Coquihalla Hike

Thousands of people drive the Coquihalla highway everyday, yet few stop to enjoy the spectacular mountains it passes through. But it is possible to hike in these mountains. There is even something called the Coquihalla Summit Recreation Area, although you wouldn’t know it driving through (there isn’t even a sign on the highway to encourage you to stop). Worse, few of the trails are signed, you really have to know where to look. So do your research in advance, bring a map, and do some hiking next time you find yourself travelling the Coquihalla.

Israel, Locke, International law, and the state of war

According to Locke, a society is chiefly valuable because it allows conflicts between individuals to be referred to a common judge. Without a common authority, any conflict can only be judged by each’s conscience according to its interpretation of natural law, and the attempt of each to enforce natural law will put the two in a state of war with each other.

International law is perhaps the best example of a very weak society. Although some common law exists which can be appealed to in conflicts, it is easy for states to avoid its enforcement as long as they have powerful friends, ideally a friend with a veto on the security council.

Israel’s position on the Occupied Territories is a rejection of the arbitration of International law, as I have argued above. Having rejected arbitration, it has put itself into a state of war with its opponents.

War, however, can be pursued by many means. Arms are just one way that force can be used between parties in the state of nature. In a sense, we could think of the UN statehood bid by Abbas a form of war against Israel, in the sense that Israel rejects the authority that the Palestinians are appealing to, and therefore insofar as this appeal is an exercise of force, and insofar as the Palestinians and Israel are in a state of war with each other (they recognize no authority which they can both appeal to), then any use of force puts them into a state of war with each other.

Israel tries to de-legitimize peaceful struggle against its policies, i.e. things like Boycotts and calls for Divestments and Sanctions, by calling them “economic warfare” – but maybe that is exactly what they are, and maybe we should support that. If there is no common authority which those who support the Palestinian cause can make an argument for and who’s decision Israel must obey, then must not they be in a state of war against Israel? Following this line of reasoning, might not armed struggle be but one form of war, and then even if the armed struggle ends, should we think the war is over? Maybe activists should embrace the idea of war, and while making arguments in favour of non-violence, emphasize that the arguments for non-violence must be grounded in the tactical considerations that non violent struggle is a more effective tactic of war against an enemy. In other words, non-violence could actually be more violent than violence, in the sense that it might be more effective at weakening and vanquishing the enemy.

Israel often appeals to its right to defend itself. But if it defends itself only because it is in a state of war, do not its opponents have the same rights? If Israel has the right of targeted killing of Palestinian militants, does that not mean Palestinian militants have the right of targeted killing of Israeli militants? And if every Israeli is in the army, then can even suicide bombing truly be considered “terrorism” anymore than a targeted assassination?

I don’t make this argument to support suicide bombing, but rather to oppose just as much the use of force against Palestinian militants insofar as they are engaged in defence of their territory and their communities. It may be imprudent for Palestinians to attack Israelis in the territories, but the argument from prudence is separate from the argument from right. It may be that Palestinians have the right to armed struggle in the territories against the occupier, but it may be that the best way to exercise this right is through non-violent resistance. This seems likely to me, but at the same time I believe strongly that it is up to Palestinians to make these decisions – the attitude of foreign activists who want to tell people engaged in struggle elsewhere what the most effective tactics are for them to pursue, is paternalistic and unfortunate.

Occupied or Disputed Territories?

Zionists, which is what we should call any apologist for Israel’s opposition to peace and reconciliation with the Palestinian nation, will often make the claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not “occupied” territories as activists and Palestinians say, but “disputed”. This is an effective tactic that can be employed to obscure the situation, and make it seem like an argument with two sides. It’s a powerful thing to say not because they might convince someone, but because they are able to hold open the semblance of a dispute between two sides, so reasonable individuals without specific knowledge of the situation are likely to want to remain neutral on the issue and say things like, “Well, some people say they are occupied, others say they are disputed”.

The argument that the territories are disputed does have some basis in international law. If you are unfamiliar with the Zionist position on the West Bank you should watch this video produced by the Israeli foreign affairs department. Although to be fair, they didn’t really come up with the idea for the video; it is largely a copy of this video made by an extremist settler group, but I’m sure the settlers didn’t mind having their arguments being used by the Israeli establishment to advance the settler cause. The argument, in short, relies on the idea that the West Bank was not recognized Jordanian territory between 1948 and 1967, so Israel’s seizing of it in the ’67 war was not invading another sovereign nation, and therefore not in violation of the basic principle of international law that states no nation shall acquire territory by force.

The problem with the argument is not that it is unfathomable, or superficially ridiculous, rather the problem is that the argument has been long rejected in the court of international law. Insofar as there is an international judiciary, it has decided time and again that the territory is not disputed; it is occupied. The territories are referred to as occupied in the security council resolution 242, it is an implication of security council resolution 478 which declares Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem to be in violation of international law and calls on all nations to remove their embassies from Jerusalem.

Israel’s position on the West Bank (and formerly on Gaza) are analogous to a defendant who, having lost a case in court, continues to make the same argument made by the defence in court in the world of public opinion. By rejecting the interpretation of international law made by the international community Israel is like a convicted felon protected against sanction by powerful friends. It is disingenuous for zionists to continue to appeal to law to make their claim on the Westbank because the fact they reject the decisions made by the UN means they are not interested in arguing their case in the context of international law anyway.

 

Anacortes

When I find myself in BC one of my favourite things to do is make daytrips down into America. While the lower mainland is highly populated, as soon as you cross the border you are much farther from Seattle than the Canadian side is from Vancouver, so the area is much more sparsely populated. And there are many beautiful parks, such as the one where this photo was taken.

Bella Coola

A few years ago my father and I drove into the Chilcotin, and down the hill to Bella Coola. It was an amazing trip, through a part of British Columbia that few British Columbians ever visit.

Waterskier

At my parents cottage in the summer waterskiing is the favoured pastime. Me, my brother, and my father all ski slalom, and we have our own waterskis. Pictured here is my brother Simon kicking up a wake as he cuts hard across the water.

Hairband

Tapas at Home

Branding and Prescriptive Politics

In the following remarks, I will attempt to put forth a case which connects the structure of market branding with the structure of prescriptive political declarations. Both depend on a relation of simplification, in which what is essential about that to which the concept is applied is much less complex than what would be revealed by any serious attempt to study it. The details of both cases, however, arise in the complexities of application and the complexities of generation. Those claims may appear obscure, but they will be clarified below.

First, what is the structure of a brand?

Product – Brand – Product

or, to give a specific example,

Vegas  -  Slogan (“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”)  -  Vegas

The product is real, the brand is a word, and the repetition of the product after the injunction of the brand is real. It looks like this:

organic reality -> brand -> organic dissemination

If the slogan doesn’t actually capture and re-produce something about the real experience, it will come off as dishonest, and won’t spread organically through the population. The slogan, of course, has to be much simpler than the real experience – just must capture some rhythm of it, some sense of it, that is distinctive, and which is shared between multiple participants.

Now let’s do the analysis of a prescription:

Social -> Prescription -> Injunction

The prescription arises out of the social and makes an injunction into it, differentiating it in a new manner, having certain effects. The conditions for the success of a prescription are of the same type as for a brand – the prescription must grip the organic reality it tries to cut up in a new way; if it does not, it will simply be ignored and die. A successful prescription (i.e. “Freedom”) depends on patterns and especially needs and desires already existent in the social prior to its invocation.

The Camp