Is the EU willing to work for peace in Palestine?

http://www.theeuros.eu/Jorgen-Jensehaugen-The-EU-could,2028

Mahmoud Darwish in memoriam

Condolences to the Palestinian people for the loss of voice: the voice of the deprived, the voice of exile, the voice of reason and of memory. Darwish carried all those voices and many more … one of the greatest poets of his time, he embodied the Palestinian struggle in words that made tragedy comprehendable.

The Bonapartist Heritage and the Fallacy of Revolutionary War

When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Europe it was because the ideals of Egalité, Fraternité and Liberté were to be spread across the continent. His egalitarian and liberational rhetoric was pure guise, of course, and he spread nothing of the sort. His genius was that he used the rhetoric of the revolution in the service of war, or rather empire. As Hannah Arendt has observed this became trendsetting. War had become old fashioned (l’ancient regime), whilst revolution was the new hype. War, however, has proved hard lived and never seems to be passé, despite enormous popular opposition. What in reality occurred was that war remodelled itself by taking on a revolutionary guise.
There is a red line from Napoleon to Bush, a bloodline so to speak. It is a long line that stretches via unlikely relatives such as Leo Trotsky (eternal revolution), and more recognizable ones such as the Vietnam War (anti-domino). When Bush launched his crusade (the not quite slip-of-the-tongue that he later claimed) against the dictatorships of the extended Middle East, he used the very same rhetorical guise that Napoleon used. His ideas of spreading democracy (at gunpoint), which was supposed to make the oppressed Iraqi’s throw flowers at the American tanks in pure euphoria, was so closely related to Napoleon’s revolutionary export that one cannot escape the irony. In both cases the result was all but what the rhetoric stated. Napoleon “liberated” the ancient states of Europe, but oppression, and not liberty was installed, hence the uprisings against him. Likewise, when Bush “liberated” the Iraqi people they rose up in what has become known as an insurgency. The fallacy of the duality of rhetorical revolution and factual war is that while war is dictate, revolution is choice. One from above and outside, the other from below and inside. Hence the duality is based on an assumption that one can combine opposites. Time and time again this assumption has proven to be a false one. The reoccurrence is therefore surprising in its stupidity. It would seem that Robert Fisk’s dry-witted observation that “the only thing we learn from history is that nobody bothers to learn from it” is an unfortunate truism.

On voting

Abstaining from voting and voting blank appear, when taken face-value, to be the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one investigates the two phenomenon closely one will discover that they are, in effect, diametrically opposed. Abstaining from voting is a non-participatory stance. Its political implications are – I don’t care!; It doesn’t matter who wins; All candidates are equally good; I agree with everything; etcetera, etcetera ad nauseam.

Voting blank, on the other hand, is an active statement of opposition. Its political implications are – I care!; It matters who wins, however, none of the candidates on offer represent me; I disagree so strongly with the status quo and those who claim to be able to alter/keep it, that I cannot support any of the politic(ian)s on the ballot.

For those disillusioned with the existing politics the choice between these two options is a vital decision. One must ask oneself: Do I care?

On perfection and the death of the metaphor

No metaphor can ever be perfect as such perfection would render the metaphor into the thing (phenomenon) itself, hence it would cease to be a metaphor. The use of the metaphor therefore is not that of recreating the thing, but rather that of approximating it in a rhetorical sense, making the reader think. The imperfection is an imbued part of this art, as the very imperfection creates a second level of thought. Not only is the reader forced to think – yes, that’s a good way of putting it! – but also – that’s not quite it, is it?

Reflections on the Nobel Peace prize

In two of the last five years’ Nobel Peace prize ceremonies there has been a certain symbolic silence, or a silence of symbolism.

The first of the two I am talking about is the 2002 prize handed to Jimmy Carter “For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.” What isn’t said in this is the following: “Dear Mr. Bush. Please remember the good old days of American Foreign Policy when human rights really was an issue. Remember when the US-government really tried to achieve peace in the Middle East. Please Mr. President, it’s not too late to repent! You can still change your ways.”

The second such prize of symbolic silence is the 2007 prize, half of it handed to Al Gore. What was said was “For their [Al Gore and the UN Climate Panel] efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” What wasn’t said, in the tradition of silence, was: “Dr. Mr. Bush, the man who you defeated in elections (not completely democratically) has in his job as not-president, done a more important job for making the world a better place than you. A fact that is quite impressive considering the fact that you’ve ruled the greatest nation on earth, while he has been a mere traveling preacher-man.” Also, what isn’t said, is: “Dear American people. We recognize the fact that if you had a full-fledged, well-functioning democracy, the man whom we honour today would have been your president.” And by the same token: “Dear Mr. Gore. Thank you not only for your work on making climate change an issue, but also for your insistent work on pointing out the malfunctions of American democracy.” Taking the silence into consideration, perhaps the choice wasn’t so bad after all. Still, I can’t help wonder … why doesn’t Al Gore ever use public transport in his film?

Pilate the redeemer

Let us Pontus Pilate

all the unmentionable sins

discolouring our p(s)alms

as we recognize that

The niggers of the universe

come in all shades

and that universal suffering

is the colourless man’s burden.