Empathy: a solution to the "Palestine/Israel problem"?

I don't pretend to have the solution to the Palestinian "problem", or indeed any other long running disputes in the world.  But I agreed with Ed Husain, who wrote recently in the Times that none of us can afford to turn our backs or hide our heads in the sand.  I did not agree with him that the United Kingdom has an obligation due to our earlier involvement in earlier times, because too many problems are caused by looking backwards and referring to history.  The UK should help if it has the competence to help, otherwise not.

But the reason for this blog is that it seems to me that peace will only come about when Israelis and Palestinians are able to look with some sympathy on the plight of the other.  Each side has developed its own version of history, with itself as the oppressed and the other as the oppressor.  Each is justified with its own coherent story which is reinforced over time, and the gap between them becomes an abyss.  Steven Pinker in his extraordinary book "The better Angels of our Nature" described this as "The Moralisation Gap".  To resolve problems like that in the Middle East you have to find a way to close the gap.  There is a lot more to this than the lack of empathy implied in the blog title, but Pinker provides the detail so I shan't.  But the bottom line is that peace is not possible so long as each side thinks:
a) it is the oppressed, the other is the oppressor (this may be true, but equally be a political construct created by politicians to keep their population behind them, even to the extent of provoking the other side to get a  response, so that they can say "I told you so");  
b) if you hit the other guy enough, eventually he (or she) will give in.  This is politics of the playground and surely there is enough evidence now that is is not going to work.  

Contrary to some, the United States cannot police the"free world", or it would not be free, but it has the luxury, through wealth and a certain amount of respect, to be able to stand to certain principles; democracy, truth, individual freedom, etc.  Of course it mainly acts in its own interest; the objective of all foreign policy is almost always self-interest, but this should not be incompatible with the broader principles that are shared in the "free world".  However its strategy not only for the Middle East but also elsewhere (as with the Soviet Union and now Russia for example and the Ukrainian crisis) invariably seems to be to weigh in on one side or the other.  This is notwithstanding the routine appointment of big-hitting politicians/diplomats as regional "peace negotiators".  Alternatively, they adopt an isolationist position and turn the other way, to let people "solve their own problems".  The cynic may argue that the only driver for foreign policy is national self-interest (or, in a democracy, political survival come the next election), and in the Middle East oil supply and the pro-Israeli vote at home, seem to be key interests.  But neither of these approaches addresses the gap in historical narratives, or closure of the abyss that exists between warring parties, and the longer this situation prevails, the firmer, and more extreme, those positions become.  

The UK, unlike the USA, despite often being seen as in the pocket of the "Great Satan" and despite its colonial past, seems to be respected and trusted.  We are generally principled, law abiding, honest, and have some humility (well with our history, a great power brought low, we better be humble).   This puts us in a strong position to be the honest broker.  The process may be slow and may take a generation, but it is surely better than allowing sores to fester (In the case of the Middle East today that does not mean I think Tony Blair is the man for the job though. Surely he carries far too much baggage).

But what of a solution for Palestine?  The politics of Hamas are truly obnoxious as regards Israel; it cannot seriously believe that a permanent peace is possible until it recognises the right of Israel to live in peace.  On the other hand we have seen the dark side of some Israelis too these past few weeks; not just totally disproportionate responses by the military and government, but some right wing politicians effectively calling for the elimination of Palestinians altogether!  Perhaps the West should start by being a little more even handed between these two extreme positions and stop rewarding the leaders on both sides for bad behaviour, starting with the money.

In the last 20 years or so, huge amounts of aid have been pumped into the Middle East.  The Palestinian Authorities have received USD 500 million money (give or take) per annum from a range of national and international organisations, but most recently from the USA and EU, mainly for social infrastructure and bureaucracy.  On the other hand over the same period Israel has received between USD2 and USD3 billion per annum, of which 2/3 is military aid.

Someone tweeted recently (sorry but I have not got the link) that if Hamas disarmed it would never get what it wants, but if Israel disarmed it would be annihilated, or words to that effect.  This is a good reason to support Israel's self-defence, but favouring one side is not the way to bring people together.  And money counts because if people have a house to live in, can earn a living, send their children to school and benefit from reasonable health, why would they want to fight?  But if they live in poverty, with no hope and fear for their lives,then why should they not fight, especially if their narrative tells them they are the oppressed.

So perhaps the USA could encourage this by more even handed use of its huge financial resources.  And perhaps the UK can play a part in helping both sides to see the world from the other's perspective a little more; if they don't see that they are all human, then peace is impossible.

We should all be Euro Sceptics, and the Liberals amongst us more than anyone

Liberal Democrats differentiate themselves on Europe as the only party that is truly European. This is interpreted by the public at large as meaning uncritical acceptance of overbearing European interference in every aspect of our lives and of an expensive Euro-bureaucracy.  I don’t believe this is the case, but Lib Dems have not articulated their position on Europe well enough and it is a convenient for the media to characterise them so, especially the Tory Press, creating more than a channel’s-width of blue water between the Lib Dems and a Euro-sceptic Tory party.

In reality very few people, including Lib Dems, really wants the kind of Europe that the Euro-sceptics are sceptical about or that Ukip wants to be independent from.  But equally I suspect that neither are the millions who voted for Ukip so against Europe as the few extremists, or opportunists, who lead that party.  No one in their right senses wants a Europe divided on racial, religious or nationalist lines from which another catastrophic war could quite conceivably result and most people probably believe that an open Europe of free trade and generally free movement, is a good thing.  On a recent visit to Brussels I visited the "Parliamentarium", a technically very clever but admittedly self-serving museum covering the history benefits of the EU. What struck me was how compelling is the narrative about European history over the last 100 years, and the visionary leaders who saw some political integration as the only way to avoid future catastrophes.  I have also to admit I was not fully aware of how the democratic machinery of the EU works, but I blame that largely on UK politicians who don't bother to explain this to the electorate.  When for example have they ever at elections talked about the policies and manifestos of the coalitions to which their parties below?  Instead they just bang on about their own UK party policies, as if they can enact legislation or change in Europe without the help of others. But that is another story.

What is clear to me is that most people, including pro-Europeans, see many aspects of the EU that need reforming.  By that I don't just mean improvements through further cooperation, but real change in what is understood by the “European experiment”.   Bloated budgets and bureaucracy suit the dirigiste political elites of major European countries, and a few of the minor ones whose politicians are given plum jobs in the Commission because they are not big hitters, are consummate behind-the-scenes operators and play ball with the big boys.  But this is an insult to the citizens who pay for it all, and the rise of euro-sceptic political movements across European countries indicates people have twigged.

The fact is, although it has taken more powers for itself over the last decade or so, the European Parliament remains weak relative to the Commission and EU politics is all behind-the-scenes power-broking and expense-paid trips (sorry, European summits). We would not accept this as a substitute for democracy at a national level, so why is it acceptable for Europe?

A true federal system with direct elections, such as in the USA, is clearly not acceptable (though another European war may change minds), and doing nothing is not an option. The alternative is surely to ensure that more power is returned to nation states, while maintaining effective democratic oversight of those activities that can more effectively be managed centrally.  I don't think it is anti-European to make this argument; it is pro-democratic. It is also consistent with devolution of power to the level where it is best exercised in a democratic system, and surely decentralisation, bringing decisions closer to the people affected, is a liberal (and Lib Dem?)  principle?

Portraying pro-European views as opposite to those of the Euro-sceptics only helps the latter's cause; it will not help move the debate forward.  Being pro-European does not mean being in favour of what Europe is now.  It means believing that a Europe working together is a better, and safer place to live, for ourselves,our children and their children as well.  And if Lib Dems are true to their roots then they should be a sceptical of centralised government and bureaucracy as anyone else.  We need strong democratic systems to control them and constant vigilance against inefficiency and bureaucracy.   And if it is right to empower communities with more devolution within the UK, then surely the same applies to Europe.
 
It is time to move forward on the basis that not everything in Europe is right. Liberal democrats need to emphasise the things we believe Europe is good for, and to highlight those areas where change is needed, which is entirely consistent with Liberal principles. This is a far better way to be pro-European, than to be tarred as the "only truly European party" without explaining what that entails.  And there is still enough ground to distinguish between the political parties where necessary, and (why not?) emphasis areas on which we violently agree.   Surely we should all be Euro-sceptics now.  That is the real liberalism.

Creationism science? What a joke.

What a joke! On Monday night, coming in late I had missed the news and turned to Newsnight on BBC2. I cut in on a discussion on the impact of fundamentalist Christian based education and particularly whether creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative view to a scientific one. 

Cutting to the chase, the representative Christian, John Lewis (not the department store), failed to answer a single question directly.  Even when agreeing with Paxman's statement that "why we are here” is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one, he hedged his response by saying only "potentially true".   And on two occasions at least he ignored the question and said "he was not a scientist", as if this allowed him to ignore scientific analysis.  So he provided no argument for considering creationism alongside evolution in a scientific context than merely making the assertion over and again that it was a matter of providing options.  No wonder Jeremy Paxton struggled to remain even-handed while keeping a straight face, though judging by his body language he was also bored.

Let's be clear, everyone is free to have their own ideas, but not being a scientist does not mean you can take a position that science is rubbish.   Yet that appears to be the creationist perspective. John Lewis referred to both creationism and Darwinian evolutionary theory as theories, as if they are equal. The whole point of a scientific approach is however that a theory is then tested against the facts, and if the facts support the theory then it strengthens the likelihood that the theory is correct, but in most cases it will never be absolutely proven and a scientist always acknowledges that future evidence may work the other way.   On the other hand, based on the evidence provided to date, creationism remains a theory, with no factual basis whatsoever other than that it is based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and an extreme one at that. 

If you want to believe that the bible is an historical record, you are welcome to do so.  However this can only be a tenet of faith as the evidence clearly indicates that it is a mish-mash of writings from around 2000 to 1500 years ago, a time when women were considered to be chattels, vile murders were carried out in the name of public policy and  most people could not read or write.  They needed fables and imaginary friends to help them understand the mysterious world around them.  This is not true today so if you do believe that the bible is a factual record, then I would say you are a little mad (which is my right too, and with more evidence in my favour than against).   

Further more  if you wish to pass on to the next generation your irrational belief in what is called creationism, then do so under “religion”, where you are free to consider alternatives without having to look at the evidence.  Just don’t pretend that it is science.        

I have a shiny new HP Envy 5530, and it works, but...

I was delighted when my new Envy 5530 started first time but HPs installation and support process really annoyed me.  Here is a list of the issues I recall from the traumatic installation process yesterday. 
1.  First I tried to register the product and was told that I was already registered to Snapfish.  This came as a surprise as I have never used Snapfish but I guess I was required to register when I bought my last (note not current) PC, which was from HP.  However I don’t see why I need to use Snapfish just because I bought one of your printers.
2.  As I had of course no idea what the password was for Snapfish, I had to set a new one.  However it appears that the format constraints were not clear so I had to try several times to discover that Snapfish only allowed letters and numbers.   If you are going to limit what can be put in a password can you please say what is allowed up front?
3.  Installation on my PC worked reasonably well after I managed to register with HP I tried to use e-print.  I received a message from HP saying that a document was available to print, but nothing was visible on your web site and nothing printed on my PC.  What am I supposed to do now?    
4.  I tried to install drivers on my wife’s Windows PC and the only option that appeared to be available, once the printer was detected, was to go through the whole process again. Surely there is a simpler process for connecting a second or third PC to the printer?  Instead I was left to wonder if I should allow the standard process or try to leave out some of the steps.  And if I selected the standard options, would that screw up the initial implementation?  This is surely a common issue and I suggest you ask, before installation if the printer is already registered with HP or not and adapt the process accordingly.
5.  I seem to have all sorts of additional HP software on my PC now, including some diagnostic stuff I download to help solve the e-print problem (it didn’t as far as I know as it only identified the drivers for my old printer). 
6. Why am I required to have all these “apps” and addins that seem to be totally useless as far as I am concerned?  Can’t I chose whether to install them or not?  HP Doctor and other programmes on my Sony Vaio have proved useless in permanently solving problems which is one of the reasons I have ended up dumping what is probably a perfectly good
7. I spent at least 1 1/2 hours yesterday trying to find answers on your websites but keep going round in circles, mostly being directed to pages that seem mostly interested in selling things to me.  When I want help I don’t want more PCs and printers shoved at me.  I am hardly likely to be in a mood to buy another HP product if I need help with the current one, am I?
8.  I tried to use the “feedback” buttons on two screens but all I got was directed to an error message.  Is this because you don’t want feedback?  In any event it is really annoying and the result was my plea via Twitter.

So HP please shape up.  Your product looks nice and I am hopeful will work well.  But that is all I want.  I don’t need to be obstructed and harassed by HP into the bargain

Prince of the People: Attack the argument, not the man

I am not always a fan of what Prince Charles says when he intervenes in the public policy arena, but people who say he should keep his mouth shut are wrong.  As a minimum, as a private individual he is welcome to his views and as entitled to express them as anyone.  If we think they are ridiculously biased because he is from the privileged elite then we can ignore him. But generally his interventions seem to chime with the thoughts of ordinary people, and if privilege gives him a platform to speak from then he should, in my opinion, use it.

Politicians do not limit their views to promises made in their manifestos; captains or industry, newspaper editors, senior policemen, trade union leaders and others never feel constrained in using their position to express views, exert influence and impact, not always benignly, on our daily lives.  So if any if you don't like what Charles says, attack the argument, not the man.

Один Месяц в деревне

Я вернулся из Россий месяц назад и так много делать, что ноги почти не касались земли.  По крайней мере я сейчас редактировал фотокарточки, хотя заголовки еще писаны в английском языке.   Они в "you tube" и связи внизу. Но наверно вам будете скушать если вы посмотрите на конце!

Фотоальбомы еще создаться; "Flipboard" обновляться; у меня много сделать.  Но отсюда начинаются.

Сначала вам нужно знать что я долго изучаю русский язык; более чем 13 лет, но я не выл хороший студент. В этом времени может выть тезис по- русский написать. Сейчас у меня время и планирую серьезно учиться. Путешествие в Новосибирске будет награда после того, что я ушел на пенсию. И я тоже наедаюсь что меня ведет на выше.

Первый вопрос, всегда "почему русскый язык?",  и также русскими людьми. Дело в том, что я пытаюсь потому это трудно. Русскый Грамматик не так же как и английской.  И в школе я прочитал книги Пушкина,Тургенева,Толстого (на самом деле немнога Толстого из за его романы слишком длинный), Булгакова,  Солженицына, Гоголи и.т.д. В английском языке конечно. Я тоже учился русскую историю и экономию в университете. И наконец Россия очен важная страна в мире, и по моему что случается там в следующем двадцати годах для запада знаменательные следствия будут.  Я надеюсь что все закончит хорошо.

Второй вопрос: "почему Новосибирск?" И быстро последует за другим вопрос, "Где он?".  Эти вопросы проще отвечать.  За первом, я никогда не ездил туда и он дешевле чем Москву или Санкт Петербург.  И наконец, почему нет?

Касаться второй вопрос, Новосибирск - в центре Сибири, которая страховая предприятия наверно думает часть Россий нет.  Он третьего город в стране и население более чем полмиллиона.  Называется столица Сибири, создавал маленького города в конце девятнадцатого века, когда выл построен мост чтобы пересибирская железная магистраль переходила реку имена Об.  Потом Новосибирск увеличивал в индустриализации Сталина и Великой Общественной Воине когда вооружения производили красной армии, далеко от куда летели бомбардировщики Гитлера.

После воины основали много научно-исследовательских и технологических институтов и университетов в родственником городе имена Академгородок, который только 30 км из центра Новосибирска.

Это достаточно история.  Все находит по интернету.

Сентябрь должен выл великолепный осенний месяц когда дерева пламенеют,   повешенные с желтыми и красными цветами. Вместо у нас выл благоуханная погода лета и вешающие с зелеными листами дерева. Только в последний неделе наступила осень.  В результате я гулял в парках и улицах города в футболках и не тратил  много временны в музеях и галлереях, но некоторый я посещал. В школе мы учились о Сибирской зиме и если я вернусь, потом будет в зимой, чтобы понимать жизнь когда температура минус двадцать пять градусов. И если бы выла зима может выть я бы тратил более времени в музее и учился более о истории Сибиры.

Но не выл зима, и не учил я.

Люди сказал что Новосибирск некрасивый, промышленный и неинтересный город, и так не как Москву, и там будет ничего делать.   Я сомневаюсь что они  когда-нибудь туда поехать.  Правда что как все городов, в том числе Москва, существует неинтересные пригороды. Но Новосибирск не скучный город. У его широкие проспекты, хороший общественный транспорт, паркы, отличные опера и валет, многочисленные театров, музеев, и галереи; некоторый хороших ресторанов и джаз-клубов, концерты на открытом воздухе и на воскресении люди танцуют в парках. Эти более чем любой город с похожим размером в Англии.

нам нужно путешествовать долго чтобы ездить где-угодно;  девятнадцать часов на поезд в Иркутск но только пять часов на автобус в Томск.

Но если вы учитесь 7 часов в дне и делаете домашнюю работу вечером вам никогда не скучаете.  и в отличие от Москвы, люди не пробуете говорить по-английски как только вы окривеете рот, который несомненно лучше если бы вы хотите изучать русскый язык.

конечно я чувствую рад что опять я дома но еще грустно что я уехал Новосибирск.  Я бы с удовольствием остался там долго но я думаю что жена не счастливая была бы.  Что касается причины почему я ездил туда, я учился говорить по-русскый вез страха и моего грамматик лучше.  Exlinguo и учителя только  я похвалю.  Школа организовала непрерывную ежедневную программу и регулировал учение удовлетворять потребности  каждых студентов. Они тоже рекомендовали и организовали разнообразие общественных и образованных занят и вообще относились к нам как желанные гости.  Учителя все блестящие, умные, молодые, привлекательные (!), очень искусные специалисты по распространению, которые гарантировали что каждый урок был удовольствие.

Несомненно, самый лучше средстве жить был с участковым семьей.  Это не  только культурный опыт, но всегда вы будите говорить по-русскый. И кто-то для жизнь бы вы подружитесь.

Если вы интересуетесь фотографиями (наверно слишком много), следуете за связей вниз.

A month in Novosibirsk (очень длинная - минут тринадцать).

A weekend in Tomsk (минут пять)

Moscow for a Day, and the 2013 Moscow Contemporary Art Biennial (минуты три)

A Month in The Country (well Novosibirsk actually)

Back from Russia for 2 weeks and so much to do that my feet have barely touched the ground.   At least today I have managed to edit my photos, with captions in English at least (I still need to produce a Russian version) which will be on YouTube for those who have nothing better to do than look at them (links below).  Photo albums still to be made up, blog updated and linked to my Flipboard magazine. 

Well at least this blog is a start.

   

By way of background you should know that I have been “learning” Russian for over 13 years, though not that well; in that time an able student would have written a thesis (in Russian).  But my studies have not, frankly been that serious. Now I have more time and plan to study seriously; do my homework, memorise vocabulary, read every day, etc... This trip was planned both as a treat to myself on retirement and to kick-start my learning onto a higher level.  I have also been so afraid to make mistakes (a hangover from a draconian French language teacher at school) that I could not speak Russian even with friends and acquaintances.  Apart from that I would not have understood them anyway when they spoke, but that was another problem to overcome.

The first question I am asked (even by Russians) is“why Russian”? The fact is that I persevere because it is hard!  Its grammar is not like English.  At school I read Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Gogol etc.. in English translation while at university I studied Russian history and economics.  Russia is also an enigma, as Churchill indicated, and undoubtedly an important power in the world.   It is my belief that what happens there (as well as in China) will have a profound effect on us in the West over the next 20 years.  So it better turn out well.

The next question is usually “why Novosibirsk?”, followed quickly by "where is it anyway?”.  These are easier to answer.  To the first: because I have not been there before.  And anyway it is significantly cheaper than Moscow, St Pete’s or indeed any of the western Russian cultural centres.  And anyway, why not?   

As to the second question, Novosibirsk is in central Siberia (which your insurance company probably thinks is not part of Russia, so I recommend you check your health insurance before travelling).  It is the third largest city in the country, after Moscow and St Petersburg, although with a population of only 1.5 million, but growing fast.  It is known as the “Capital of Siberia” and was created from a small town in the late 19^th Century when a bridge was built across the river Ob for the Trans-Siberian railway.  It subsequently grew rapidly during Stalin’s industrialisation and the “Great Patriotic War” (WW2), where armaments and equipment were manufactured for the Red Army, out of reach of Hitler’s bombers.  After the war, research institutes were established and there now numerous institutes and universities located in the thriving “sister city” of Akademgorodok, 30 km from the centre of Novosibirsk.

Enough history.  It is all on the web.  

September should have been a glorious autumn month, silver birch trees radiant in yellow and red. Instead we had balmy summer weather and, trees still hung in green.  Only in the last week did Autumn begin to set in.  This meant that I was able to wander the streets and parks in short sleeves, rather than seeking out the warmth of museums and galleries, though I visited a few.  Of course I have also not experienced the real cold of a Siberian winter (-25C is “normal”; -40C is getting cold), though we learnt about it in school.  If I had been there in winter perhaps I would have seen more of the local museums and become an expert on Siberian geography and history.  But I was not winter, and I have not become an expert.   If there is a reason to go back it is probably to be there in February and feel the cold!

I was told Novosibirsk was ugly, industrial and uninteresting, not like Moscow anyway, and that there would be nothing to do.  I wonder if those giving the advice had ever been there?  It is true that, like all cities, including Moscow, there are large areas of uninteresting suburban sprawl.  But Novosibirsk cannot be written off as boring.  It has broad avenues; good public transport; parks; a major opera house with excellent ballet and opera companies; numerous theatres, museums and art galleries; some good restaurants, jazz clubs, outdoor concerts, and dancing in the streets on Sunday.  That is a whole lot more than any city of the same size in the UK.  Getting anywhere else takes a bit of travel (19 hours by train to Irkutsk, but “only” 4.5 hours by bus to Tomsk).  But if you study 7 hours a day, with homework in the evenings, there was more than enough to occupy you.  And unlike in Moscow, people do not try to speak English to you as soon as you open your mouth, which is surely much better if you are learning Russian.

Of course I am glad to be home, but I am also sorry to have left and would have loved to spend longer there, except of course for being parted from my dear wife.  As for the purpose of going, I was there to lose my fear of speaking Russian and to learn more, which I did.  I have only praise for ExLinguo, the school that organised a constantly varying daily programme and tailored teaching to every student’s needs (including additional individual lessons).  They also organised or recommended a variety of social and cultural learning activities, arranged for students to stay on local farms and generally made us extremely welcome.  The teachers were all brilliant, bright, young, good looking (!), very skilled communicators that made every lesson a pleasure.    

And staying with local families was undoubtedly the best way to do it; not only a cultural experience but great for learning too.  Who knows; you may even find you have made friends for life. 

So, objective achieved.  And if you really want to, you can read this blog in Russian here

If you are interested in seeing some pictures (quite a lot actually) then follow one of the links below (English versions.  Translated versions will hopefully follow)

A month in Novosibirsk (very long - about 13 minutes - to be edited)

A weekend in Tomsk (about 5 minutes)

Moscow for a Day, and the 2013 Moscow Contemporary Art Biennial (about 3 minutes)