth. But the old Jesuit motto, "goals justify the means by which they are attained", does not, should not hold anymore.

Where do I see any connection between his case and the Gore case, you ask? Mr Gore IS a model citizen, he does not have a spotty past in need of redemption. But political candidates must be also scrutinized for the means they use to get where they want to be!