HomeWritingsTravelLinks


What a bloody Morning!

 

Before retiring to bed around 1am. I decided to turn the CNN and BBC news on and, found live pictures just coming in of an explosion near the top of one of the towers of the worlds 4th tallest Sky Scraper, The World Trade Centre, New York. Apparently a Plane had slammed into it and, via TV live I could see the billowing smoke through-out the top floors. Maybe an accident … maybe more! I thought, it's a damn tall building, but! This Sky Scraper was basement bombed a few years back, with some religious fanatics for a while now, vowing revenge over those imprisoned for doing that dirty deed.

Then, live! before my eyes, I watched in horror as a second passenger Plane slammed into the other World Trade Centre tower, parts of the Plane seemed to come right through the other side as flames quickly engulfed the top half of this building, some people trapped by flames could be seen jumping live from engulfed upper floors, maybe preferring imminent death without a parachute than burning alive! It was now plain to see, neither this nor the 1st Tower were hit by accident. This could only be, well-organized 21st Century fanatical suicidal terrorism striking at the heart of America's freedom and Democracy.

Within a short time the second tower hit suddenly collapsed completely! Followed soon after by the 1st tower struck. The Violent collapses sent dust, smoke and flames billowing up into the New York morning sky, mushrooming as if a nuclear explosion had blown apart it's centre, I will never forget that shocking violent living/dying view. Up to 50 thousand people worked and visited those buildings crashing down, as well as thousands and thousands in other high rise buildings close by, also people in trains cars and walking by. I realized that I was witnessing live via satellite viewing, the horrible premature extinction of thousands of innocent Human Beings from more homes than Americans when, the mornings evil again continued playing out. Now another hijacked large passenger Plane had just slammed! into the Pentagon, the military heart of the USA. and, right near the White House itself. This was soon followed by the violent crash of yet another large Plane over Pennsylvania, reported hijacked by a passenger, via his cell phone from one of the planes toilets just moments before it violently crashed. It's crew thought probably fighting for it's control, maybe that one was bound for the White House itself. All flights in North America quickly shut down, Planes had to land at the 1st Airport available or possibly be shot down by the US air force now controlling the skies. What must have gone on through the minds of innocent passengers is hard to comprehend as unjustifiable terror unwillingly slammed them into their eternity, along with thousands more people sharing their fate in buildings struck or overcome on the ground.

It's war on the USA and, on International Democracy, when a fanatical terrorist group like this (which ever they may be) strikes at the heart of the USA and its global wide financial institutions. Osama bin Larden and his loyal followers including others closely linked to his violent network's views like Iraq's Saddam, quickly come to mind as those probably behind this planned evil. Pearl Harbour may soon look a lot less mortifying in the American military psyche and, that bloody long conflict only ended after two nuclear bombs exploded on Japanese Cities. The USA will go into shock, rage! and, ponder, free Democracies of the World will too. Nato, Anzus and others will consider themselves also under threat when their strongest military partner the USA is attacked violently like never before amongst its heartland and civilian population.

Wall St, close to the core of the carnage will be down for a while and, Stock markets Worldwide will probably quickly react very negatively in an already global slow down, bringing on more chance of a worldwide recession, atleast for a short term. A lot of people will also rethink Airline travel untill it's seen as safer, causing the losses of thousands and thousands of jobs globally. The World has changed overnight in more ways than one. Not by a rogue State with a rogue nuclear bomb, or chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction, but by a group of cowardly fanatical humans hell bent on mass terror, able to too freely too easily (up 'till now) walk on to a domestic airline in a western democracy like the USA and hijack it on a suicidal mission that they brainwashed and falsely believe will result in their vengeance, then eternity in some delusionary paradise with probably untold virgins and some sort of unthinkable! God praising them eternally for killing thousands of innocents. What! ... yet it already happens, Palestine bombers are one group that blow them selves up regularly for their injustice, in a fanatically preached belief it's revenge, then a quick trip to their promised heaven; never to know they never arrived, I feel. This is a new war … phony cunning dark-age theology, verses freethinking democratic evolving tecnolology.

Sure! Injustice breed's injustice and terror brings terror " just watch this space Afghanistan". This a country ruled by tribal terror and religious bigotry, where over 5 million people have so far moved outside it's borders as refugees to escape the Taleban fanatics still in control of most of the country. Ironically they were supported during the later part of the Cold War (1980s) by the USA during Afghanistan's occupation by the Soviets. In Countries like Afghanistan you don't have freedom of expression, you can't work, walk and talk freely as a citizen (especially if you're a woman) let alone, easily go to your local airports and board a commuter plane to another part of your Country, or any free Country. Democracies freedoms are now under attack by people who want to do the thinking for us! We as Humanity are slowly evolving past those darkened ways, rationally communicating and compromising more over disputed issues such as, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Mexico's indigenous, etc (even though they all still have ways to go). Essentially openly collectively we must do more, especially in the Middle East, the hottest hot spot of all. For hell bent on a return to slavery of the mind are still a filthy few with vermin to spew and, at the moment their lot's growing, breeding on professed rage, real injustice and, the ill informed.

In the later part of last Century and now this Century new avenues are opening up for international justice to be found, just ask Milosevich … and, hopefully others deserving humanities contempt will soon join his like, or quickly be Internationally condemned, atleast 1st by all democratic Countries of the World … exiled or exterminated, with no place left to hide, as now available in the likes of Afghanistan. Otherwise this new Terrorism paves the way to a darker darker day. Then what … a nuclear bomb in a suitcase taking out an entire City somewhere (and not necessarily in the USA) with an inevitable violent counter response regurgitating some real or perceived injustice all over again, then what … ... ... ... ... Armageddon for atleast! a Nation or two … and, then what?

What a Bloody night's morning!

 

These words above are deep thoughts writtten right as it all tragically unfolded on the 9/11 USA time ... Daniel Howe.

 

 

Below! is the best workable solution I have ever studied for justly settling one of Humanities worst festering breeding grounds of hate.

A solution is possible!

now Middle East negotiations have failed. But the US can make a final deal stick Hussein Agha and Robert Malley Friday March 29, 2002 The Guardian

Since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the outbreak of the second intifada, two propositions have gained wide acceptance. The first is that a comprehensive solution to end the conflict has already been attempted - and at this point, if tried again, can only fail. The second is that an interim solution is the only way out of the current crisis. The mounting death tolls on both sides seem to confirm that conflict management rather than conflict resolution should be the order of the day. In fact, now is precisely the time for a US-led international coalition to put forward an end-of-conflict deal. History demonstrates that the incremental method has failed. Yet because Israelis and Palestinians did not reach an agreement at Camp David in 2000 or at the talks in Taba, proponents of moving toward a final agreement immediately are dismissed as naive or out of touch. In truth, however, the final-status negotiations in 2000-1 were not a departure from the approach that had prevailed since 1993, but rather its culmination. No common principles guided the discussions; instead, a vision was meant to emerge from an incremental process of give-and-take. As a result, neither side was able to rebut its domestic opponents or rally potential supporters behind a comprehensive vision. Negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians have now reached the point of diminishing - even negative - returns. Rather than bringing the two sides closer, negotiations serve to play up remaining disagreements and to play down the broad scope of actual convergence. The time for negotiations has ended. The parties must be presented with a non-negotiable final agreement. The case for seeking a comprehensive deal depends on whether it is possible to design a package that both sides can accept. Israel's basic interests are to preserve its Jewish character, safeguard its security, acquire international recognition, maintain its links to Jewish holy sites and establish that the conflict with the Palestinians and Arab states has ended once and for all. As for the Palestinians, their basic interests can be defined as living in freedom, dignity, equality and security; ending the occupation and achieving national self-determination; resolving the refugee issue fairly; governing the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem; and ensuring that any deal is accepted as legitimate by the Arab and Muslim worlds. Past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and informal discussions show that a solution does exist consistent with both sides' needs. The key concept on the territorial issue is swaps: Israel would annex a minimal amount of land in the West Bank and in return provide Palestine with the equivalent amount of land from Israel proper. Israel would incorporate a large number of its West Bank settlers and the Palestinians would achieve their goal of 100% territorial restitution. On security, the essentials are the non-militarisation of the Palestin ian state and the introduction of a US-led international force along the border with Israel. Solving the problem of Jerusalem will require a deal based on demographic and religious self-governance. This leaves what is perhaps the most vexing problem of all: the Palestinian refugees. With one side clamouring for their right of return and the other adamantly rejecting it, it seems like one on which no compromises are possible. Throughout the 2000-1 negotiations, the Palestinians underestimated the degree to which Israelis associate even a theoretical Palestinian right of return with the prospect of the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The Israelis, for their part, have belittled the seriousness of the Palestinians' demand. With two-thirds of the Palestinian people still living as refugees, the sense of injustice at being evicted from their land pervades Palestinians' national consciousness and has defined their struggle, even more than the desire to establish an independent state. A solution that appeared to ignore the demands of the refugees would be inherently unstable. It would have questionable legitimacy, would undermine the new Palestinian state, and - most alarming from an Israeli perspective - would leave open the prospect that a sizable number of Palestinians would decide to carry on the struggle. But a stable and durable accommodation is possible. Refugees should be given the choice to return to the general area where they lived before 1948 (along with the choice to live in Palestine, resettle or be absorbed by their current country of refuge if the host country agrees). Many of the refugees want to go back to their original homes. But these homes, and in many cases the entire villages where they were located, either no longer exist or are now inhabited by Jews. The next best option from the refugees' own perspective would be to live among people who share their language, religion and culture - that is, among the Arab citizens of Israel. Israel would settle the refugees in its Arab-populated territory along the 1967 boundaries. Those areas would then be included in the land swap with Palestine and end up as part of the new Palestinian state. Together with generous financial compensation, this solution would promote several key interests. Palestinian refugees would carry out the right of return. Although they would not return to their original homes, the refugees would get to live in a more hospitable environment - and one that would ultimately be ruled not by Israelis, but by their own people. For Israelis, meanwhile, it would improve the demographic balance, since the number of Arab Israelis would diminish as a result of the land transfer. Some Palestinians might argue that such a plan represents a sleight of hand, disguising resettlement in Palestine as a return to their pre-1948 lands. But do the refugees actually want to live in Jewish areas that have become part of an alien country? Would they rather live under Israeli rule? And short of calling into question Israel's Jewish identity, is there any other way of implementing the Palestinian right of return? Lurking behind every dispute over an Israeli-Palestinian deal is the problem of its implementation. Achieving a lasting final-status agreement now will require some means to persuade both parties that this time commitments will actually be upheld. An international force would help provide such assurances. The paradox is that, although the outlines of a solution have been understood for some time, the way to get there has eluded all sides. Achieving such a deal will require the intervention of outside actors. Led by the US and sanctioned by a UN security council resolution, the effort should involve a broad coalition of European, Arab and other countries capable of providing security, as well as economic and political support, to Israelis and Palestinians. Some will argue that anything coming from the outside will be viewed as a foreign imposition and therefore be rejected. However, if the deal is based on Israeli-Palestinian discussions it will not be viewed as imposed; and if it is fair, it is unlikely to be rejected. Moreover, ratification should be based on popular referenda in Israel and among the Palestinian people. The point now should not be to accommodate Israeli and Palestinian leaders' limitations; it should instead be to make the limitations of both sets of leaders irrelevant. The time has come for an effort that is neither top-down nor bottom-up, but outside-in: the forceful presentation by external actors of a comprehensive, fair and lasting deal.

·Hussein Agha is senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford and has been involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over many years. Robert Malley was President Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs between 1998 and 2001. A longer version of this article will appear in the May issue of Foreign Affairs. © 2002 Foreign Affairs Magazine/ NYT Syndicate

 

Imagine

by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try

no hell below us, above us only sky.

Imagine all the people, living for today

imagine there's no country, It isn't hard to do

nothing to kill or die for and no religion too.

Imagine all the people living life in peace,

you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one.

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can

no need for greed, no hunger, a brotherhood of man.

Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one.

 

Arohanui … Daniel

September 2001 Point of View New Zealand. All Rights Reserved.