Eventually you have to stop being egocentric and selfish and think of yourself.
A lot of behaviour is learned. A lot of lessons aren't.
It is all very well to say ‘I never meant to’. It is probably true to say this but it should never mean that I actually haven’t done it. Whether negligent or otherwise unintentional one has to recognise the impact of one’s deeds and the consequences. One has actually done it. Can one make recompense? Can one acknowledge that the pain is real when one never meant to inflict it? There is healing and repairing to be done. There is the apology and the full acknowledgement of the impact. One can accept responsibility and can convey that to the unintended victim.
One accused of hurting another may claim to have never meant it, but this rings hollow if one has done the same thing before, especially if it has become a pattern of repeated behaviour which constantly inflicts pain, or wreaks havoc. One should ask oneself if one could or should have realised the potential danger of achieving what was never intended. Could I have acted differently with more caution or sensitivity? How could I avoid doing this again? Is the damage a result of an accident in which I was a mere pawn that fell off the board? Is there a flaw in the machinery? One should try to examine ones ways constantly to see the impact of one’s actions, and attempt to anticipate potential harm or danger.
One must acknowledge others and ones duties to cherish them and not to hurt them. Look to them, seeking to recognise their frailties and vulnerabilities. Say to oneself: ‘Just as I am vulnerable, so are they.’
To hurt another on purpose is cruel. To make a mistake is inevitable. To repeat some mistakes is highly likely. Not every flaw within or lack of insight is readily recognised. It takes effort and objectivity to recognise unintended consequences. To keep on repeating the same mistakes and not recognise that there is a flaw, a fault within at the root of this, is a much worse cruelty. When challenged, the honest sadist will justify his cruelty as an expression of his will. Hurting is what he does because he wants to do it. Yet to hear the constant cries of pain and ignore them or dismiss them because one never meant them is tragic. He is a negligent sadist. He continually harms and hurts. He does not respond to the pain of his victim because his victim is not a victim. He never meant him to be a victim so he has no desire to make him into a victim now that he is one. Victims are pesky things to have about. They need protection and protection is troublesome to provide. How could you be hurt if I never meant to hurt you? He is too lazy to look at himself and too scared of what he might find if he did. So he is a nice guy, a simple guy. He never meant to harm anyone. He wants the epitaph to end there. He is not a sadist; he does not want anyone to feel pain so they should oblige him by not doing so.
To deny the pain of others is to be ready to cause more pain. To refuse to acknowledge that one has caused pain is sick.
This is his epitaph:
‘Here lies a success story. He never meant to cause harm to anyone. Look at all the harm he never intended to do?’
If we control the world how did we let most of the oil land up in Arab hands? If we control the banks why don’t I have a much larger amount in my bank account? If we control the media why do so many anti-Semitic or anti-Israel newspapers, television stations, websites etcetera operate and ‘expose’ Israel so readily?
If we control international finance and trade, how come Bin Laden had so much money and I have so little? How come China is so wealthy? How come the Saudis have so much money? How come Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are so wealthy? Are the Saudis simply Zionist stooges? Who are the Alwaleeds? Who is Mohammed Shafik Gabr? Who is Mohammed Al Amoudi? Are these men and their wealth just a temporary smoke screen that will dissipate as soon as a few large nosed stick brokers pull a few strings?
If we control the world why do I always have hassles trying to get technical help from so-called customer services? Why do I drive a fifteen year old banger? Why can’t Barnet FC do better now that they have a Jewish Manager? And if the Jewish Zionists are really so powerful how come there are still Palestinians?
How come those who espouse Jewish conspiracy theories are never pilloried for portraying gentiles as pliable zombie victims incapable to recognising their own lack of independence?
‘Should we go to a movie tonight?’
‘I don’t know, what’s the latest from our local Zionist thought-monitor?’
‘Shall we go down to Tahrir Square and protest against the regime?’
‘No, the regime is supported by the Zionists and don’t want us to protest?’
‘I thought the opposition was supported by the Zionists?’
‘It is.’
‘But you’re saying the regime is supported by the Zionists?’
‘It is.’
‘I don’t understand!’
‘Of course you don’t understand! That’s how devious the satanic ways of the Zionist Jewish tentacles are. We are prevented from recognising what is really going on by a Zionist plot. The fact is that in all modern conflicts both sides are co-operatively destroying one another at the behest of the Zionist Jewish Bankers, freemasons and dentists.’
‘Can we go blow ourselves up in protest at Zionist activities and oppression?’
‘Yes, but only if the Zionists give the go ahead, after all, all bombings are their work.’
‘Did the Zionists really blow up the twin towers?’
‘Of course, it was the Mossad. They used oversized drones.’
‘Did the Zionists control the Nazis in World War Two?’
‘Of course they did. They duped the Germans into setting up what looked like concentration camps and killing Jews. Then they mesmerised everyone to vote for the criminal establishment of a Jewish state. Then they got everyone to recognise that the Jews who had been killed by the Nazis hadn’t been killed at all. Since then they have successfully blinded everyone so that no one can actually even read the football scores for themselves without swallowing wholeheartedly the Zionist slant. Thus if you read Manchester United 2, Reading 1, this is just to divert your attention away from the fact that right now millions of Palestinians are being tortured by being made to think that they are subject to a choice between Fatah and Hamas!’
'That's too harsh to even imagine!'
It is only a matter of time before some politician/academic or other worthy celebrity says something along these lines:
‘I am not saying anyone actually does this, but I do support the right of Jews to torture the host if they so wish. It is a matter of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Now of course I am entirely irreligious myself, but we must recognise that it is consistent with modern human rights to tolerate religious practices as long as they are not racist, sexist or homophobic or otherwise affect or upset the Palestinians. Now those who are Jewish have always denied their involvement in such alleged practices, but this is of course purely as a result of previous intolerance of an era where neither tolerance of difference nor freedom of expression were given sufficient attention or prominence in European or world circles. Thus those whose religion requires of them to allege that they disdain the divinity of the host or its alleged salvatory properties, should feel it necessary to be able to express their opinions even if these are in fact repugnant to those who profess to follow the alleged Christian religion. Because after all, legitimate criticism of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism.’
Why is it that so many of those who deny that the holocaust happened are also saying that that is what Israel/the Jews/the Zionists are dong to the Palestinians?
Football is once again in today’s headlines and it appears that that bastion of moral guidance, the FA, is being looked to once again, to provide a pro-active solution to the latest potentially endemic problem in football. A player has been allegedly red carded for allegedly kicking or kicking at an alleged ball boy who was allegedly tardy in releasing the football. Apparently the player in question and the ball boy in question have shaken hands and no police action will be taken. It is expected that the player may well receive punishment from his sport’s governing body. Will this incident fuel a ‘debate’ on issues like ‘Is violence an endemic-problem in footballers?’ or ‘do footballers earn too much money and consequently act irresponsibly?’ or ‘As a high profile footballer is he not expected to act as a better role model?’ Inevitably the debaters will demand that the FA act to rein in this errant individual and reform/revise/review its disciplinary procedures, the process by which young players are recruited and nursed by their clubs and generally make the world a better place by putting in counter-violence programs and guidelines. The FA will have to add a ‘violence’ element to it ‘Kick it Out’ campaign!
Let us imagine that this weekend in a youth football match one of the players kicked out at an official or spectator. Surely blame would not only be laid at the door of the highly paid player but there would be howls demanding action from the footballing authorities, who seem to be the only authority anyone expects to act against wrongful behaviour. Players must set a better example or face the consequences. Yes, they are often under tremendous pressure but they must learn to cope with it and act appropriately.
Let us imagine another scenario: over the next few days an under pressure school teacher kicks out at an uncooperative child. Is it at all feasible that some editorial would suggest that this teacher has been influenced by what he may have seen on television? The errant footballer might expect a ban of several games coupled with a monetary fine large for most of us but nothing more than an irritation for him. This teacher would be barred from the teaching profession or working with young people for ever. He would be ruined and disgraced. Not much consideration would be given to either the pressure of the situation in which the teacher works or the degree of provocation.
Now I am not suggesting that teachers should ever get away with violence towards pupils. It is not acceptable behaviour. Yet no one would possibly suggest that the teacher is merely emulating what he sees his well-paid heroes do on live television. The FA would not be blamed for failing in its duty to ensure its role model are better role models to other role models. Neither should we examine if the teachers role models might just be sadistic Victorian masters from literature.
Violence, or racism or anything else, is not the province of the sporting authorities. These are problems that affect all human beings. Each one of us should examine his own moral framework to see how he could behave better. None of will become better by demanding that the footballing authorities take stronger stands on any issues. That being said the football and other authorities should do all they can to ensure better behaviour.
In a relatively short teaching career in the United Kingdom a certain bewildered question has been thrown at me by several students. It is a question that demonstrates a severe inadequacy in the questioner’s education and one which leads me to despair. The gravity of the situation is exacerbated when the question is asked by intelligent pupils who come from homes where education is apparently valued. It is chilling hear a high school child, in a top high school from an educated background asking, ‘Who is Dr Seuss?’
In a country where reams of consultants, experts, commissions of inquiry, parliamentary working groups are constantly examining ways of improving the education system how is it possible that a universal treasure like Dr Seuss has been utterly side-lined? When in the distant future society looks back to assess, if anything valuable produced by the western world in the twentieth century, the works of the late Theodore Giesel are likely to be among the few items worthy of consideration.
There may be those who deplore anything American as being alien to English culture and language. Yet there can be no parallel to Dr Seuss when it comes to portraying real issues to readers. His psychological, philosophical and political insights are beyond comparison. In his rhymes and with his wit and fantastical pictures he expresses more succinctly and more accessibly the human condition than any other twentieth century writer, thinker, poet or philosopher. As a teacher, using one of his parables is always a guarantee of getting the class to grasp the idea portrayed. It is not about some elephantine creature, or other peculiar Seussian creation. It is entirely about them.
At a time where the government is thinking of requiring that children learn a second language. The proposal is limited to seven languages, two of which are Latin and ancient Greek. Children could learn far more from some of the quasi-language of Dr Seuss. His work is energetic. It speaks in a very set meter. The psychology has more range than any modern school. It touches both contemporary and eternal questions. Children, and other people, will understand his words and meanings more than they will with most other writers.
Do not deprive our children and ourselves of the words of this wise man. Promote his works for their wisdom, insight and depth. Please!
In a relatively short teaching career in the United Kingdom a certain bewildered question has been thrown at me by several students. It is a question that demonstrates a severe inadequacy in the questioner’s education and one which leads me to despair. The gravity of the situation is exacerbated when the question is asked by intelligent pupils who come from homes where education is apparently valued. It is chilling hear a high school child, in a top high school from an educated background asking, ‘Who is Dr Seuss?’
In a country where reams of consultants, experts, commissions of inquiry, parliamentary working groups are constantly examining ways of improving the education system how is it possible that a universal treasure like Dr Seuss has been utterly side-lined? When in the distant future society looks back to assess, if anything valuable produced by the western world in the twentieth century, the works of the late Theodore Giesel are likely to be among the few items worthy of consideration.
There may be those who deplore anything American as being alien to English culture and language. Yet there can be no parallel to Dr Seuss when it comes to portraying real issues to readers. His psychological, philosophical and political insights are beyond comparison. In his rhymes and with his wit and fantastical pictures he expresses more succinctly and more accessibly the human condition than any other twentieth century writer, thinker, poet or philosopher. As a teacher, using one of his parables is always a guarantee of getting the class to grasp the idea portrayed. It is not about some elephantine creature, or other peculiar Seussian creation. It is entirely about them.
At a time where the government is thinking of requiring that children learn a second language. The proposal is limited to seven languages, two of which are Latin and ancient Greek. Children could learn far more from some of the quasi-language of Dr Seuss. His work is energetic. It speaks in a very set meter. The psychology has more range than any modern school. It touches both contemporary and eternal questions.
Do not deprive our children and ourselves of the words of this wise man. Promote his works for their wisdom, insight and depth. Please!
A very intriguing article appeared on the BBC news web page on 20 November 2102, titled ‘Gaza crisis: The legal position of Israel and Hamas ‘. It begins by stating that Israel’s position in regards to its right to defend itself (against attacks by Hamas) is supported by many Western countries and seemingly covered by the UN Charter in principle. In typical BBC fashion it appears to want to strike a balance between two competing arguments by presenting the counter –argument. This is rather startling. Firstly it is an argument that is intrinsically pathetic, even embarrassingly so. Secondly it is incomprehensible that it can actually be put forward as a counter argument for serious consideration by the serious reader.
Although the writer points out that state practise since 2001 ‘militates’ (interesting choice of word) against the acceptance of such an argument, it is suggested that ‘the right of self-defence should be invoked only against another state, but not against a non-state entity like Gaza ‘. Personally I am relieved that state practice does not follow this argument. In my former days as a practising lawyer there were times when the arguments I may have advanced on certain occasions were not the strongest. How would a court have reacted to this level of disingenuous advocacy? This argument seems to limit the right of a sovereign state to defend itself against military attack by other sovereign states. If this is so then no government could use force to combat any attempted revolution as revolutionary movements are always by definition non-state entities. As a non-state entity one could arm a sea going vessel and from off the coast and beyond territorial waters fire missiles into, say Belgium, with impunity. The Belgians of the coast would have to hope the missiles fell where damage was minimal, but their government could not fire back or even send a helicopter or plane to destroy the belligerent boat.
The second argument runs as follows: ‘Secondly, some commentators maintain that Gaza is still subject to Israeli occupation because of the ongoing blockade, and that Israel cannot rely on self-defence in an occupied territory. ‘ if this is correct then the minute any army crosses the border of any other country it becomes an occupying power and may therefore no longer fire upon the enemy but must either retreats or stand their taking the bullets. In fairness to the writer he does set out the Israeli counter-argument.
Although the writer does not discuss it, we ought to consider that it is highly likely that many of those advocating the two aforementioned ‘positions’ may well also hold of the ensuing idea: (a) Israel is an illegal entity. (b) It is therefore a non-state entity. (c) In consequence it has no rights of any nature whatsoever and may not defend or attack anyone. (d) Alternatively since it is not a state-entity but is a non-state entity (just like Gaza) should its (Israel’s) inhabitants fire missiles into any other territory or undertake military action against such territories whether of a sovereign state or non-state they (the non-stated Israelis) should not be subject to any form of self-defence.
There is no doubt that if any objective examination is done of Israel’s actions it would be concluded that Israel acts necessarily and proportionately, endeavouring to minimise collateral damage as far as possible.
Does it really need a strong argument that if any human beings are under threat by any others their government should be defend themed irrespective of the status of any entities in international law. Yet what I find most chilling about these ’arguments’ is neither the fact that they are so pathetically weak nor that they can be given any serious weight in an editorial piece, but rather that there are probably jurists who will willingly and enthusiastically against Israel.
If accountants investigate and report on a company and hide all its flaws and deficiencies we would undoubtedly label what they have done a fraud. Yet when journalists attempt to portray the Israel –Hamas conflict as if it were some form of cup tie between Manchester United and Plonk-on-the-Corner Wanderers too many will accept the signatures of objective journalism as valid and certifying as accurate what is contained in the report. The BBC will report from both sides but will give a lot of coverage to the injured and dead on the Gaza side of the border. For example Wyre Davies in Gaza says ‘Israel demands security, and Gaza demands the freedom to flourish economically and breathe - irrespective, arguably, of the wider arguments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ‘
The one side, quite fairly wants security. Thank you Mr Reporter for acknowledging that. The other side, you allege ‘demands the freedom to flourish economically and breathe ‘. Each of the two combatants, or rather their populations have these legitimate goals and aspirations. Yet while there is no doubt that the people of Gaza would benefit from these suggested freedoms the journalist fails to recognise very simple facts. The policies, beliefs and tactics of Hamas in Gaza, both before and since the unilateral withdrawal by Israel, have done nothing to relieve or improve the suffering of the people of Gaza. Instead of pursuing economic stimulus or programs to benefit the population, those who govern Gaza, have diverted their resources to attacking Israel and keeping their own population as miserable and deprived as possible. The thousands of rockets fired from there, which actions have prompted both the Israel blockade and military action, are what imprison the Gazans. Furthermore while, as stated before, the journalist acknowledges Israel’s legitimate security concerns, he does not recognise the openly proclaimed aims and policies of Hamas, the destruction of Israel through the use of force and the rejection of diplomatic solutions in and of themselves and because the Zionists are not to be trusted.
A cease fire does not give the Gazans an opportunity to start living a normal life. It allows their leadership time to replenish and restock with more weapons to shoot into Israel. Soon the missiles will start flying towards Israel and we will be back to square one with more deaths and casualties.
Reporters spend a lot of time reporting on the impact of the conflict on Palestinian citizens. Empathy with the civilian victims of any conflict is something all decent human beings should feel. It is this area however that much of the media promotes an anti-Israel agenda. By focusing on the suffering of civilians without giving proper credence or prominence to the true reasons why Israel has resorted to force ends up delegitimising and Israel and demonising it as the ‘aggressor’ and cause of Palestinian suffering.
Many stories and headlines talk of the ‘cycle of violence’. Israel forever seems to be contributing to this by launching military action against Hamas targets. Why do the reporters never give credence to what Israel is trying to do? Mr Netanyahu, with whom I do not necessarily agree on many points, was not sitting around twiddling his thumbs one day when the thought suddenly occurred to him that it might be an idea to start targeting Hamas leaders to test the accuracy of Israeli missiles. Nor was he looking for a good political manoeuvre to bolster support for his government in the lead to the upcoming elections. There are cheaper ways of getting poll ratings up without killing anyone, exposing one’s own army and civilians to harm or incurring the wrath of an already unsympathetic press and the surrounding regimes. He is not giving vent to some Jewish lust for blood or killing. It is not that the Zionists did not have enough gentile blood this past Passover so need to boost their supply. Mr Netanyahu is often called ‘hardliner’ ‘hawkish’ or ‘right wing’. He may be a politician but he is not in love with military action and war. He, and successive Israeli governments and Israelis of all political persuasions, do not relish war. They know that war is ugly. They, who have lived with on-going conflict and under attack by various countries and terror organisations, know the horrors of war intimately.
It is not only images of civilians in war that are ugly, brutal and terrifying. The sight of any bullet ridden human being, charred remains of any one whether they are an ‘innocent’ civilian or a ‘militant’ or a ‘soldier’ or even a ‘terrorist’ are hideous. No one should want to be fighting. The opposite of innocent civilian is not guilty combatant. War is a last but unfortunately necessary resort. If Mr Netanyahu ordered raids on Gaza to bolster his poll ratings then it was an extraordinary piece of political luck that an anti-Semitic, genocidal terror organisation, committed to destroying Mr Netanyahu’s country by violence, vehemently opposed to any notion of peace settlement or negotiation just so happened to be lobbing missiles from bases inside civilian areas of Gaza at this time.
This is no game. Israel is described as ‘pounding’ Gaza. From Gaza ‘militants’ ‘launch’ missiles. If Israel has superior, military equipment and uses it to defeat or weaken Hamas then it is doing what is ugly and is destructive, but is the least of all evils in the circumstances. This is not Manchester United fielding a strong eleven against Plonk-on-the-Corner Wanderers. If Israel has the right to defend itself it has the right to do so effectively. If the choice is between suffering constant attacks or risking collateral damage to civilians in fighting an implacable enemy, then it must make this tragically sad but unfortunately necessary choice.
It is sad, it is tragic but Mr Netanyahu and many other Israeli’s understand that Hamas will not countenance a peaceful settlement, irrespective of the Israeli government’s policies on settling territories. Hamas remain committed to war. They launch war using their own people as barriers and as media fodder. Waging war against them is the only way to defeat them and prevent them from destroying Israel, and others.
/fdata%2F4279010%2Favatar-blog-1213377121-tmpphpyShA3R.jpeg){kind=avatar}
