Where to from Here?

In last week’s column, I put out a call for proposals to solve the heretofore intractable Israel-Palestinian situation.

Readers did not disappoint. I have tremendous respect for those who take the time to read this space – like a true Irishman, I admire the wisdom of those who seek my opinion – but even I was surprised by the strength of the responses.

Some of the sagest suggestions began more or less like this: No matter your sentiments on this issue – whether you feel the creation of the State of Israel was fair or not, and whether you believe Israel has merely been defending itself against overwhelming odds or oppressing unfortunate people – both sides have suffered. Most important, the past is prologue and there’s no going back. So, we must stop being concerned with who was right or whom to blame, and focus on what to do next.

There are myriad challenges about which we could ask similar questions. The war in Afghanistan was a necessary undertaking when it began, but what is our best move today, nine years on? The invasion of Iraq may not have yielded WMD, but what steps can be taken now to help that recovering country, comprised of three distinct groups, develop into a secular Middle Eastern ally? Western nations may have mishandled Iran for decades, but what should be done as its despotic regime nears nuclear capability? This week, Canada announced, in conjunction with other countries, it would stiffen sanctions against the Iranian government. Was that the right thing to do? (Hint: Yes, it was.)

To find the future you want, you must put aside the past. Learn from it, certainly, but don’t allow your judgment to be clouded by injustices. In this way, forgiveness can be highly practical. It is difficult, nonetheless.

But on the Israel-Palestinian matter, let us give one another substantial credit and assume we can take a purely objective, forward-looking stance. Now what?

Several readers took issue with the premise of my original question – “What should Israel do?” – pointing out that the plight of the Palestinian people is not solely a responsibility of the Jewish State. Their Arab neighbours can also take steps to help.

As columnist Khaled Abu Toameh recently observed, “Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs,” adding, “Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country.”

So if we want to help the Palestinian people – and as a matter of human decency, all good folks share that goal – perhaps the best approach is to spread the pressure. That is, rather than focus solely on, say, Israeli checkpoints and Jerusalem building projects, we might also find the dialing codes for Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, ring them up and ask, “Could you find a path to citizenship for the Palestinians in your midst?”

We might add, “We’d love your help in achieving a peaceful Palestinian state and, in the meantime, would you please drop any restrictions on them working as journalists, pharmacists, physicians, what-have-you, so they can earn a living?”

It’s not perfect or complete, but it’s a way forward.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Always, Always Israel

For some people, it’s always about Israel.

Over the past few weeks, I and other columnists have written about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” The good news is, folks from all walks of life and political persuasions have rallied to Ms. Ashtiani’s cause. The strange news is, some still suppose Israel is the problem.

You can extrapolate the Ashtiani case to any number of issues – the growing danger of Iran, the cruelty of Sharia law, the misogyny of Islamic regimes – but even if you spend a paragraph, as I did last week, pointing out that Israel is irrelevant to the topic, that’s still the part that gets people animated.

Every public opinion engenders some measure of response, and there are those who perceive hypocrisy whenever one injustice is given press, rather than another. They’ll complain, “I notice you didn’t write about the expulsion of the Acadians” or “the theft of the Elgin Marbles” or whatever. But as a reliable tangent and an object of anger, the Jewish state stands alone.

And I don’t just mean anonymous ravings by people who post opinions online. I’m a sanguine sort, but even I don’t expect to read surpassing wisdom from “ChunkyLover54” on some Internet comment thread.

Awhile back, I was invited to speak at an educational institution, which posted the transcript of my remarks on its website. The speech was not about the Middle East, but one member of the school’s community, on poring through the canon of my columns, discovered that I had, from time to time, written positive things about Israel. He demanded that a disclaimer and link to an Arab advocacy group be posted under my comments.

After a business partner and I went our separate ways, he opted to punctuate our relationship by sending me a hand-written screed about “the Arabs” – a topic we had never discussed and on which I was unaware he held any view – stating that he had harbored anger with me for years because of public statements I made in support of Israel.

One of the most affable journalists I know (to the extent that’s any kind of distinction) finds it impossible to discuss current affairs for any length of time without making reference to my “twisted defense of Israel.”

Look – I’m just a Presbyterian. Why should these people care what I think about the Jewish state? The answer is, they don’t care about my opinion, but their anger is so strong that it blinds them to anything else. And Israel, as with politics in general, becomes the focal point for their other frustrations.

But you know what? Let’s use that energy. Herewith, I put out a call for proposals.

In Israel and the Palestinian territories, you have millions of people in a small space that most of them consider holy, and home. Without forfeiting your spot at the grown-ups’ table by ranting like a nut, tell us what Israel should do.

Would you then turn to the plight of Ashtiani? Or do you imagine that solving the Israel-Palestinian situation would somehow civilize the entire Middle East, eliminating the region’s many problems with human rights? I might disagree with you on that but, if you’ve got a great idea, let’s give it a try.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

One Person Matters

Last week, I wrote about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman who has been imprisoned, beaten, and sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” Recently, Iranian authorities announced they probably won’t stone Ms. Ashtiani after all. That’s tepid progress, inasmuch as she may yet be hanged and at least 15 other people await stoning deaths in that nation.

Mine is one of many voices calling for Ashtiani’s release, and I am encouraged that her supporters include folks from various countries, cultures and backgrounds, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. I am fascinated, however, by those who insist on staying in the middle.

For example, I participated in a BBC radio program about Ashtiani and the brutality of the Iranian regime. Bafflegab was thick on the ground, and at one point the host mused that Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals is a moral judgment akin to the United States banning gay marriage.

Equating two obviously unequal situations is not clever or nuanced. It is idiotic and irresponsible. Similarly, asking the insipid modern question, “Who are we to decide?” only serves to evince moral vacuity but, if you must pose the query, let me help you with the answer.

You are a human being, born with the capacity to determine right from wrong. Further, if you are reading this column, chances are you have the magnificent good fortune to live in a part of the world that allows freedom of thought and expression. If you grew up in Western society during the last generation or so, you have likely been browbeaten into believing there is no absolute right and wrong and even if there were, you have no business deciding which is which, since your ancestors probably owned slaves or didn’t recycle.

There is evil in the world, uncomfortable as that is for people who yearn to reduce any situation to a contest of two extremes, placing themselves in the serene center.

Certainly, there are issues where the line between right and wrong seems blurry, but bashing people’s brains out with rocks should not be one of them. If it is, though, on what other topics would you demur to pass judgment? Child slavery?

The logical extension of this approach is that folks become open-minded imbeciles, incapable of making a decision.

Or, people want to make a case like Ashtiani’s about something else. Let’s suppose, for example, you strongly disagree with the State of Israel and consider their treatment of Palestinians to be criminal. That does not mean everything happening in the world, or even the Middle East, pertains to that issue. Ashtiani’s predicament has nothing to do with Jerusalem settlements, and even if a peaceful two-state solution were achieved in Gaza and the West Bank today, she could still be killed tomorrow.

One person matters. It is easier to love mankind than to love your neighbor, as author Eric Hoffer opined, but if you remember that each person is the most important in the world to someone, it becomes less difficult.

As you read this, Ms. Ashtiani is sitting in a cell, not knowing if she is about to die. You have the privilege to be as philosophical as you like, but if you care about what’s right, this woman’s fate really ought to be enough.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A Way of Life

Every Monday, for 15 minutes, a young man speaks to his mother through prison glass. She is Sakine Mohammedie Ashtiani, and since 2006 she has been tormented by the government of Iran for “adultery.”

Ashtiani was originally condemned to 99 lashes, a sentence which was carried out in front of her 17-year-old son. Now, after re-examining her case, Iranian authorities have decided she should also be stoned to death.

To be clear, these maniacs want to throw rocks at this woman’s head until her brains are dashed out.

Treating people like this is evil. Regimes that do such things must be exposed, rattled and, at times, replaced. And in countries fortunate enough not to be subject to such brutality, we ought to recalibrate our priorities from cozy concerns like reality shows and “climate change” to the plight of our fellow human beings.

This struggle is cultural, psychological, military, and economic. Most of all, it is a test of wills. Do we have the strength to call evil by its name and resist, or will we fumble about and find reasons not to until it’s too late? Iran is only the most prominent and dangerous among the entities that oppose us, and Ashtiani’s story is one of heartbreaking thousands, chronicled by Amnesty International and others.

An opportunity existed, after the uprising that followed Iran’s stolen elections last year, for good people of the world to show their support. There was one guy in particular who could have made a difference with a single speech. Unfortunately, Barack Obama demurred.

To understand the value that a few words from the American president can have to folks who are under repression, consider former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky’s reaction to Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “Tear down this wall” address in Berlin: “That was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us.”

On an individual basis, Western nations, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have been hopeless at protecting their citizens when they are imprisoned or unjustly treated in basket-case countries. The closest thing to a victory on this front came when Bill Clinton flew to North Korea last August to rescue two American women from the clutches of Kim Jong-il. The former president even posed for a forced photo-op in a room so hideously decorated that sanctions should be suspended until the regime has time to buy something tasteful.

So if free nations cannot protect their own people abroad, what can they possibly do for Ashtiani? And what could anyone reading this column do to help her? Perhaps, provide profile for her cause.

I’d like to see her on more t-shirts than Che Guevara. If a fraction of the energy evinced by those who showed up at the G20 in Toronto to protest the evils of “globalization” (or whatever) were instead directed toward, say, not hitting women with rocks until they die, we’d be getting somewhere. Or, if the zeal of feminists who demand the freedom to abort a child right up until he goes to his first hockey practice were pointed toward sparing their sisters from state-sanctioned death by blunt-force trauma, their help would be invaluable.

We enjoy a way of life in this part of the world. We owe our support to those who do not.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A Great and Good Country

A 143rd birthday is as good a time as any to consider one’s health. This Canada Day, we can contemplate a storied past and wonder if we are headed the right way for the future.

The short answer is yes, Canada is going in the right direction. Moreover, we have attained this trajectory by way of the best elements in our national culture. But first, some context on the state of other countries and what sets Canada apart.

At the best of times, the world is a dangerous place. This is nowhere near the best of times, as nations are still struggling out from under a worldwide recession, and much of the Earth is bound up with wars and rumours of wars. The planet’s condition is reminiscent of Woody Allen’s Speech to the Graduates: “Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

But within this maelstrom, Canada stands tall, distinguishing itself in military and moral conflict, maintaining an economy and financial markets that are the envy of all.

There are institutions that require reform, certainly – Parliament and the Hockey Hall of Fame come to mind – but in the main, this land is doing alright. Further, it is encouraging that other countries have taken note of Canada’s relative good condition.

Author Quentin Crisp opined, “Americans want to be loved, the English want to be obeyed.” If nations can be written down to such singular motivations, then perhaps Canadians simply want to be noticed.

Canada’s hosting of the recent G8 and G20 conferences, which came just as other parts of the world began to observe this country’s economic strength, may do something to scratch this itch.

Over so many years, in any photo of international heads of government, Canada’s prime ministers would wear hopeful smiles that invariably went unrecognized. They seemed like good-natured hangers-on, in the company of well-known statesmen from seemingly more important parts of the world.

Owing to reasons perfectly in keeping with the national character – caution and circumspection – Canada’s economy has finally brought the country the respect it craved.

For ages, we heard nationalist cries for Canada to “punch above its weight,” which always seemed an inapt incitement for a land less likely to punch than to compose a strong letter. Tin-eared monikers like “moral power” were fashioned, ascribing a level of influence the nation never really had.

It is not that the country’s ambition exceeded its grasp, inasmuch as I think Canada is capable of anything to which it aspires. Rather, all this talk of power, and yearning to stand astride world affairs like some wintry colossus, is at odds with the national character. The image has always been incongruous, like Paul Martin in a cowboy hat or Stephen Harper attempting a freestyle rap.

We are not chest-thumpers, by and large, though we do engage in a unique and gentle sort of self-promotion. This is often misguided, from unwatchable, publicly funded television series’ to successive generations forced to read Margaret Atwood at bayonet-point.

Indeed, the only endeavor in which Canadians cannot accept also-ran status, or even second place, is hockey, and it is ironic that a country of measured expectations and pre-emptive apologies would choose such a fast, physical game into which to pour its national pride.

There is something endearing and healthy about this exception to our rule of modesty. It shows Canadians are capable of consuming passion, just like anyone else, but the nation knows to channel that energy into something enjoyable and good, rather than, say, imperialism or mime.

We are, therefore, a nation that does one thing very well, and most everything else with the best of intentions. Canada is great because Canada is good, and with this in mind, we may press on with hope for even better days to come.




theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Race and Reason

For the last two weeks in this space, I have been critical of President Barack Obama. My reprehensions have largely pertained to his policies and performance, in areas like the Gulf oil spill, health care and debt.

Opining about the most prominent politician on the planet engenders fiery responses from all sides. One of the reasons it is unwise to discuss politics socially is that folks tend to jam all the frustrations from elsewhere in their lives into that topic, so rhetoric quickly becomes heated. But with Obama, the debate persistently reverts to the issue of race.

I first puzzled over this after one of my early columns on Obama, years ago. Why was a political article suddenly about skin color? Had my editors slipped in a racial slur?

Myriad opinion-pedlars had the same experience, and it was only in the fullness of time we realized this was “the move” among some partisans – accuse any Obama critic of racial bias.

No decent person opposes Obama simply because he is black. But opposing him does not make people indecent, either. Yet people hammer each other on this score.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say these accusations are generally insincere. That is, folks who hurl the charge don't actually believe that in today's day and age, evil, moustache-twisting racism is behind criticism of Obama.

In my experience, when such accusers are confronted, they normally demur, saying they're not speaking of anyone in the immediate discussion, then they make some vague reference to the rampant intolerance of the Canadian West or the American South. This, too, is bollocks on stilts, defiant of modern realities. Seeing the Calgary Stampede on TV doesn’t mean you understand Alberta, just as changing planes in Atlanta doesn't make you a Civil War buff. Besides, impugning an entire population just to make a political point is pretty poor.

People were hopeful that Obama's election would solve racial problems, but this emerged from overturning the misbegotten notion that America would never elect a black president. Almost two years after a majority of voters did just that, including in the South, the issue lingers.

Look, Obama has not thrived in the presidency. For the good of the world, I hope he gets it together and becomes a smashing success but, for the moment, his lousy performance is a matter of record. That’s not a slur, it’s a fact. But therein lays an opportunity.

I believe real progress will come when Obama is treated like any other politician and the subject of race is no longer raised in his defence. That is, when Americans are just as comfortable voting against him as for him. Obama, or anyone else, should be judged on the strength of his policies and, dare I say it, the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin, even if that means being critical.

Supporting or opposing a candidate for reasons of race, gender, or anything besides what they do and advocate evinces ingratitude for the hard-won struggles of the past. Likewise, assigning sinister motives to fellow citizens who disagree with you is not the stuff on which strong societies are built. We can do better. At long last, it is time for us to treat people, simply, as people.


theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A One-Term Wonder

Watching Barack Obama speak from the Oval Office Tuesday evening, I was reminded of a remark he made back in January: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” At the moment, he is on track to be neither, but I have often wondered just what he meant.

Does Obama believe he has been really good thus far? If so, in what area? Certainly not the Gulf Coast oil spill, which occasioned his Tuesday speech (if Obama wants that second term, it’s a good thing pelicans don’t vote).

Health care? He forced a trillion-dollar overhaul through Congress, which 63 percent of the American people want to see repealed.

The economy? He is adding more to America’s national debt than all 43 previous presidents combined.

Foreign policy? He laid down fewer conditions for meeting with the president of Iran than with the CEO of British Petroleum, and both oil-rich entities remain troublesome.

After taking office, Obama’s approval rating fell faster than any first-year president in the history of modern polling. When they voted for him in 2008, Americans wanted to believe they were electing a moderate, outcome-oriented, problem-solver.

Instead, Obama has turned out to be what those knuckle-dragging, book-burning, typical white people who opposed him warned: a garden-variety leftist. Like it or lump it, America is a centre-right country, and Obama’s prescription of stern lectures and statism is incompatible with the public mood.

But those are just facts and opinions. Truth be told, I think Obama does feel he’s been successful. The oil spill is not his fault and, unpopular as the new health care law and enormous debt may be, I expect Obama genuinely believes his policies are in America’s best interests. To give the man his due, he is loyal to his convictions.

Fundamentally, though, Obama does not seem to be enjoying his job. Like many liberals, he sees government as central to all human endeavours, which makes the American presidency the grand prize in the game of life. Now that he has the pressures and problems of that portfolio, however, he appears nonplussed.

Which leads us back to that one-term business. If I had to guess, I’d say Obama will not run for re-election in 2012.

The last two presidents who were eligible to run for re-election and chose not to do so, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were also Democrats who had grown unpopular with the American people. Johnson, in particular, faced opposition from within his own party, as Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy mounted primary challenges. How does this history apply to Obama?

Does anyone remember Hillary Clinton? There were, and are, about a zillion excellent reasons why she should not be president, but not in Newt Gingrich’s wildest dreams could she have done worse than Obama. She may run for the Democratic nomination again, perhaps under the slogan, “Told ya so.”

Who will run for the Republicans? Gingrich? Mitt Romney? Mitch Daniels? We don’t know, and at the moment, it doesn’t much matter. As the adage goes, elections are referenda on the party in power and, although Obama may not be on the ticket, the Democrats will be holding the White House.

In 2008, Americans wanted fresh ideas and a new start. In 2012, they may actually get it.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.