reed writes

He was just a little boy. But he possessed a special quality that allowed him to become larger than life itself.

He was an ordinary child who, from the moment he became aware, faced a life-threatening health situation.

He had an astonishing intellect.

He believed that he was the channel for a greater message to the world.

Poetry came easily to him. Ideas germinated in his mind like fertile seeds in a warm moist springtime.

He was dedicated to sharing an important message.

It was a message of peace, love, understanding, tolerance, acceptance and so much more. It was a multi-faceted message from a boy who lived every day to the fullest, knowing that each of those days carried a number.

We all know about Mohammed, the great Jewish Patriarchs, Jesus, Baha’ullah, Buddha, etc. But despite the magnificent propaganda machines of the 20th and 21at centuries, we don’t know enough about Mattie.

I’m just going to summarize one of Mattie’s last letters. It was written to his Mom, Jeni and it concerned international trade. (I think it’s particularly applicable in the wake of the disastrous and meaningless meeting of the “Creme de la Creme” in Toronto.)

“Trading Ideas”.

Every year we must recognize the tragedies that occurred on September 11th., 2001.

I am proposing a a “true world trade day” to take place every September 11th.

This new “World Trade Day” can foster better relations between all people of all religions and nationalities.

For example one person might choose to trade a book or an idea with someone in a distant land. How great would that be??

By celebrating “World Trade Day” with a respectful and future-oriented attitude, we’d do at least 2 things:

1. we’d pay honour to those who died on sept. 11th;

2. we’d plant the seeds of peace for all those who live through the future observances of 9/11, every year.

Love to all,

Mattie.

(Now how great is that?)

I urge you all to read Mattie’s book, “Just Peace”.

The Unkindest Death of All

There’s anguish today on all fronts.

BP is still wrecking an ecosystem; Protesters are wrecking Toronto; and Politicians are wrecking the world. And not only that -

Now the guys out in South Asia – Afghanistan to be precise – are really wondering just what it’s all about.

After ten years, President Hamid Karzai wants to do a deal with the Taliban.

That’s nothing new really, but – this morning I read in The New York Times, that “Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms.” That’s a quote from a man named Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of the Afghan Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.”

Hmmm…Afghanistan being “split” is nothing new either.

What is new,  is that these days, some American soldiers are asking what the heck they’re over there for and is it worth the risk. We don’t know much about what Canadian soldiers are saying…but it can’t be a whole lot different. Almost a decade and still the same old scene only worse. As one U.S. soldier told the Times:  “If we are here for a year and don’t fire one round, I’m happy. I’ve got two boys waiting for me that I want to go back home and be a dad to.” (New York Times)

I’m sure that our Canadian soldiers – like their American buddies – would rather stay in the barracks than go out on patrol. It’s dangerous out there man and life is fragile.

Soldiers have families and they’ed rather be at home fighting the oil catastrophe than waiting for a roadside bomb to blow them up. Afghanistan just isn’t worth it.

Of course anyone with half a brain has been saying this for years. But leaders need body counts; they need soldiers to get killed and kids need to be orphaned, just to prove it was all worth it.

Karzai is apparently tired of war. (That’s why his life is fragile)

The head of the U.S. military doesn’t like this situation one bit (after all, he needs a job). ” “It has the potential to really tear this country apart,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview. “That’s not what we are going to permit.”

I wonder what Lyndon Johnson would say if he were still walking around.

“This government is clearly out of touch with the majority of Canadians,”

(Kingston City Councillor – Rob Matheson, who sponsored the June 15 motion.)

This issue is not about politics, it’s about common sense, logic, rationality and human decency, all of which appear to be in short supply at the HQ of the General Harper forces.

• Recidivism at our prison farms is much lower than in the regular system.
• More and better rehabilitation takes place.
• The farms supply fresh, wholesome produce to the prison system.
• Prisoners get fresh air, exercise, discipline and responsibility, all of which lower the chances of re-offending.

Excellent skills such as animal husbandry, welding, machinery repair are taught and are marketable outside the prison system.

And yet despite all this and a great deal more, the Harper Conservatives are plowing ahead with the destruction of these farms.

And they are doing it against the wishes of Canadians, against common sense and against the advice of both correctional officers and experts in law enforcement.

Check out this report from the City of Kingston.

“Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.”

The paragraph above is from a lengthy article by Professor Peyton Lyon, a distinguished Canadian scholar.

Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.

Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae, like Dr. Lyon, is also a Rhodes Scholar.

The difference between the two men is not related to their intelligence, but rather to their respective ability to analyse and discuss policy in ways that are logical and that make sense, in the interests of our country.

What I’m linking to here is a readable dissertation by Dr. Lyon that explores, defines and explains the Canada/Israel relationship and the pressures that have formed it. Personally, I find it painful to write this. I find it sad that our government has found it acceptable to capitulate to pressure by advocates for another country.

In fact, it’s unthinkable that Canada should be held hostage to a foreign government in terms of the formation of the policies our country pursues.

And it’s not just Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that do this, the Liberal Party and the NDP are equally culpable. Take a bow, Mr. Mulcair.

So in spite of the pain I feel, or perhaps because of it, I am sharing Dr. Lyon’s remarkable essay on the Israeli Lobby. (more…)

Honourable Bob Rae, et.al.
Liberal Party of Canada and others,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.

subject: the political crucifixion of Libby Davies

Dear Bob,

I have contemplated this matter deeply and with sober second thoughts at every turn. And I feel I really must communicate with you all, including Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton).  (Mr. Duceppe of course, represents the moderate voice in this matter).

It’s been disconcerting to me to have read the newspaper reports concerning your comments and those of the Prime Minister, about Ms. Davies. Let me be clear that I am speaking as a Canadian and as a supporter of Israel and its legal right to exist. I would say that Libby Davies’ record also shows she supports Israel’s right to exist. That fact makes your position all the more untenable. There’s a need here, for you gentlemen to be more thoughtful and respectful.

You, Mr. Rae,  assert that Ms. Davies’ remarks were not made “off-the-cuff”.

I’d respectfully disagree.

From screening and re-screening the video – I would say the remarks were indeed made “off the cuff”. They were delivered as part of a rambling, conversational-style, street-side interview, conducted by a somewhat confused and incoherent amateur, in the heat of a demonstration. (As far as her personal support for boycott, divestment and sanctions are concerned…anyone who buys “Dead Sea Cosmetics” needs serious counselling.)

For someone of your stature to say, under these circumstances, “The logical implication of these comments [by Davies] is that Israel has no right to exist.”…beggars belief. You, as a Rhodes Scholar yourself, really ought take a higher road.

(She has since apologised for suggesting that the “occupation” began in 1948, saying that she misspoke.)

In fact, in my view, her apology was incomplete, partly because, like so many others, she is unaware of every one of the myriad historical details surrounding the creation of the State – as a result of the United Nations’ Partition Resolution  of November 1947. History has a way of being forgotten until scholars begin to assess and analyse new evidence that comes to light. We’ve already seen that process at work in the writings of Israeli historians Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim among many others.

You may or may not be familiar with Dr. Roger Louis, a professor of English History and Middle East Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. He’s head of the Historical Advisory Committee at the U.S. State Department, he’s on the Scholars’ Council at The Kluge Centre – (Library of Congress), Past President of the U.S. Historical Association, Editor in chief of the Oxford History of the British Empire etc etc. In other words he is a competent, distinguished and highly-respected academician, with no axe to grind.

Not long ago, Dr. Louis gave a very clear and erudite lecture at the Library of Congress, which covered – among other things – the shenanigans at the U.N. during 1947; those included coercion of delegates and vote-buying…all of which are documented and which eventually led to the passage of the November resolution, by a razor-thin majority. It would be very much worth your while to have a careful look at it.

As Dr. Louis points out, the U.N.  resolution tested the accepted, democratic principle of self determination, since the rights of the majority of the inhabitants were simply ignored.

As for Davies’ reference to “occupation” – you know very well that the Zionist forces ended up taking more territory than they were legally entitled to under the international U.N. contract…and of course they never returned it…nor did they permit the return of those wrongfully-displaced persons to their homes and/or land.

In addition, Yitzakh Rabin has written about those tens of thousands of unarmed and utterly innocent civilian Palestinians, who were driven from their homes and land, which were also never returned. (Rabin’s writings – as you know – were censored by Israeli authorities, something that troubled him greatly). Rather, those homes and that land were simply seized as the spoils of “war” and handed over to immigrants from Europe. (That’s about as close to “occupation” as it gets). That was 1948.

[Note: Rabin lamented that situation, which was why - as Prime Minister - he worked so hard to reach a peace settlement. And he would have been successful had it not been for the assassin's bullet from the gun of an Israeli terrorist - a religious student, oddly enough]. We still do not know who assigned him that task.

Nevertheless, none of this means that Israel does not have the legal right to exist…it just means that the government of Israel is in breach of the very resolution on which the very existence of the State is based.

Unfortunately you, along with Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton have opened a can of worms with your calls for Davies’ ouster. Even many Canadian Jews and other supporters of Israel, of whom I am one, are disturbed by the apparent wilful blindness of your collective “outrage”. Much of the mainstream media – to their discredit – have parroted and endorsed your knee-jerk reaction.

But people are not stupid.

And as Shakespeare said, “Murder will out”. The debate has barely begun. You and the others will have to bear responsibility for the consequences of what may be coming down the pipe, as a result.

There is no threat implied here – please do not jump to another conclusion. I am simply suggesting that all of you find a way to ameliorate your positions.

I’m not angry at you gentlemen for ganging up on Libby Davies, rather I am deeply disappointed in you. I am simply amazed at your willingness to crucify a hard-working and responsible colleague under these circumstances. (I exempt Mr. Harper from any sense of amazement, because his motives are even more crass than your own).

As to the feelings of other informed observers, including that very distinguished gentleman Henry Siegman – they agree with me. I must say to you frankly on their behalf as well as my own – you are very far off base.

Sincerely,

Jim Reed.