News that the UK is rightly considering water metering prompts me to write again about drier, less peaceful countries.
I have blogged many times about the excellent work of Friends of the Earth Middle East, who bring Israeli and Palestinian communities together to work on a common problem - water management.
I have long argued - into a vacuum - that the European Union should provide guttering, piping and storage facilities so that the Israeli-Palestinian people can work to save every drop of water that falls on their roofs.
Today I make a very rough calculation on the amount that this project could provide.
Here goes:
The population of Israel/Palestine is 11 million.
Let us assume that they live 11 to a house.
I have no idea how many there are really, but 11 makes the calculation easier.
Take the average rainfall in Israel Palestine is 50 centimetres.
If there are 1 million houses with a roof area of 10 sq metres, every year each house can harvest 5 cubic metres of rainwater, or 5000 litres.
A human needs 1.86 litres of drinking water a day. Say 2 litres, to keep us away from decimal land.
5000 litres gives 2500 days (7 years) of drinking water, so each house will keep its 11 inhabitants in drinking water for about 8 months of the year.
If compost toilets are used, a good proportion of the water is excreted as urine, to feed the compost, and therefore to return to the land as fertiliser.
Now, because I know that people delight in trying to destroy any concept that challenges their conviction that there is NOTHING we can do to help the situation in Israel Palestine (apart that is from the overthrow of capitalism worldwide and its replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat/anarcho-syndicalism/libertarianism [delete as appropriate]), let's avoid misunderstanding. I'm not saying they will all have to drink only the harvested water. Sure, in some situations it could be filtered and processed for drinking. In other situations it could water the vegetable garden. In each case, rainwater saved is mains water spared. The point is, water is water, and, along with sun, soil and toil, it is the stuff of life.
The other point is that in setting up the water harvesting equipment, the work project, especially if it is collaborative and inter-communal, will divert energy away from political hatred and all that flows from it.
I may have over estimated the amount, or got my sums wrong. I may also have under-estimated the amount, since there will be large roof spaces belonging to offices, factories, stores &c, and these may be enough to bring the amount harvested to a whole year's worth of drinking water.
I am also aware that water harvested is water that does not find its way down to replenish aquifers. This is true. But water harvested is a tiny proportion of the total rainfall on the land, so it is an insignificant loss to the aquifers, and balanced by the fact that less will need to be abstracted from the aquifers.
There are other things that can be done to improve water management. I've mentioned dry toilets. I will also mention that forests can be seen as aerial aquifers, so reafforestation can assist with rainfall.
The point is that a huge water harvesting project, along the lines already pioneered by Foe Middle East, would give the European Parliament something useful to do in making a Middle East war somewhat less likely.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Friday, March 18, 2011
Arab Spring confounds old Left/Right political categories
The Arab Spring uprising has changed the face of world politics.
The old categories of right and left are floundering.
In the case of Libya, the non-interventionist Left finds itself sharing a skanky Tracy Emin-type bed with right wing ranters like Kelvin MacKenzie and the Israeli Government, who, surprisingly, have historic ties with Ghaddafi. Israel backed Mubarrak, and seems to think it has an interest in surrounding itself with amenable (to them) dictators, seeing democracy as a threat that could bring Islamicist parties into, or near, power. This Israeli mis-perception, expressed in the Washington lobbies, may be one reason that the Obama has been so slow to come in on the side of the Libyan freedom fighters. Fearing an Arab outcry if he intervenes, he finds that he is under increasingly strong criticism for his reluctance to intervene.
The failure of the Left to see that if Ghaddafi wins, democratic movements everywhere (including in the West) are more exposed to lethal violence from dictatorial states, is remarkable. It is a triumph of narrow political ideology over humanitarian and democratic aspirations across the world. It seems that in their view, since Ghaddafi preaches some kind of socialism, and is a friend of Chavez of Venezuela, there is no case for Libyan people to experience freedom and self-determination. This is not rational thinking.
What is socialism for, if it does not stand for the interests of people against repressive, corrupt and brutal regimes?
Another mental short-circuit exists over the West. Because the US and UK have acted illegally and foolishly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is reasoned that they must never intervene, even to stop massacres. It is a short circuit, because it is thinking in absolutist, not operational categories. The West has acted wrongly, therefore it will always act wrongly. This is the same mistake that parents can make, in saying "You are a bad child" rather than "That action was a mistake".
The Arab Uprising is a game changer. It is an uprising of youth, often suffering a high rate of unemployment, but well educated, and in communication with youth across the world through social media. Amazingly, they are demonstrating non-violently, at least initially, before force is used against them. Tunisia and Egypt show that so long as the Army is not deployed against the demonstrators, peaceful demonstrations can overcome brutal dictatorships, and this is a great cause for hope.
The outcome of these democratic changes depends almost entirely on the post-revolution economics. If countries persist with the old, quasi-free-market economics, unemployment will persist, and the revolution will sink back into the quagmire of political and economic stagnation, leading to general disorder and a return of dictatorship.
If, on the other hand, the new countries develop a new economics aimed at stabilising access to basic resources like water, food and renewable energy, unemployment will be a forgotten nightmare, and the world can set off towards a new, peaceful and sustainable future.
The old categories of right and left are floundering.
In the case of Libya, the non-interventionist Left finds itself sharing a skanky Tracy Emin-type bed with right wing ranters like Kelvin MacKenzie and the Israeli Government, who, surprisingly, have historic ties with Ghaddafi. Israel backed Mubarrak, and seems to think it has an interest in surrounding itself with amenable (to them) dictators, seeing democracy as a threat that could bring Islamicist parties into, or near, power. This Israeli mis-perception, expressed in the Washington lobbies, may be one reason that the Obama has been so slow to come in on the side of the Libyan freedom fighters. Fearing an Arab outcry if he intervenes, he finds that he is under increasingly strong criticism for his reluctance to intervene.
The failure of the Left to see that if Ghaddafi wins, democratic movements everywhere (including in the West) are more exposed to lethal violence from dictatorial states, is remarkable. It is a triumph of narrow political ideology over humanitarian and democratic aspirations across the world. It seems that in their view, since Ghaddafi preaches some kind of socialism, and is a friend of Chavez of Venezuela, there is no case for Libyan people to experience freedom and self-determination. This is not rational thinking.
What is socialism for, if it does not stand for the interests of people against repressive, corrupt and brutal regimes?
Another mental short-circuit exists over the West. Because the US and UK have acted illegally and foolishly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is reasoned that they must never intervene, even to stop massacres. It is a short circuit, because it is thinking in absolutist, not operational categories. The West has acted wrongly, therefore it will always act wrongly. This is the same mistake that parents can make, in saying "You are a bad child" rather than "That action was a mistake".
The Arab Uprising is a game changer. It is an uprising of youth, often suffering a high rate of unemployment, but well educated, and in communication with youth across the world through social media. Amazingly, they are demonstrating non-violently, at least initially, before force is used against them. Tunisia and Egypt show that so long as the Army is not deployed against the demonstrators, peaceful demonstrations can overcome brutal dictatorships, and this is a great cause for hope.
The outcome of these democratic changes depends almost entirely on the post-revolution economics. If countries persist with the old, quasi-free-market economics, unemployment will persist, and the revolution will sink back into the quagmire of political and economic stagnation, leading to general disorder and a return of dictatorship.
If, on the other hand, the new countries develop a new economics aimed at stabilising access to basic resources like water, food and renewable energy, unemployment will be a forgotten nightmare, and the world can set off towards a new, peaceful and sustainable future.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Unity of purpose will save the Arab Spring revolutions
When an authoritarian regime is swept aside by a revolution, there is a natural tendency for all forms of constraint to be rejected. This may be one reason why crime rates are so high in post-apartheid South Africa.
Immediately after a revolution there is a period of confusion. The unity of purpose on the part of the revolutionaries, the single minded determination to remove the dictator and his regime, is replaced by innumerable ideas of what to do next, ranging from out and out change to all aspects of political life, to a desire to get back to normal life without the dictatorship.
The revolutionaries have many ideas, typically leaning towards self-government and anarchy (in its correct sense). On the other hand, the Civil Service remains in place, and there is a real need for it to function in order to continue running the infrastructure - water, food production, energy, waste collection and such services as the population is used to. If this period of disorder persists, there is a high probability that a strong man (it is usually a man) or strong party to emerge and restore order.
The new incumbent tends to clamp down on what it perceives as disorder. This can then lead to a control motif in the government's actions. They seek to control public opinion through the press, to control political dissent through arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, to develop a secret police, and to develop a network of informers. They may even use the same institutions that ran the pre-revolutionary regime. There is a vicous cycle to control, since the more control is attempted, the stronger the resentment against control, and the more control force has to be used.
So there exists a malign cycle of dictatorship, revolution and dictatorship. How can humanity step outside the cycle?
The key is in unity of purpose. Revolutions succeed because all groups have a common objective - to rid the country of the present dictator. After success, everyone falls back into their old narrow concerns and self-interest, and the revolution falls apart, or is hijacked. They may be united in the desire to have free elections, but here again a plethora of political parties show up, competing with each other, and allowing well resourced parties with links to multinational corporations to win and dominate Parliament.
The way out of this cycle is to maintain the unity of purpose after the election by addressing big economic problems.
In the Middle East/North Africa arena there are three factors that can provide this unity of purpose: unemployment and water scarcity.
Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is a common feature of most of the countries affected by dictatorship. Water scarcity is also a feature of these lands. The area also has a rich resource
The solution is to start a massive New Deal in constructing an infrastructure to manage water efficiently. All roofs will be converted to rainwater collecting systems, linked to storage tanks. Water filters and purifiers will be provided both for collected rainwater and for grey water emerging from use. Sewage systems will be upgraded, and supplemented with dry sanitation systems where possible, especially in rural areas.
Solar desalination will be installed in coastal areas. The sea hypersalination problem associated with desalination will be met by creating salt beds. Some of this salt may have a market value, and excess can be put into dry storage underground.
Water can be applied to drip irrigation designed to increase food production, since food price rises are a major problem throughout the world.
There will be a programme of afforestation, starting in coastal areas, especially where there is an onshore prevailing wind. The relevance of this is that forestation will eventually have a moderating effect on the regional climate, reducing the need for air conditioning, which will save energy. The trees will provide forage for animals, fruit, leaves (which can assist in dry sewage systems) and wood.
The area has a huge solar power resource. In coming years, Europe and North Africa will be linked with a HVDC supergrid to distribute solar energy across the region. MENA countries can start installing Photovoltaic electricity generators on roofs and in the desert, developing expertise in the technology.
This economic programme turns economics on its head.
The Western economic model would rely on inward investment from trans-national mega-corporations to supply a bit of high paid work, some of which wealth will be supposed to trickle down to the rest of the economy, apart from those who are unfortunate enough to miss out on work.
The new model is to create work in forming the basic hardware that lies at the foundation of all economies - water, food, energy, and waste management.
If the completed revolutions turn their attention to this new economics, they will find a unity of purpose (not least in opposing the economic dinosaurs who will oppose it tooth and nail), leading to a stable, equitable economy and society.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Israel's options in the new Middle East
The coming changes in North Africa and the Middle East will cause a huge shift in the balance of power in the region.
Wikileaks have shown the intransigent nature of Israeli negotiations. This will now change. Israel must start negotiating in good faith.
Although Zionism predated World War 2, the Nazi Holocaust motivated Jews to found a state for their people in Israel.
The psychological effect of the horror of the Holocaust must be remembered and understood as a the basic motive for the paranoid and aggressive position of the Israeli Government.
The State of Israel has had an expansionist policy ever since its foundation, displacing Palestinians to an extent that can be characterised as ethnic cleansing, and has also denied human rights to Palestinians.
In retaliation for displacement and repression, Palestinians have fought back with hijackings, stones, rockets, and suicide bombings.
In retaliation of this, Israel has responded with ever-greater aerial bombings culminating with the disgraceful bombing of Lebanon in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9.
The mutual, retaliatory, violence-based policy is causing immense human suffering to the peoples of both sides, particularly the Palestinians. Militarism is causing polarisation of opinion, and an escalation of violence that could lead to wider conflict in the Middle East and even global conflict, which could even escalate into nuclear war.
In order to avoid this disastrous outcome, all parties must focus on a peace settlement based on negotiation and compromise, focused around co-operation in the task of creating a sustainable economy in their arid land.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the increase in population of Israel/Palestine on the part of both communities demands the functional expansion of the carrying capacity of the land, which demands in turn a functional increase in the supply of water to the area in order to increase the productivity of the land.
This must be based on co-operative water management solutions which will be both innovative and intensive.
It will be based on work on water harvesting, waste minimisation and water recycling, and reafforestation from the coast inwards.
While this work is in progress, the role of the international community is to conceive of and facilitate a way for this situation to come about by dialogue with all actors in the Middle East.
The case for peace is overwhelming from a rational point of view. Reason must displace emotions such as fear and resentment as the primary motive for action.
This objective can only be realised through the mutual recognition of the rights of independent statehood and secure borders of both Palestinians and Israelis; an immediate end to the violence and de-escalation of the arms build-up in the region; enforcement of UN resolutions 242 and 338; international assistance so that both the Palestinian and Israeli states can develop co-operative self-reliance in water management, food production and basic services and industries; and long term exploration of the possibility of establishing a confederation with neighbouring states, with free and equal access for each state's citizens.
All Israelis, Palestinians, and their families should have and be able to exercise full human and civil rights throughout Israel and the occupied territories. Israel should be subject to the Geneva Convention concerning the rights of individuals and communities.
All actors must recognise the right of the people of Israel to exist peacefully within secure borders.
Both the Israeli Government and the PLO to unequivocally reject violence as a means of settling their conflict.
Israel should repeal its present "law of return" because it is incompatible with the full exercise of human rights and is implicitly discriminatory, and is open to the accusation of being racist.
Israel should to have direct talks with representatives of the Palestinian people with a view to ensuring genuine religious, political, economic and other human rights for all people within Israel and the occupied territories.
Israel should allow Palestinians and their families to return to their former homes and be offered full Israeli citizenship, or to compensate those unable or unwilling to return to their homes and/or property.
Arab states should agree a mutual non-aggression pact, and a non-aggression pact with Israel. Such pacts must be guaranteed by the international community.
The United States Government should use its special relationship with Israel to halt military and financial support until Israel enters the dialogue called for above.
The Middle East is faced with a decision. Continuation of the old politics of confrontation and conflict can only lead to war. Co-operation in securing the basis of a sustainable economy for all in the area can lead to a just and lasting peace.
The choice is ours.
Wikileaks have shown the intransigent nature of Israeli negotiations. This will now change. Israel must start negotiating in good faith.
Although Zionism predated World War 2, the Nazi Holocaust motivated Jews to found a state for their people in Israel.
The psychological effect of the horror of the Holocaust must be remembered and understood as a the basic motive for the paranoid and aggressive position of the Israeli Government.
The State of Israel has had an expansionist policy ever since its foundation, displacing Palestinians to an extent that can be characterised as ethnic cleansing, and has also denied human rights to Palestinians.
In retaliation for displacement and repression, Palestinians have fought back with hijackings, stones, rockets, and suicide bombings.
In retaliation of this, Israel has responded with ever-greater aerial bombings culminating with the disgraceful bombing of Lebanon in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9.
The mutual, retaliatory, violence-based policy is causing immense human suffering to the peoples of both sides, particularly the Palestinians. Militarism is causing polarisation of opinion, and an escalation of violence that could lead to wider conflict in the Middle East and even global conflict, which could even escalate into nuclear war.
In order to avoid this disastrous outcome, all parties must focus on a peace settlement based on negotiation and compromise, focused around co-operation in the task of creating a sustainable economy in their arid land.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the increase in population of Israel/Palestine on the part of both communities demands the functional expansion of the carrying capacity of the land, which demands in turn a functional increase in the supply of water to the area in order to increase the productivity of the land.
This must be based on co-operative water management solutions which will be both innovative and intensive.
It will be based on work on water harvesting, waste minimisation and water recycling, and reafforestation from the coast inwards.
While this work is in progress, the role of the international community is to conceive of and facilitate a way for this situation to come about by dialogue with all actors in the Middle East.
The case for peace is overwhelming from a rational point of view. Reason must displace emotions such as fear and resentment as the primary motive for action.
This objective can only be realised through the mutual recognition of the rights of independent statehood and secure borders of both Palestinians and Israelis; an immediate end to the violence and de-escalation of the arms build-up in the region; enforcement of UN resolutions 242 and 338; international assistance so that both the Palestinian and Israeli states can develop co-operative self-reliance in water management, food production and basic services and industries; and long term exploration of the possibility of establishing a confederation with neighbouring states, with free and equal access for each state's citizens.
All Israelis, Palestinians, and their families should have and be able to exercise full human and civil rights throughout Israel and the occupied territories. Israel should be subject to the Geneva Convention concerning the rights of individuals and communities.
All actors must recognise the right of the people of Israel to exist peacefully within secure borders.
Both the Israeli Government and the PLO to unequivocally reject violence as a means of settling their conflict.
Israel should repeal its present "law of return" because it is incompatible with the full exercise of human rights and is implicitly discriminatory, and is open to the accusation of being racist.
Israel should to have direct talks with representatives of the Palestinian people with a view to ensuring genuine religious, political, economic and other human rights for all people within Israel and the occupied territories.
Israel should allow Palestinians and their families to return to their former homes and be offered full Israeli citizenship, or to compensate those unable or unwilling to return to their homes and/or property.
Arab states should agree a mutual non-aggression pact, and a non-aggression pact with Israel. Such pacts must be guaranteed by the international community.
The United States Government should use its special relationship with Israel to halt military and financial support until Israel enters the dialogue called for above.
The Middle East is faced with a decision. Continuation of the old politics of confrontation and conflict can only lead to war. Co-operation in securing the basis of a sustainable economy for all in the area can lead to a just and lasting peace.
The choice is ours.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt: way forward through maintaining political unity
There have been about 50 revolutions throughout the world since 1990 according to this list.
I was going to study what happens after a revolution, but I can see that this would need a lifetime of study.
It is obvious that each revolution has its own unique setting, characteristics and results, but at the same time, there is a common pattern, with early conflicts over betrayal of the ideals of the revolution, followed by disorder, followed by imposition of order by a strong man or strong party.
The ongoing Egyptian revolution has its own beauty in its non-violent nature, apart from the defensive measures the pro-democracy protesters had to take in response to the thugs. It also gained from the excellent oath taken by Egyptian Army not to kill their fellow-citizens, and this offers hope that Egypt will avoid this chaos-strong man pattern, thus setting an example for the world to follow.
Right now the Egypt revolution is justifiably in a mood of euphoria and a tremendous sense of unity. The physical , life threatening dangers are, hopefully, over.
The next phase means that they are entering the next level of difficulty in this existential game.
Politics.
The revolutionaries have to decide what to do now. Before, opinion was united around the simple insistence that Mubarak must Go.
Now opinion will be spread out on a spectrum between those who want an immediate overthrow of the Cabinet, the regime and all its policies, and those who want Egypt to get back to normal life as soon as possible.
An important part of this spread will be the formation of political parties in preparation for early elections. I know only too well, from 30 years of experience in a marginalised political party, how toxic relations between political parties can become. Personality and ego comes to the fore and reason goes out of the window. Competition is everything: if another party says white, you say black.
If the majority, secular part of Egypt's January 25 movement fragments into many disparate parties, the Muslim Brotherhood could end up as the largest single party in the post-revolutionary Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely, for several reasons, that they will create a theocracy like Iran, but their predominance would feed the paranoia of the US pro-Israeli right, which could lead to further military tensions in the region at a time when we need a popular movement of cooperation focussed on the foundations of the real economy, especially water.
Clearly, what happens now is up to the Egyptian people, but from a distance, which is often a good place to see the whole picture, the best political outcome would be for the secular (with or without the Muslim Brotherhood Jan25 revolutionaries to form an umbrella group to contest the next election, focused on the the 7 Demands, and on a radical direct approach to nation's economic and infrastructure problems: food prices, energy and water management.
Within the term of the post-Revolutionary Parliament, differences would coalesce into the natural political formation of political parties, who would contest the following election in the usual way.
I was going to study what happens after a revolution, but I can see that this would need a lifetime of study.
It is obvious that each revolution has its own unique setting, characteristics and results, but at the same time, there is a common pattern, with early conflicts over betrayal of the ideals of the revolution, followed by disorder, followed by imposition of order by a strong man or strong party.
The ongoing Egyptian revolution has its own beauty in its non-violent nature, apart from the defensive measures the pro-democracy protesters had to take in response to the thugs. It also gained from the excellent oath taken by Egyptian Army not to kill their fellow-citizens, and this offers hope that Egypt will avoid this chaos-strong man pattern, thus setting an example for the world to follow.
Right now the Egypt revolution is justifiably in a mood of euphoria and a tremendous sense of unity. The physical , life threatening dangers are, hopefully, over.
The next phase means that they are entering the next level of difficulty in this existential game.
Politics.
The revolutionaries have to decide what to do now. Before, opinion was united around the simple insistence that Mubarak must Go.
Now opinion will be spread out on a spectrum between those who want an immediate overthrow of the Cabinet, the regime and all its policies, and those who want Egypt to get back to normal life as soon as possible.
An important part of this spread will be the formation of political parties in preparation for early elections. I know only too well, from 30 years of experience in a marginalised political party, how toxic relations between political parties can become. Personality and ego comes to the fore and reason goes out of the window. Competition is everything: if another party says white, you say black.
If the majority, secular part of Egypt's January 25 movement fragments into many disparate parties, the Muslim Brotherhood could end up as the largest single party in the post-revolutionary Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely, for several reasons, that they will create a theocracy like Iran, but their predominance would feed the paranoia of the US pro-Israeli right, which could lead to further military tensions in the region at a time when we need a popular movement of cooperation focussed on the foundations of the real economy, especially water.
Clearly, what happens now is up to the Egyptian people, but from a distance, which is often a good place to see the whole picture, the best political outcome would be for the secular (with or without the Muslim Brotherhood Jan25 revolutionaries to form an umbrella group to contest the next election, focused on the the 7 Demands, and on a radical direct approach to nation's economic and infrastructure problems: food prices, energy and water management.
Within the term of the post-Revolutionary Parliament, differences would coalesce into the natural political formation of political parties, who would contest the following election in the usual way.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Blog Action Day - Water Crisis is an Opportunity to reach peace
Today is Blog Action Day, on the topic of water. Which is fine by me, as it is one of the recurrent topics on this blog.
We all know that available freshwater is the basis of life, and that it is in short supply in many parts of the earth. for the last 30 years there has been a steady trickle (sorry) of reports from people like the CIA pointing to the risk of conflict and war over water resources. It is one of the roots of the Darfur war.
This risk is real, but also, paradoxically, cooperation over scarce water resources could stimulate peace. There is evidence that sharing water is a way to peace. Given a small amount of political intelligence, states can create equitable ways of sharing water. Aaron T Wolf is your man to read up on.
The excellent Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) is pioneering collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian communities in local water projects.
I believe most strongly that the Green Party, working through its 2 MEPs and the Green Group in the European Parliament should get the EU to build on and massively expand the work of FoEME. The idea would be for the EU to donate guttering, pipes, buckets, cisterns and related gear to projects in Israel/Palestine, and encourage collaboration in water harvesting and conservation. Every drop of rain that falls on a roof will be collected and stored, for later use.
This will be a big project, and wherever practicable must engage workers from both communities in collaboration.
The idea is if you come home knackered at the end of a good day's work, you are going to be that bit less inclined to spend your evening plotting to kill your work mates.
Another aspect of this project will be the introduction of composting (waterless) toilets. We are stupid
in the UK to sh*t in our drinking water, but in arid countries it is nothing short of total madness. I use Joe Jenkins' Humanure system in my house, and can thoroughly recommend it. Not only does it save water, but also it increases soil fertility. Win-win.
The third arm of the remediation of arid countries is in reafforestation. Forests not only affecte the microclimate, but also act as aerial aquifers, enabling rain water to fall, be retained, evaporate, and fall again. It is reckoned that a molecule of H2O falls 6-7 times on the Amazon rainforest in its passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Reafforestation should start now, from the coast in. Here is a link to my outline for reafforestation in Africa, Desert Rose.
Part of Desert Rose involves solar desalination, which is a successful technology that is destined for a big future in arid countries.
Interestingly, some Israelis are doing reafforestation. (Unfortunately other Israelis, the ones suffering from the military madness, are ripping trees up. Which is a crime proscribed in the Torah - Deuteronomy 20:19).
In short, collaboration in providing for our water needs holds a promise of peace. It is up to us, the people, to think, study, imagine and propagate this notion of cooperation in securing one of the most precious resources that we have.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friends of the Earth Middle East doing great, need more support from Greens
Friends of the Earth Middle East, a civil society advocacy organization jointly established by environmentalists from Palestine, Jordan and Israel, has been officially announced as the 2010 winner of the Anna Lindh Foundation’s Euro-Mediterranean Dialogue Award.
FOEME deserves to be better known. They work across communities to improve the water environment of Israel/Palestine. This has huge potential, because the Land needs better water management, and a massive programme of rainwater harvesting and storage, composting toilets, and reafforestation could (a) divert energy from conflict and (b) expand the carrying capacity of the land, so that it could accommodate the expanding population of both Israelis and Palestinians.
I have tried many times in the past to get the International email list of the Green Party to take an interest in this, but they remain stuck in a sterile, antagonistic debate between supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians. This is a huge pity, and a symptom of the lapse of greens away from an ecological focus to a left-right dialectic.
Our MEPs and the Green Group of the European Parliament should be backing FoEME, and pressing for an EU initiative. The EU could supply guttering and cisterns for the rainwater harvesting. I will write to my MEPs in the South West, and to the Green Party MEPs. When I have sent off the submission to Ian Duncan Smith's consultation on 21st Century Welfare.
FOEME deserves to be better known. They work across communities to improve the water environment of Israel/Palestine. This has huge potential, because the Land needs better water management, and a massive programme of rainwater harvesting and storage, composting toilets, and reafforestation could (a) divert energy from conflict and (b) expand the carrying capacity of the land, so that it could accommodate the expanding population of both Israelis and Palestinians.
I have tried many times in the past to get the International email list of the Green Party to take an interest in this, but they remain stuck in a sterile, antagonistic debate between supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians. This is a huge pity, and a symptom of the lapse of greens away from an ecological focus to a left-right dialectic.
Our MEPs and the Green Group of the European Parliament should be backing FoEME, and pressing for an EU initiative. The EU could supply guttering and cisterns for the rainwater harvesting. I will write to my MEPs in the South West, and to the Green Party MEPs. When I have sent off the submission to Ian Duncan Smith's consultation on 21st Century Welfare.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
UN vote on the right to water leads on to our human responsibilities
28 July 2010 – Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights, the General Assembly declared, voicing deep concern that almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean water.
122 in favour, zero against, and 44 countries abstained, including the UK and its main ex-colonies - US, Canada, NZ & Australia.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
There is no sense in parachuting into the middle of the Sahara without water, and then using your satellite phone to insist that the FCO should provide you with water, on pain of being taken to court for breach of your human rights. If you are going to parachute into the middle of a waterless region, it is your responsibility to provide yourself with enough water to get you out again. I hope we can all agree on that.
In short, there are physical limitations on us. All of us. Even Libertarians.
Freshwater supplies are becoming scarcer. Many regions rely on groundwater, and wells are having to be dug ever deeper in some areas, because humans are drawing on a finite resource. We need to improve rainwater water harvesting, water management, water conservation, waterless toilets, and to plant forests.
Above all, we need to stop the exponential increase in the human population.
There is an irrational reluctance over this. The Libertarians scream "Fascism", and other people who should know better, (which group sadly includes the respectable George Monbiot) say it has nothing to do with population, and everything to do with consumption patterns.
It doesn't, and there is an inescapable logical proof of this. Consider a population who have the very best, most optimal, lowest ecological footprint imaginable, living on an island. They would at some stage have of absolute ineluctable unavoidable physical necessity at some stage be forced to stabilise their population.
So if we want to institute a moral or legal right to water, as an expression of Article 3, we also need a reciprocal responsibility to optimise our consumption of water, and to start on the path to global population stabilisation.
Ok? Simple. Logically inescapable. No argument or discussion necessary. Next!
Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.
And here is another one.
122 in favour, zero against, and 44 countries abstained, including the UK and its main ex-colonies - US, Canada, NZ & Australia.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
There is no sense in parachuting into the middle of the Sahara without water, and then using your satellite phone to insist that the FCO should provide you with water, on pain of being taken to court for breach of your human rights. If you are going to parachute into the middle of a waterless region, it is your responsibility to provide yourself with enough water to get you out again. I hope we can all agree on that.
In short, there are physical limitations on us. All of us. Even Libertarians.
Freshwater supplies are becoming scarcer. Many regions rely on groundwater, and wells are having to be dug ever deeper in some areas, because humans are drawing on a finite resource. We need to improve rainwater water harvesting, water management, water conservation, waterless toilets, and to plant forests.
Above all, we need to stop the exponential increase in the human population.
There is an irrational reluctance over this. The Libertarians scream "Fascism", and other people who should know better, (which group sadly includes the respectable George Monbiot) say it has nothing to do with population, and everything to do with consumption patterns.
It doesn't, and there is an inescapable logical proof of this. Consider a population who have the very best, most optimal, lowest ecological footprint imaginable, living on an island. They would at some stage have of absolute ineluctable unavoidable physical necessity at some stage be forced to stabilise their population.
So if we want to institute a moral or legal right to water, as an expression of Article 3, we also need a reciprocal responsibility to optimise our consumption of water, and to start on the path to global population stabilisation.
Ok? Simple. Logically inescapable. No argument or discussion necessary. Next!
Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.
And here is another one.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Israel/Palestine; How do we get peace?
Israel/Palestine looks like Northern Ireland in the Troubles, or South Africa under apartheid. Many pundits shake their heads and intone, "Insoluble". Matthew Parris just wants to stop thinking about it. He wants to wipe I/P off the cognitive map, and in this he is, dare I say it, somewhat like AhmadiNajad, although the latter only wants to wipe the I part of I/P off the map.
It looks insoluble because there are fundamentalist religious bigots on both sides. We have experience of this little problem here in Northern Ireland. Dogmatism and its false absolutes are a powerful force, but war-weariness is in the end and even stronger force. It usually takes a generation to for war to cause people to drop the simple dogmatic absolutes and adopt some realistic compromises. The first intifada was 23 years ago. That means that we should be ready for a resolution soon.
This conflict is a complex system, with multiple lines of causalities, and multiple positive feedback loops. The question is NOT a simple binary choice of "Which cause is right, the Palestinian cause or the Israeli cause?" The question is, "How can we help reverse the process of escalation of violence?"
Part of this is for the two Governments involved, Israeli and Hamas and their supporters, to understand that their mutual paranoia and mutual violence is counter productive to the interests of their people.
Another important part is to be aware of the many cross-community peace initiatives that exist.
Politicians deal in absolutes. The people deal in realities.
My favourite reality based, cross community initiative is Friends of the Earth Middle East. I want to see their work supported by the EU, and magnified many times over, into a serious water management system.
If the root cause of the conflict is the inward migration of significant numbers of people, then the answer is to make the land bigger, so that it can support them all. That sounds impossible, and spatially it is impossible, but functionally it is not. Land is only useful if it is fertile. Water and biological waste recycling are all that is required to make arid land fertile. This can be done with water harvesting, water conservation, and reforestation from the coast inwards. The economic effort of doing this will increase prosperity, and divert energy from hate-related activities.
The vicious cycle of hate can stop. The first step on this journey is for us to stop believing that hate is some kind of a solution, and that hate and paranoia are permanent state of affairs. They are not.
It looks insoluble because there are fundamentalist religious bigots on both sides. We have experience of this little problem here in Northern Ireland. Dogmatism and its false absolutes are a powerful force, but war-weariness is in the end and even stronger force. It usually takes a generation to for war to cause people to drop the simple dogmatic absolutes and adopt some realistic compromises. The first intifada was 23 years ago. That means that we should be ready for a resolution soon.
This conflict is a complex system, with multiple lines of causalities, and multiple positive feedback loops. The question is NOT a simple binary choice of "Which cause is right, the Palestinian cause or the Israeli cause?" The question is, "How can we help reverse the process of escalation of violence?"
Part of this is for the two Governments involved, Israeli and Hamas and their supporters, to understand that their mutual paranoia and mutual violence is counter productive to the interests of their people.
Another important part is to be aware of the many cross-community peace initiatives that exist.
Politicians deal in absolutes. The people deal in realities.
My favourite reality based, cross community initiative is Friends of the Earth Middle East. I want to see their work supported by the EU, and magnified many times over, into a serious water management system.
If the root cause of the conflict is the inward migration of significant numbers of people, then the answer is to make the land bigger, so that it can support them all. That sounds impossible, and spatially it is impossible, but functionally it is not. Land is only useful if it is fertile. Water and biological waste recycling are all that is required to make arid land fertile. This can be done with water harvesting, water conservation, and reforestation from the coast inwards. The economic effort of doing this will increase prosperity, and divert energy from hate-related activities.
The vicious cycle of hate can stop. The first step on this journey is for us to stop believing that hate is some kind of a solution, and that hate and paranoia are permanent state of affairs. They are not.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Composting toilets are the future.
Sorry there are no pictures, as my Blogger has lost the picture uploading link. It would have shown my nice shiny carefully made and varnished wooden thunderbox with re-used toilet lid, that contains one 5-gallon plastic bucket.
It couldn't be simpler. You shit in the bucket, and cover each offering with sawdust. All you can detect, once covered, is a faint odour of fresh varnish.
Full buckets are emptied into a normal compost heap which will go theromophilic (hot) due to bacteria already in the poo, and the carbon nitrogen balance of the excrement and the sawdust.
Composting means that all pathogenic bacteria, viruses and worms are destroyed. Most are gone within days or weeks, but we leave it for a year to be sure.
Composting toilets are the future. Growing population and consumerist lifestyles are putting drinking water availability at under pressure.
In view of this it makes no sense whatsoever to shit into our drinking water.
IsraelPalestine needs to co-operate on their water management issues, with cross community work on saving, harvesting and storing water.
Joe Jenkins is The Man.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Cumbria - low-cost floodwater pump
Our commiserations to people in Cumbria affected by floods. Let's hope there is no worse to come.
For any DIY enthusiasts, garden shed engineers amd entrepreneurs out there if you Click here you can find out how to build a pump that can shift large volumes of water to other places using an outboard motor and few intermediate technology skills.
I made one myself and tested it in the Congresbury Yeo. It worked very well.
Low head, high volume, ideal for dealing with floods.
Might prove of use in the current situation in Cumbria and in other floodings in the future.
For any DIY enthusiasts, garden shed engineers amd entrepreneurs out there if you Click here you can find out how to build a pump that can shift large volumes of water to other places using an outboard motor and few intermediate technology skills.
I made one myself and tested it in the Congresbury Yeo. It worked very well.
Low head, high volume, ideal for dealing with floods.
Might prove of use in the current situation in Cumbria and in other floodings in the future.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Israel, racism, absolutism, solutions
Adrian, has commented on the post below (Is Israel Racist?). My response is long, so I am putting it here as today's blog.
The original post analysis shows that there is a case to be made that Israel is a state founded on racist ideology, and that the behaviour of the Israeli Government towards the Palestinians is consistent with the inequitable behaviour that is consistent with racism.
I realise this is a controversial area, but please react to what I have written, not to the existing controversy out there.
I am not attacking Israel. I have simply tried to analyse objectively, keeping close to the exact meaning of the words racism, race, and Zionism. If anyone can show that the logic of the situation is not as I have shown it to be, I will be more than happy.
To summmarise again, Jews are (probably) a race, Zionism is a movement to establish and support a state for the Jewish race, and Israelis have been behaving in an unfair way to those not of their race.
The Probably is of interest, because "race" has several different meanings, and it is doubtful that there is a clear scientific basis for the word.
Adrian asks, "If you think Israel is racist because it is a Jewish state, then what of the Islamic states; Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia".
I agree, Islamic states create enormous human rights problems for their citizens. In many ways, Israel is a freer society than, say, Saudi Arabia. There is a difference, in that in Israel, there is conflation with descent ("race") and religion. The Islamic states are characterised by religion only. Although having said that, I would expect that a Caucasian convert to Islam might experience some common or garden discrimination when he goes out and about.
I agree that Iran is a repressive regime. Ahmadinajad's idiotic Holocaust denial and desire for nuclear weapons (not to mention power) was mentioned in the original piece. Adrian gives links to a Human Rights Watch report on Iran.
Adrian: "'Has Israel treated Palestinians unfairly?' I think you need to look at more than this years war to answer that".
We cannnot overlook this year's war.
The link you give to refutations of myths is informative, but on the other hand a pro-Palestinian could give an equally lengthy list of instances of unfair treatment within the State of Israel, and a longer list of complaints relating to the effects of the blockade of Gaza &c &c.
'Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote'
This is welcome, and promises well for the future, a good basis to build on.
The problem lies in absolutism. The pro-Palestinian line is that Israel is Zionist, Zionism is racism, therefore Israel must be done away with. The orthodox line is that God has promised the Land to the Jewish people form Dan even unto Beer-sheba. These absolutisms mean only one thing: continuation of the present misery ad infinitum, or all out war.
A more nuanced (new word, thanks Gordon) or relativistic line would be that there are indeed ideological and practical examples of racism in Israel's constitution and behaviour, and these must be amended. The Law of Return would be a good place to start.
This approach is well established in child psychology. You do not tell a child that it is a bad child for doing something; you tell it that the behavior is not helpful, and show the child a better way to respond to events.
We Greens can and must transcend the absolutist, pro-/anti-Israel divide.
First, we need always to distinguish between people and regime. We wish to see both communities flourish with enough water, food, homes, health and security. At the same time we can be as critical as need be for the failures of the Governments, of the Israeli Government, which has made a huge mistake in Operation Cast Lead, and of Hamas, with its absolutist ideology and provocative rocket attacks (though they reduced substantially in the ceasefire), and of the corrupt Fatah regime (have they cleaned up their act yet?).
Greens should seek to be even handed in its criticism of the regimes, and should be constructive in our analysis of the diplomatic efforts that are under way. As things stand, our policy statements lean towards condemnations of Israel.
Most importantly, though, we should open a new front at the level of the community. This is why we should adopt the Water Project, and put it forward as something that the EU should support with significant resources. This will empower the communities, benefiting them directly in economic and physical terms, because a new water regime means more food and more prosperity.
I hope that Adrian will get Reading Green Party to look at and adopt the Water Project. We need to get beyond the pro/anti debate and get behind the pro-peace and prosperity agenda.
The original post analysis shows that there is a case to be made that Israel is a state founded on racist ideology, and that the behaviour of the Israeli Government towards the Palestinians is consistent with the inequitable behaviour that is consistent with racism.
I realise this is a controversial area, but please react to what I have written, not to the existing controversy out there.
I am not attacking Israel. I have simply tried to analyse objectively, keeping close to the exact meaning of the words racism, race, and Zionism. If anyone can show that the logic of the situation is not as I have shown it to be, I will be more than happy.
To summmarise again, Jews are (probably) a race, Zionism is a movement to establish and support a state for the Jewish race, and Israelis have been behaving in an unfair way to those not of their race.
The Probably is of interest, because "race" has several different meanings, and it is doubtful that there is a clear scientific basis for the word.
Adrian asks, "If you think Israel is racist because it is a Jewish state, then what of the Islamic states; Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia".
I agree, Islamic states create enormous human rights problems for their citizens. In many ways, Israel is a freer society than, say, Saudi Arabia. There is a difference, in that in Israel, there is conflation with descent ("race") and religion. The Islamic states are characterised by religion only. Although having said that, I would expect that a Caucasian convert to Islam might experience some common or garden discrimination when he goes out and about.
I agree that Iran is a repressive regime. Ahmadinajad's idiotic Holocaust denial and desire for nuclear weapons (not to mention power) was mentioned in the original piece. Adrian gives links to a Human Rights Watch report on Iran.
Adrian: "'Has Israel treated Palestinians unfairly?' I think you need to look at more than this years war to answer that".
We cannnot overlook this year's war.
The link you give to refutations of myths is informative, but on the other hand a pro-Palestinian could give an equally lengthy list of instances of unfair treatment within the State of Israel, and a longer list of complaints relating to the effects of the blockade of Gaza &c &c.
'Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote'
This is welcome, and promises well for the future, a good basis to build on.
The problem lies in absolutism. The pro-Palestinian line is that Israel is Zionist, Zionism is racism, therefore Israel must be done away with. The orthodox line is that God has promised the Land to the Jewish people form Dan even unto Beer-sheba. These absolutisms mean only one thing: continuation of the present misery ad infinitum, or all out war.
A more nuanced (new word, thanks Gordon) or relativistic line would be that there are indeed ideological and practical examples of racism in Israel's constitution and behaviour, and these must be amended. The Law of Return would be a good place to start.
This approach is well established in child psychology. You do not tell a child that it is a bad child for doing something; you tell it that the behavior is not helpful, and show the child a better way to respond to events.
We Greens can and must transcend the absolutist, pro-/anti-Israel divide.
First, we need always to distinguish between people and regime. We wish to see both communities flourish with enough water, food, homes, health and security. At the same time we can be as critical as need be for the failures of the Governments, of the Israeli Government, which has made a huge mistake in Operation Cast Lead, and of Hamas, with its absolutist ideology and provocative rocket attacks (though they reduced substantially in the ceasefire), and of the corrupt Fatah regime (have they cleaned up their act yet?).
Greens should seek to be even handed in its criticism of the regimes, and should be constructive in our analysis of the diplomatic efforts that are under way. As things stand, our policy statements lean towards condemnations of Israel.
Most importantly, though, we should open a new front at the level of the community. This is why we should adopt the Water Project, and put it forward as something that the EU should support with significant resources. This will empower the communities, benefiting them directly in economic and physical terms, because a new water regime means more food and more prosperity.
I hope that Adrian will get Reading Green Party to look at and adopt the Water Project. We need to get beyond the pro/anti debate and get behind the pro-peace and prosperity agenda.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Is Israel racist? Yes, but there is a peaceful solution.
Anglophone and European delegates walk out on the Mahmoud Ahmedinajad's speech at the UN's "Durban Review" conference on racism in Geneva.
The question is, "Is Israel a racist state?"
I am going to be very careful here, because this question is enormously charged emotionally and politically, and I have no desire to enter a quagmire of political accusation and counter accusation.
So I am going to go to the dictionaries.
First, what is racism?
Merriam-Webster:
1 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 racial prejudice or discrimination
Cambridge dictionaries online:
the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:
Cambridge dictionary of American English:
a person who believes that some races are better than others, or who acts unfairly to someone because of their race
So that is pretty clear: racism is a belief in superiority of one race over another, together with the resulting inequitable treatment of another race.
Has Israel treated Palestinians unfairly? All the evidence certainly points in that direction. (The Israelis would say that much of their oppressive behaviour (e.g. Gaza 2009) is because of Palestinian provocation. OK, but the fact is that the kill ratio is more than 10 Palestinians dead for every Israeli dead).
Does the Israeli regime believe that it is racially superior? They would deny it, and a long and confusing debate would follow, because what someone believes is not as clear as what they do.
So inequitable treatment is a more useful indicator than belief. The evidence of ethnic cleansing, bulldozing of homes, appropriation of ground water, destruction of farmland, hindering of farming, blockade of Gaza and the rest, indicates clearly that Israel is acting unfairly. (Though Israel will always quote provocation as the cause, and Palestinians will always quote invasion as the cause of their provocation).
So it is certain that Israel is behaving unfairly, oppressively even, to the Palestinians. Is this racist oppression, or just plain oppression?
To cut through the confusion about belief we can ask the question whether Zionism is racism?
So, what is Zionism?
Interestingly, zionism is not found in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English.
Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionary:
a political movement which had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and which now works to help the development of Israel.
MerriamWebster:
an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to re-establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
So Zionism is for establishing and supporting a Jewish state.
Next question: are Jews a race?
Compact Oxford English dictionary:
a member of the people whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel.
MerriamWebster:
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4: one whose religion is Judaism
Cambridge Advance Learner's Dictionary:
a member of a race of people whose traditional religion is Judaism
Webster's New World College Dictionary:
1. a person descended, or regarded as descended, from the ancient Hebrews of Biblical times
2. a person whose religion is Judaism
And just to be sure, what is a race?
Compact OED:
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race.
3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
4 a group of people or things with a common feature.
— USAGE Some people now feel that the word race should be avoided, because of its associations with the now discredited theories of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists about supposed racial superiority. Terms such as people, community, or ethnic group are less emotionally charged.
Cambridge dictionaries online:
a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group:
So we can conclude that Jews are (probably) a race, Zionism is a movement to establish and support a state for the Jewish race, and Israelis have been behaving in an unfair way to those not of their race.
The central item of policy to support this conclusion is embodied in the Law of Return enacted in the Israeli Parliament in 1950, that gives Jews, those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship.
In defence of the law of return, Israelis argue that other countries exercise a right of return for their citizens. That would be citizens, not members of their race.
In conclusion, it does seem that Ahmedinajad, although in many ways (the supposed benefits of nuclear weapons and Holocaust denial) a deluded person, has a strong logical case about Israel's racism. There is an inherent theoretical racist component in Zionism, and, more importantly, Israel has been behaving unfairly to the Palestinians in a way that is consistent with a racist ideology.
What conclusions can we draw from this? There are two main options, the absolutist, and the realist.
Absolutists argue that Israel is a racist state, and is therefore illegitimate, and should go the way of apartheid South Africa. Israel should be crippled by divestment and sanctions until it folds, and is merged into a single state with power sharing with Palestinians.
However, from the Israeli point of view, that is an existential threat, and the Holocaust has sensitised them against existential threats. Israel's absolutists therefore stand opposed to pro-Palestinian absolutists, an immovable object faced with an irresistible force. Restult: either stalemate or all - out war.
Indeed, the act of abolishing Israel could also be construed as racist.
The realist, or Green, view is that the mess posed by these absolutisms can be avoided by addressing the immediate needs of the people in the Land, while politicians do what they do best: argue and call each other names. Insofar as they will achieve anything, they should start on the Law of Return, removing the racist element of the Israeli constitution.
The real problem is that the Land is semi arid.
The population is growing, partly through immigration.
It is a vital necessity to improve the productivity of the Land to meet the needs of the polulation.
To do this we need water.
To improve the water, we need to harvest every drop that falls onto any roof, we need to conserve water, and we need to plant forests.
We also need lots of solar energy.
Europe and the US need to give resources to enable both communities to cooperate in enabling these things to take place. In doing so, we will be diverting energy and attention from resentment to cooperation, from weapons to hoes, from warfare to welfare.
We have European elections on June 4th. Not that there is anything in the papers about it, because euro-elections are seen as desperately unsexy by the media. Controversy over Ahmediajad is more the style. But today's headline controversy gives us an opportunity to show how we can get to peace through addressing ecological realities.
I hope that the Green Party will soon be putting this forward as its contribution to the otherwise intractable problem Israel and Palestine.
Remember you read (of the proposal that the Greens should adopt this line) it here first.
The question is, "Is Israel a racist state?"
I am going to be very careful here, because this question is enormously charged emotionally and politically, and I have no desire to enter a quagmire of political accusation and counter accusation.
So I am going to go to the dictionaries.
First, what is racism?
Merriam-Webster:
1 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 racial prejudice or discrimination
Cambridge dictionaries online:
the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:
Cambridge dictionary of American English:
a person who believes that some races are better than others, or who acts unfairly to someone because of their race
So that is pretty clear: racism is a belief in superiority of one race over another, together with the resulting inequitable treatment of another race.
Has Israel treated Palestinians unfairly? All the evidence certainly points in that direction. (The Israelis would say that much of their oppressive behaviour (e.g. Gaza 2009) is because of Palestinian provocation. OK, but the fact is that the kill ratio is more than 10 Palestinians dead for every Israeli dead).
Does the Israeli regime believe that it is racially superior? They would deny it, and a long and confusing debate would follow, because what someone believes is not as clear as what they do.
So inequitable treatment is a more useful indicator than belief. The evidence of ethnic cleansing, bulldozing of homes, appropriation of ground water, destruction of farmland, hindering of farming, blockade of Gaza and the rest, indicates clearly that Israel is acting unfairly. (Though Israel will always quote provocation as the cause, and Palestinians will always quote invasion as the cause of their provocation).
So it is certain that Israel is behaving unfairly, oppressively even, to the Palestinians. Is this racist oppression, or just plain oppression?
To cut through the confusion about belief we can ask the question whether Zionism is racism?
So, what is Zionism?
Interestingly, zionism is not found in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English.
Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionary:
a political movement which had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and which now works to help the development of Israel.
MerriamWebster:
an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to re-establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
So Zionism is for establishing and supporting a Jewish state.
Next question: are Jews a race?
Compact Oxford English dictionary:
a member of the people whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel.
MerriamWebster:
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4: one whose religion is Judaism
Cambridge Advance Learner's Dictionary:
a member of a race of people whose traditional religion is Judaism
Webster's New World College Dictionary:
1. a person descended, or regarded as descended, from the ancient Hebrews of Biblical times
2. a person whose religion is Judaism
And just to be sure, what is a race?
Compact OED:
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race.
3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
4 a group of people or things with a common feature.
— USAGE Some people now feel that the word race should be avoided, because of its associations with the now discredited theories of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists about supposed racial superiority. Terms such as people, community, or ethnic group are less emotionally charged.
Cambridge dictionaries online:
a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group:
So we can conclude that Jews are (probably) a race, Zionism is a movement to establish and support a state for the Jewish race, and Israelis have been behaving in an unfair way to those not of their race.
The central item of policy to support this conclusion is embodied in the Law of Return enacted in the Israeli Parliament in 1950, that gives Jews, those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship.
In defence of the law of return, Israelis argue that other countries exercise a right of return for their citizens. That would be citizens, not members of their race.
In conclusion, it does seem that Ahmedinajad, although in many ways (the supposed benefits of nuclear weapons and Holocaust denial) a deluded person, has a strong logical case about Israel's racism. There is an inherent theoretical racist component in Zionism, and, more importantly, Israel has been behaving unfairly to the Palestinians in a way that is consistent with a racist ideology.
What conclusions can we draw from this? There are two main options, the absolutist, and the realist.
Absolutists argue that Israel is a racist state, and is therefore illegitimate, and should go the way of apartheid South Africa. Israel should be crippled by divestment and sanctions until it folds, and is merged into a single state with power sharing with Palestinians.
However, from the Israeli point of view, that is an existential threat, and the Holocaust has sensitised them against existential threats. Israel's absolutists therefore stand opposed to pro-Palestinian absolutists, an immovable object faced with an irresistible force. Restult: either stalemate or all - out war.
Indeed, the act of abolishing Israel could also be construed as racist.
The realist, or Green, view is that the mess posed by these absolutisms can be avoided by addressing the immediate needs of the people in the Land, while politicians do what they do best: argue and call each other names. Insofar as they will achieve anything, they should start on the Law of Return, removing the racist element of the Israeli constitution.
The real problem is that the Land is semi arid.
The population is growing, partly through immigration.
It is a vital necessity to improve the productivity of the Land to meet the needs of the polulation.
To do this we need water.
To improve the water, we need to harvest every drop that falls onto any roof, we need to conserve water, and we need to plant forests.
We also need lots of solar energy.
Europe and the US need to give resources to enable both communities to cooperate in enabling these things to take place. In doing so, we will be diverting energy and attention from resentment to cooperation, from weapons to hoes, from warfare to welfare.
We have European elections on June 4th. Not that there is anything in the papers about it, because euro-elections are seen as desperately unsexy by the media. Controversy over Ahmediajad is more the style. But today's headline controversy gives us an opportunity to show how we can get to peace through addressing ecological realities.
I hope that the Green Party will soon be putting this forward as its contribution to the otherwise intractable problem Israel and Palestine.
Remember you read (of the proposal that the Greens should adopt this line) it here first.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Somali pirates: free the captain, and free the Somali people too
(updated 12 april) Good news that the captain of the Maersk Sealander has been set free from his captors. Now the world should set about freeing the whole of Somali people, who are all hostages of lawless gunmen.
Now that American ships have been attacked by Somali pirates, we can expect action, in the form of intense patrolling by Western warships. Understandably. With Obama in charge, happily we can hope that the patrols will be under a UN flag, or at least under the aegis of the UN.
I suggested naval patrols a couple of years ago, because food aid bound for Somalia is having to sail way out to sea, land the cargo in Kenya, and then drive it up to Somalia in lorries, all to avoid the pirates.
Somalia is a place from which the world likes to avert our gaze. The Somalis have suffered eighteen years of anarcho-capitalism, with rule by warlords. The Western Governments put themselves out to create a Transitional Federal Government, wound it up, and let it go toddling off into the hot, bloodstained sand, on its own. To nobody's surprise, the TFG has all but failed.
To set up a democratic state, you need a demos - an empowered people. A handful of ministers and civil servants are not enough. The same thing was done in Iraq, although, thankfully, it seems to be working, due to intense investment of power and money (the bits that Halliburton didn't embezzle, that is) by the USofA.
How should we set up a democracy in Somalia? We should go to the traditional tribal leaders, empower them, and help them to organise a panchayat system. It worked well in Mozambique.
Well let me qualify that: it worked as well as anything ever did in Mozambique when I was there in 1991.
There is an organisation called the Center for Peace and Democracy (CPD) in Somalia, although the CEO has had to leave the country, under threat from both the TFG and the extremist (as opposed to non-extremist) Islamists. CPD has been working with the tribal chiefs, and could help to set up a real state. But it needs an end to the fighting first, and that is a tall order.
The Islamic Courts Union succeeded in stopping the warlords in Mogadishu, using Sharia Law. You put your hand to that gun, they said, and that is the last thing your hand will ever pick up.
The gun stayed un-picked-up.
Heavy justice. But arguably preferable to anarcho-capitalism. Of course, Bush was not about to set a few warlords onto the ICU, and the warlordism continues.
One current problem is that Kenya is slicing off a bit of Somalia's territorial waters, by drawing wonky lines on the map. The weak TFG has lamely agreed to this further loss for Somalia's people, who need the fish. We may wonder whether any TFG Ministers were bribed? Is this a first step towards bordering states making land grabs?
It's all a miserable mess. The only way out that I can see is for the UN to make a serious effort to contact the traditional tribal chiefs and see what they can come up with. As with Israel/Palestine, diversionary activity in water conservation measures would be helpful.
Impossible though it seems, Somalia will get sorted out sometime in the future. The UN should set it as a priority, for the sake of the people, and for the sake of enhancing its authority. It is a difficult problem, but there are pathways available, some innovative, some traditional. What is needed is the political will.
Now that American ships have been attacked by Somali pirates, we can expect action, in the form of intense patrolling by Western warships. Understandably. With Obama in charge, happily we can hope that the patrols will be under a UN flag, or at least under the aegis of the UN.
I suggested naval patrols a couple of years ago, because food aid bound for Somalia is having to sail way out to sea, land the cargo in Kenya, and then drive it up to Somalia in lorries, all to avoid the pirates.
Somalia is a place from which the world likes to avert our gaze. The Somalis have suffered eighteen years of anarcho-capitalism, with rule by warlords. The Western Governments put themselves out to create a Transitional Federal Government, wound it up, and let it go toddling off into the hot, bloodstained sand, on its own. To nobody's surprise, the TFG has all but failed.
To set up a democratic state, you need a demos - an empowered people. A handful of ministers and civil servants are not enough. The same thing was done in Iraq, although, thankfully, it seems to be working, due to intense investment of power and money (the bits that Halliburton didn't embezzle, that is) by the USofA.
How should we set up a democracy in Somalia? We should go to the traditional tribal leaders, empower them, and help them to organise a panchayat system. It worked well in Mozambique.
Well let me qualify that: it worked as well as anything ever did in Mozambique when I was there in 1991.
There is an organisation called the Center for Peace and Democracy (CPD) in Somalia, although the CEO has had to leave the country, under threat from both the TFG and the extremist (as opposed to non-extremist) Islamists. CPD has been working with the tribal chiefs, and could help to set up a real state. But it needs an end to the fighting first, and that is a tall order.
The Islamic Courts Union succeeded in stopping the warlords in Mogadishu, using Sharia Law. You put your hand to that gun, they said, and that is the last thing your hand will ever pick up.
The gun stayed un-picked-up.
Heavy justice. But arguably preferable to anarcho-capitalism. Of course, Bush was not about to set a few warlords onto the ICU, and the warlordism continues.
One current problem is that Kenya is slicing off a bit of Somalia's territorial waters, by drawing wonky lines on the map. The weak TFG has lamely agreed to this further loss for Somalia's people, who need the fish. We may wonder whether any TFG Ministers were bribed? Is this a first step towards bordering states making land grabs?
It's all a miserable mess. The only way out that I can see is for the UN to make a serious effort to contact the traditional tribal chiefs and see what they can come up with. As with Israel/Palestine, diversionary activity in water conservation measures would be helpful.
Impossible though it seems, Somalia will get sorted out sometime in the future. The UN should set it as a priority, for the sake of the people, and for the sake of enhancing its authority. It is a difficult problem, but there are pathways available, some innovative, some traditional. What is needed is the political will.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sharing water is a way to peace
Peace in the pipeline: "Today, more than ever, it is time to stop propagating threats of 'water wars' and aggressively pursue a water peacemaking strategy.
Why? Well, water war warnings force the military and other security groups to take over negotiations and push out development partners, like aid agencies and international financial institutions.
Water management, on the other hand, offers an avenue for peaceful dialogue between nations, even when combatants are fighting over other issues.
Water co-operation forges people-to-people or expert-to-expert connections, as demonstrated by the trans-boundary water and sanitation projects that Friends of the Earth Middle East conducts in Israel, Jordan, and Palestine.
Water management is, by definition, conflict management."
"No nations have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years; the only documented case of war with such a specific cause was between the city states of Lagash and Umma on the Tigris River 4,500 years ago."International water disputes - even among fierce enemies - are generally resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues.
Worth reading in full.
Why? Well, water war warnings force the military and other security groups to take over negotiations and push out development partners, like aid agencies and international financial institutions.
Water management, on the other hand, offers an avenue for peaceful dialogue between nations, even when combatants are fighting over other issues.
Water co-operation forges people-to-people or expert-to-expert connections, as demonstrated by the trans-boundary water and sanitation projects that Friends of the Earth Middle East conducts in Israel, Jordan, and Palestine.
Water management is, by definition, conflict management."
"No nations have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years; the only documented case of war with such a specific cause was between the city states of Lagash and Umma on the Tigris River 4,500 years ago."International water disputes - even among fierce enemies - are generally resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues.
Why? Because water is so important that nations cannot afford to fight over it.
Instead, water fuels greater interdependence.
By coming together to manage their shared water resources jointly, countries can build trust and help prevent conflict".
Great resources here, by Aaron T Wolf, Professor of Geography in the Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University, because it is positive.Worth reading in full.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Newsnight on Water scarcity
I saw the Newsnight piece on water scarcity last night.
Either it will lead to conflict (they mentioned local fights over water, and the CIA flagged water as a potential cause of conflict many years ago), or it will lead to cooperation.
If we devoted as much effort and money to the basics of life as we do to the basics of death, we could all live happily.
Even the Sahel will remain inhabitable when we put in place a massive programme of reforestation (starting at the coast, and working inland) together with water harvesting and storage technologies.
In fact, we can either save the planetary environment or continue with our military madness.
We cannot do both.
Someone should tell Gordon Brown.
Either it will lead to conflict (they mentioned local fights over water, and the CIA flagged water as a potential cause of conflict many years ago), or it will lead to cooperation.
If we devoted as much effort and money to the basics of life as we do to the basics of death, we could all live happily.
Even the Sahel will remain inhabitable when we put in place a massive programme of reforestation (starting at the coast, and working inland) together with water harvesting and storage technologies.
In fact, we can either save the planetary environment or continue with our military madness.
We cannot do both.
Someone should tell Gordon Brown.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Helping solve London's water shortage
Today's letter to John Penrose MP (Con) Weston Super Mare
Dear John
Would be so good as to ask the Mnister with oversight of the provision of drinking water in the South East why the Government will not request the water companies to order the use of water pumps in London's high rise buildings in order to allow them to reduce water pressure overall, and therefore the unacceptably high rate of leakage from Londons mains water supply system.
The background to this is that London's mains are in a chaotic state as a result of the hasty repairs made after bombing in the 1939-45 war. There are a huge number of leaks, and the water companies claim that there is a skill shortage, as well as a money shortage (although the latter is debatable, given the level of profit returned by water companies) to repair the leaks.
On the other hand, the rate of leakage is proportional to mains pressure, which has to be kept high in order to keep the water flowing from taps on the upper floors of high rise buildings. It is already the practice for very high rise buildings to have their own pumps in order to meet this problem. If these pumps were fitted to lower rise buildings in an orderly way (that is, prioritising the highest buildings in a given water supply sector), mains pressure could be lowered progressively.
This is a logical and economic solution to the problem that could be tested as a pilot scheme in one sector if desired.
Thank you for asking Government if this is happening, and if not, why not.
Best wishes
Richard Lawson
(so let it not be said that contry dwellers care not for the feckless Londoners. Not only do we supply them with food, but now we are helping them with their water problem)
Dear John
Would be so good as to ask the Mnister with oversight of the provision of drinking water in the South East why the Government will not request the water companies to order the use of water pumps in London's high rise buildings in order to allow them to reduce water pressure overall, and therefore the unacceptably high rate of leakage from Londons mains water supply system.
The background to this is that London's mains are in a chaotic state as a result of the hasty repairs made after bombing in the 1939-45 war. There are a huge number of leaks, and the water companies claim that there is a skill shortage, as well as a money shortage (although the latter is debatable, given the level of profit returned by water companies) to repair the leaks.
On the other hand, the rate of leakage is proportional to mains pressure, which has to be kept high in order to keep the water flowing from taps on the upper floors of high rise buildings. It is already the practice for very high rise buildings to have their own pumps in order to meet this problem. If these pumps were fitted to lower rise buildings in an orderly way (that is, prioritising the highest buildings in a given water supply sector), mains pressure could be lowered progressively.
This is a logical and economic solution to the problem that could be tested as a pilot scheme in one sector if desired.
Thank you for asking Government if this is happening, and if not, why not.
Best wishes
Richard Lawson
(so let it not be said that contry dwellers care not for the feckless Londoners. Not only do we supply them with food, but now we are helping them with their water problem)
Friday, March 11, 2005
Life and Death over Jordan's stream...
Only sewage keeps the Jordan alive Guardian, International News, March 9), but it does not have to be like this. Everybody can understand that the natural world is our common inheritance. If a community or an industry draws on that commons, natural justice requires that they pay their neighbours for the common goods that they lose out on. Tradable water usage quotas would figure here, causing money to flow from Israelis to the Jordanians and Palestinians, given that the Israelis have a higher water usage. More importantly, the increased cost of water would stimulate effective water conservation measures.
The sewage problem is solved by simply requiring that the intake for any settlement is sited downstream of the discharge pipe. This would stimulate development of non-water based sewage systems. The environment in the Middle East is a life and death matter today, not tomorrow. If they fight over water and other environmental resources, it will mean death. If they co-operate in ensuring that the Middle East environment has the capacity to carry its human population, the very co-operation will divert energy, attention and resources away from the conflict that looms there, and will mean life.
The sewage problem is solved by simply requiring that the intake for any settlement is sited downstream of the discharge pipe. This would stimulate development of non-water based sewage systems. The environment in the Middle East is a life and death matter today, not tomorrow. If they fight over water and other environmental resources, it will mean death. If they co-operate in ensuring that the Middle East environment has the capacity to carry its human population, the very co-operation will divert energy, attention and resources away from the conflict that looms there, and will mean life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
