As the Third Christian Millennium dawns, the Caribbean is at kairos: the nexus of opportunity and risk. In light of the Christocentric fulness theme of Ephesians 4:9 - 24, perspectives and counsel will be offered to support reformation, transformation and blessing towards a truly sustainable future under God.
In December last year, in a Forbes magazine article, Yves Behar -- designer with MIT Media Labs professor Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child Foundation -- discussed a new Tablet format PC for education, targetted at an ideal -- and astonishing -- price of US$ 75.
Excerpting:
. . . "I wanted to bring the One Laptop Per Child identity to life in this new form," says Yves Behar, founder of FuseProject, which designed the both the original and the XO-3. "That meant taking the visual complexity away, bringing tactility and friendliness, touch and color."
Behar says he hopes to shrink the frame around the XO-3's display down to practically nothing, opting for a virtual keyboard instead of a physical one, and no buttons. The result, in his mock-ups, is a screen surrounded by only a thin green rubber gasket. "Nicholas [Negroponte] asked for something extremely simple and practically frameless," he says. "The media or content on the computer will be the prime visual element."
Then, just last month, May 2010, Professor Negroponte announced to Nick Barber of IDG news service, that the development was being accelerated, so that a working device would be released this year (apparently through collaboration with Marvell, a major manufacturer of digital chips and related machines and gadgets that has just showcased the Moby reference design, a US$ 99 target price tablet PC):
The above video showcases the original concept OLPC XO-3, which is proposed to be largely made of plastic. The Marvel Moby is a bit less radical:
Negroponte suggests in the interview that the Marvell Moby based prototype would lead on to the intended plastic tablet, by 2011- 12.
There is considerable cynicism and doubt, of course, in part triggered by how the OLPC XO-1 has yet to break US$ 100, and how it has had a cumulative distribution to date of 1. 5 million, not dozens to hundreds of millions.
But that is of little moment, relative to the significance of the Marvell machine, of the possible follow-on generation of machines, and of the potential for collaboration on the needed cyber-based education transformation for our region, or for the associated opportunity that now begins to open up for the Christian church to take the lead in education for godly transformation and truly sustainable development:
1 --> We now have a credible Tablet PC in the US$ 100 - 200 ballpark, through the Marvell Moby initiative.
(That is in itself an iPad killer, and a Kindle killer: we have a multiple use machine the size of a reasonable paperback book, and of acceptable weight, at a price that is very reasonable by comparison with even prices for cell phones or netbook PC's. [NB: The netbook PC emerged as a commercial version of the OLPC XO-1, and has exploded into a very strong market segment. Indeed, this blog post is being typed up on an Eee PC by Asus. I now more or less carry it with me everywhere -- it is a bit bigger than a book and is quite lightweight. In church, it brings a theological library in the form of both eSword and The Word.])
2 --> This machine is multiple operating system, not only Google's Android, but also Linux [Ubuntu], OLPC's Sugar, and a version of Windows.
3 --> As an ebook reader, this opens up an opportunity to transform textbook and workbook production and use. College level textbooks now routinely approach or exceed US$ 100. Here is an opportunity to do a "final book" that can be loaded with millions of titles, as well as becoming an electronic platform for book or course reader or course manual publication. That is, we have a library and a bag of textbooks all in one small device.
4 --> Suddenly, we have digitised course materials and reference materials, a market potential of many millions of dollars in itself. A major opportunity has emerged for digital education publication, for those with knowledge, those with document production expertise and those with publication expertise. (Doubtless a lot of trash will also be produced, but quality will soon enough tell.)
5 --> We now have a platform for carrying a virtual campus to the student where she or he is.
6 --> Multiply this by the provision of a regional network of micro-campus centres that provide the community of learning and expert practice dimension of education, and we have a base to transform tertiary and secondary studies, including second chance secondary or bridging to college or the world of work.
7 --> Of course, the OLPC is mainly focussed on primary education. That, too, is important and welcome, but it is not where the maximum leverage can be had for church and community based education initiatives in the region.
8 --> So, a key technology is now credibly falling into place for the envisioned regional cyber college and associated micro-campus centres.
____________________
Our task is to develop a system that can take advantage of this emerging opportunity. And so, we must now redouble our efforts. END
If I recall correctly, Abba Eban, longtime Foreign Minister of Israel, often spoke about a key obstacle to genuine peace in the Middle East: "never miss[ing] an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Sadly, it seems that that is beginning to happen again. And, this pattern, even more sadly, is probably no accident.
The why of which is very instructive to us all; especially about the dangerous, deceptive, manipulative and utterly ruthless nature of the course of events, and -- sometimes even more importantly -- how those events are discussed in news, commentary and even education. (Or, in some cases, from the pulpit.)
But first, let us identify the opportunity, created by remarks made by Mr Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority in a recent Brookings Institution Luncheon Forum with thirty senior foreign policy wonks: "leaders of major Jewish organizations, former national security advisors and think tank experts."
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas laid out new requirements for moving to direct talks with Israel Thursday, dropping earlier calls for a settlement freeze in favor of progress on borders and security.
Specifically, he said he was looking for agreement from the Netanyahu government that the basis for borders would be the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps, an arrangement he said was in place during his direct talks with the previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert. [And which Arafat walked away from in 2000.]
“Everyone around the world talks about the ’67 borders, but with some amendments, some swaps here and there,” [Of course, "everybody" is not quite true . . . ] he told a Brookings Institution forum the day after he met with US President Barack Obama and other top American officials . . . .
Abbas reaffirmed publicly positions more often heard from Palestinians in private, such as his willingness to have a long-term international presence in Palestinian areas in order “to make the Israeli people feel secure inside their homes.”
He pointed to NATO as one such organization he had discussed with American officials, declaring through a translator, “We have no objections to NATO.”
He rejected out of hand the concept of a one-state solution, but said the popularity of this idea was growing among Palestinians [i.e. the destruction of Israel] and added to the urgency of resolving the situation so that there would be “no more demands” and an “end of claims.” [But this, too, is not quite true: all along there has been a strong Arab tendency to reject the legitimacy of claims by non-Arab groups in the whole ME, including most notably Israel.] He also said that the matter of Palestinian refugees would be handled by an “agreed” solution [which will be quite difficult, given more than eighty years of hate, propaganda and violence in part backed up by religious teachings of the Islamists], . . . .
On another sensitive issue – the notion that Jerusalem would be a shared capital for both countries – Abbas indicated that he recognized Israeli claims to west Jerusalem as its capital, but not to east Jerusalem. At Wednesday night’s dinner, he stated, “We say that west Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” [A pivotal disagreement point; but what maybe is possible is a condominium arrangement with common shared areas and areas that are held by each side. One help is that there is recent evidence that the Mosque on Temple Mt, intended to demonstrate Islamic dominance over and succession to earlier faiths, was built too far north and the temple area proper lies to its south] . . . .
When asked about whether under a final agreement the PA would recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas told the crowd of 30 leaders of major Jewish organizations, former national security advisors and think tank experts that Israel would be free to describe itself however it wanted.
But he also said, “Nobody denies the Jewish history in the Middle East. A third of our holy Koran talks about the Jews in the Middle East, in this area. Nobody from our side at least denies that the Jews were in Palestine.”[Not quite true, a lot of Palestinian Arab rhetoric has tried to deny any historic roots of Israel in the Holy Land, indeed we have been hearing some of it against Ashkenazi Jews in particular. Never mind the now decade old story of genetic evidence that points to the common roots of Jews, Arabs and Kurds, including Ashkenazi Jews. The common claim that the Ashkenazi are descended primarily from alien "Khazar" converts to Judaism has no genetic foundation. ( The latest genetic studies, published in The American Journal of Human Genetics under revealing the title, “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” and as reported in the just linked Jerusalem Post article, underscore this point: "Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations. Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster . . . each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations. The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups – Middle Eastern and European Jews – split from from each other about 2,500 years ago . . . ")]
[Parenthetical comments added.]
In short, despite many problematic points in his remarks, Abbas has publicly conceded the historic roots of the Israelis in the Holy Land, and thus the legitimacy of their basic claim to Middle Eastern nationhood; so he seeks to go back to the compromise his predecessor, Mr Arafat, walked away from to make terroristic war in September 2000.
This, after ten wasted years, billions of dollars of destroyed wealth and most importantly many, many thousands needlessly dead or gravely wounded and crippled for life.
Worse yet, that compromise or something like it has been on the table not only in 2000 but ever since 1948 and again ever since 1967. Each time, as Abba Eban was pointing out, it has been violently rejected, consistently from the Arab side.
Unfortunately -- and probably not coincidentally -- this attempt at compromise is being drowned out by the ongoing largely misinformed global brouhaha over blockade breaking flotillas; especially the recent clash on MV Mavi Marmara when descending IDF soldiers of Flotilla 13 were mauled with metal rods, stabbed with knives, captured [and apparently taken hostage], stripped of side arms which were then turned on their fellow soldiers, leading to a melee in which nine militants were shot dead, twenty seven wounded; with seven Israeli soldiers wounded as well, two of them critically. (Two to four of the wounded Israelis have stab and/or gunshot wounds.)
We may examine some typical "seen just once on TV . . . " videotape:
(NB: Please pay more attention to the tape than to the mark-up commentary. The former is fact, the latter is opinion. A reminder, lest we forget: the Israeli soldiers are members of a disciplined service, carrying out orders they may not even personally like; orders that are legitimate, in enforcement of a patently legitimate blockade against smuggling of weapons used for terroristic rocketing of Israeli civilian towns that had previously been sustained for years. There is simply no excuse for the sort of vicious mauling we see here and in previous videos. So, we must ask a pertinent question: Where are the apologies from the organisers of this flotilla? That silence is perhaps the most telling point of all.)
Most menacing of all, we have the addition of a Turkey led by an Islamist regime to the more familiar mix of radical Middle Eastern regimes, multiplied by the apparent behind the scenes top-level involvement of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, radical leftist, former Weatherman terrorists involved in Vietnam war era bombings that led to deaths in the US -- since turned academics and leftist agitators -- in the flotilla gambit. It is thus highly significant to note that it is in Ayers and Dohrn's home that a certain Alinsky-ite Chicago School Community Organizer and Lawyer began his political career at a fund-raiser in the mid 1990's.
Namely, the current president of the United States.
Also involved in the Free Gaza Movement: Jodie Evans, leader of the US-based antiwar activist group, Code Pink. (The colour is highly suggestive of several associations, not least by its proximity to red, a traditional colour of the left. [Cf critiques here.])
In short, we see here significant signs of the red-green alliance of leftists [including radical environmentalists, homosexualists and related anarchistic anti-Capitalist activists], with Islamists that was discussed in the immediately previous post in this blog. Multiplied by possibly astonishing behind the scenes connexions to key centres of power.
In that post, I observed that:
. . . there is now a very obvious alignment between left-leaning, Marxism-influenced mostly secularist or neo-pagan advocates within Western Culture [but also including a good slice of a wing of the Christian church deeply affected by the skepticism-influenced modernist theological movements that have spread since the 1700's], and islamist agendas. The former interpret the latter as manifestations of third-world resistance to the evil imperialist agendas of Western Civilisation, viewing -- and often openly denouncing -- Israel as an Apartheid-state, colonialist outpost imposed on the native peoples of the Middle East. For these, "fundamentalist" Christians are a backward, dangerously reactionary and potentially violent right-wing force in our civilisation, seeking to turn the clock back on "progress" by imposing a theocratic tyranny.
Radical Islamists are only too willing to go along with what they probably view as "useful idiots," as they know that a house divided cannot stand and proverbially hold that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (It bears noting that the real agenda of many radical Islamists is religiously motivated global subjugation under Allah, Allah's prophet, law and warriors, as can be seen by simply reading the Quran, Surah 9: 5, 29 and 30 - 34 in light of an unfortunately major and sadly unfinished thread of religiously motivated conquest in Islamic history. The Muslim Brotherhood global subjugation plan of 1982 will make this plain, as will a reading between the lines of the Iranian Government's 2006 Christmas message to the world. [The very fact that this point has to be specifically underscored is itself telling on our willful denial and refusal to see the manifestly plain but unwelcome.])
So, let us think a bit:
Given that the sort of gambit that Abbas has now made will have taken time and much discussion behind the scenes to prepare,
Noting the related fact that there are very strong militant factions among the circles of power and influence in the Palestinian Arab community, which have links to not only fellow Islamists but leftist radicals in the West,
Plainly, the timing of the recent flotilla incident -- just before Abbas' visit with the president of the USA -- is no coincidence.
And, it has succeeded: Abbas' historic offer[and even if it was intended as taqiyya, strategic deception -- as some suspect -- it is significant enough to be seized upon as a fresh departure] is drowned out in the rage over the latest violent incident involving Israel. It is currently off the table, not even a subject for significant notice much less discussion.
Aristotle's weary ghost is shaking its head sadly:
". . . persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . ." [The Rhetoric, Bk I Ch 2, c. 350 BC.]
But, all of this -- however necessary as a corrective -- is on the distraction, not the opportunity. Let us refocus the opportunity:
1 --> It is now quite plain that not only Israel but Egypt and the Palestinian Authority are agreed that some restriction is needed on the ability of Hamas to continue its policy of firing rockets at civilians in Israel.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is opposed to lifting the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip because this would bolster Hamas, according to what he told United States President Barack Obama during their meeting at the White House Wednesday. Egypt also supports this position . . . .
The issue of the Gaza flotilla and lifting the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip was the main topic of discussion between Obama and Abbas last Wednesday night.
European diplomats updated by the White House on the talks said that Abbas had stressed to Obama the need of opening the border crossings into the Gaza Strip and the easing of the siege, but only in ways that do not bolster Hamas.
One of the points that Abbas raised is that the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Strip should not be lifted at this stage. The European diplomats said Egypt has made it clear to Israel, the U.S and the European Union that it is also opposes the lifting of the naval blockade because of the difficulty in inspecting the ships that would enter and leave the Gaza port.
Abbas told Obama that actions easing the blockage should be done with care and undertaken gradually so it will not be construed as a victory for Hamas. The Palestinian leader also stressed that the population in the Gaza Strip must be supported, and that pressure should be brought to bear on Israel to allow more goods, humanitarian assistance and building materials for reconstruction. Abbas, however, said this added aid can be done by opening land crossings and other steps that do not include the lifting of the naval blockade . . . [Emphases added. NB: Haaretz is from the centre-left of the Israeli political spectrum.]
3 --> Even more important than that, as has been already cited, it is the president of the PA who is now on public record that the Jewish nation has undeniable historic roots in the Holy Land.
4 --> So, at length — after ten wasted years, many thousands of lives needlessly lost or subjected to crippling wounds, and billions of dollars of wealth destroyed — there is again discussion of a compromise along the lines of what Arafat walked away from to wage terroristic war in September 2000. The same general lines that were there from 1948 -9 on and again from 1967 on.
5 --> In short, the basic legitimacy of Israel as a nation with historic roots in the Holy Land is not in question; at least when the Palestinian President stands before an informed audience such as at Brookings.
7 --> It is therefore high time that the sort of intemperate, hateful, blood-libel filled antisemitic, anti-colonialistic rhetoric that stains too many exchanges about the Middle East situation is apologised for [cf. a saddening current Caribbean example here] and laid to one side.
8 --> Then, we can move to a more balanced, informed discussion on the terms of a compromise.
9 --> For that compromise, it is immediately plain that for most of the border with the West Bank, the 1948-9 Green Line with adjustments based on land swaps is an agreed position.
10 --> Gaza is more or less a done deal: 100% is under Arab control, even though there is a lot of misleading description -- even in the UN (which has repeatedly shown itself unreliable and non-credible on matters relating to Israel) -- of this zone as till "occupied." Israel left Gaza in 2005, lock, stock and barrel. (Just as it left Lebanon in 2000.) Period.
11 --> In 2007, Hamas staged a coup, and now constitutes the de facto regime in charge. That it faces an Egyptian-Israeli blockade is due to its own intransigence on seeking the destruction of Israel, its sponsoring the firing of thousands of rockets into Israel at Sderot and other civilian towns, and its related threat to Egypt as a terrorist-harbouring wing of the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Egypt's peace Making president, Sadat.
12 --> There is some talk of Egypt giving Gaza enough further land along the coast to double its size, and of Israel giving Egypt an equivalent slice from the Negev. Possibly, this may be useful as an incentive for Gazans to seek reconciliation with the West Bank Palestinian authorities, and to seek peace with Israel. But such an expansion should never be given as a reward to terrorism and intransigence.
13 --> In the case of Jerusalem, the issue is toughest, and I have suggested that a condominium arrangement would be the best solution, one backed by trustworthy peacekeeping troops. (My ideal solution would be an expansion of the Vatican Swiss Guards, but a solid NATO contingent might work.)
14 -->Iran needs to be told in no uncertain terms to stop its mad course now, or face devastating consequences. And, that if it wants to play at nukes, it is now subject to the rules of nuke powers.
15 --> Turkey's current regime, too, needs firm but fair handling. (The ugly Turkish history with both Armenians and Kurds would be a good counterpoint to bring the current overheated rhetoric and military posturing to a stop.)
___________
If such steps were put in place, maybe would get to something sensible with the Middle East mess that has so harmed the world since the 1940′s.
In short, if implemented, the above would probably work, but I have very little confidence that things will happen that way. (And that is independent from my particular views on eschatology. [So far it looks like eschatology wins over common sense solutions in terms of predicting what is likely to happen.])
But, in our call to bear witness to the Prince of Peace, we Christians have a duty to put forth ways and means to peace, reconciliation and reformation, regardless of what we think the likely course of events will be. And regardless of how unpopular the truth that calls us to repent and to seek peace with one another and our Creator and Redeemer, the crucified, risen Saviour, is.
So, the last word on this matter properly belongs to our Saviour, as he spoke in the Olivet end of days discourse in Matt 24; even as he was about to weep over Jerusalem, that ironically named City of Peace that has ever been a city of war. As, it sits astride a pivotal route for would be world conquerors, i.e. at the corner where Africa, Asia and Europe come together:
Matt 24:3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains . . . .
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time . . .
We have been warned. And, we have been commissioned to carry the good news of the alternative to deception and chaos, to all nations.
Will we have the humility, wisdom and courage to heed the warning and carry out the commission? END
___________
PS:A must-read on the oldest collective hatred, anti-Semitism. Also, some useful (but painfully sharp-toned) background corrective reading is here. Let us have done with this devilish delusion and hysteria that led to the shameful events of May 31 to now!
In perhaps the first ever classic on rhetorical tactics, The Rhetoric, Bk 1 Ch 2, Aristotle writes:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . .
So, we have long been warned about the blinding power of rage, which congeals into hate. And, if we needed a more current case, Hitler's Mein Kampf and its ultimately murderous scapegoating of Jews should provide a more than adequate illustration. (Now, too, the rhetorically convenient dismissal that pointing to Hitler as an example to avoid is a fallacy is only appropriate where the evil of the Nazi dictator is irrelevant to the case. I am precisely pointing to the potentially murderous -- and sadly, increasingly all too relevant -- dangers of hateful scapegoating, especially in a heated, hysterical, propagandised atmosphere. If one refuses to learn from history, one may well be doomed to repeat it. )
These words have come back to my mind again and again in recent months; as I have watched how all too many topics are being discussed, once Bible-believing Christians, Jews and the Jewish state are connected in some way to the issue. For, there is now a consistently and commonly seen and not only uncivil but plainly potentially deadly rhetorical pattern I have now descriptively termed the trifecta fallacy:
willfully distractive red herrings dragged away from the track of truth and led out to caricatured strawmen soaked in (implicit or explicit) character-assassinating ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and posion the atmosphere for discussion.
There are two major recent roots of this pattern: (a) the ill-informed, spiteful rants of the so-called New Atheists -- including in several recent unfortunately best selling books, and (b) the turnspeech immoral equivalency agit-prop commonly used by anti-semitic, anti-Israeli propagandists, and increasingly trumpeted or echoed by the internatio0nal media and even heads of state and international bodies. These in turn have been intensified by ongoing geopolitical and climate of opinion battles connected to the ongoing global war with Islamist terrorism.
As a result, there is now a very obvious alignment between left-leaning, Marxism-influenced mostly secularist or neo-pagan advocates within Western Culture [but also including a good slice of a wing of the Christian church deeply affected by the skepticism-influenced modernist theological movements that have spread since the 1700's], and islamist agendas. The former interpret the latter as manifestations of third-world resistance to the evil imperialist agendas of Western Civilisation, viewing -- and often openly denouncing -- Israel as an Apartheid-state, colonialist outpost imposed on the native peoples of the Middle East. For these, "fundamentalist" Christians are a backward, dangerously reactionary and potentially violent right-wing force in our civilisation, seeking to turn the clock back on "progress" by imposing a theocratic tyranny.
Radical Islamists are only too willing to go along with what they probably view as "useful idiots," as they know that a house divided cannot stand and proverbially hold that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (It bears noting that the real agenda of many radical Islamists is religiously motivated global subjugation under Allah, Allah's prophet, law and warriors, as can be seen by simply reading the Quran, Surah 9: 5, 29 and 30 - 34 in light of an unfortunately major and sadly unfinished thread of religiously motivated conquest in Islamic history. The Muslim Brotherhood global subjugation plan of 1982 will make this plain, as will a reading between the lines of the Iranian Government's 2006 Christmas message to the world. [The very fact that this point has to be specifically underscored is itself telling on our willful denial and refusal to see the manifestly plain but unwelcome.])
The recent case of a claimed humanitarian mission to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade against weapons smuggling to Gaza that ended in a bloody melee, is a clear demonstration of the pattern. However, the point of this blog post is not to rehash the already told story of that idealistic intended peace mission gone ever so sadly awry at the hands of jihadists exploiting what they plainly consider as naive, useful idiots.
Instead, the issue is how we can work to clear the atmosphere so that we may not only discuss political issues in a calmer, more civil and more reasonable atmosphere, but also, how we can find ways to address the trifecta fallacy pattern of distraction, distortion and demonisation-laced denigration and dismissal that is now increasingly the "standard" rebuttal offered to any attempt to present a biblical or gospel perspective.
That is very hard to do, but since not only policies and sound understanding of our times but souls are at stake, we must try:
1 --> The first point is that we must get Aristotle's point across: while appeals to stirred up emotions are persuasive, and while we are often tempted to simply blindly follow those we deem credible, only the relevant true facts and correct reasoning relative to those facts suffice to properly ground a conclusion.
2 --> In short, we must insist on going to and focussing on the merits of the true facts that represent the truth, and correct reasoning relative to those facts. For, only such grounds are safe ones for well-warranted conclusions and wise action.
3 --> Also, angry, finger-pointing blame games only underscore the well known fact that we are all finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed; which means that any significant movement in history will have its fair share of sins, outrages and crimes. (Thus, the issue is not that men, movements, institutions and civilisations are riddled with sins and hypocrisies, but that we need to repent and seek reformation and reconciliation.)
4 --> So, we all need to soberly face some sad truths about ourselves and our world, through listening to the wise counsel of the Sermon on the Mount to would-be reformers, in Matt 7:1 - 5:
Mt 7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
5 --> In short, the first step to successfully reforming others is to address our own sinful, desperately wicked hearts. And, then, let us make a bonfire out of the planks we collect from our own eyes, and have a marshmallow roast while we learn to reach out to one another in true compassion and mutually upbuilding concern.
6 --> It is tempting to dismiss this as an impractical counsel of perfection, but instead unless we force ourselves to face such challenging counsel, we will all too predictably end up back in the futile game of rage-fuelled hypocritical finger-pointing. (And, unless this is done first, the work of trying to disentangle the thorny thickets of hostile, rage-soaked accusations and hostility piled up as tinder at the feet of strawmen and waiting for the touch of an angry fire that so often pass for public discussion or even news today, will be futile.)
7 --> So, the first few steps are those of calling us to balance, calmness and civility in light of Aristotle's warning; a warning given with the ghost of Socrates whispering in his ear about what all too easily happens when people sit in judgement in what has become a kangaroo court, having been blinded by artfully stirred up rage.
8 --> In some cases (sadly, increasingly, a minority . . . ), this will serve to calm down the heated atmosphere. So, we can then turn to forming a balanced two-sided (or more . . . ) view of particular issues of the day, or more importantly, the key warranting case that grounds the gospel and the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures. Namely, the resurrection of Jesus in light of the centuries old prophecies and the over five hundred eyewitnesses.
9 --> In that context, I now highly recommend that Christians seeking to bear witness to the gospel learn the minimal facts approach that has emerged in recent years; which has been tested successfully in world-class public debates.
11 --> However, there are those who insistently divert to side-tracks, set up strawman caricatures and indulge in character-assassinating and atmosphere poisoning ad hominems or one-sided litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom or of the Jews.
12 --> Those who insistently use such diversionary and polarising tactics are implicitly acknowledging that they do not have a sound case on the merits. Which, we should point out, then focus attention on what they would divert from.
13 --> A sadly apt example of the sort of spite we are talking about here, can be seen from Comedy Central's spitefully disrespectful comedy animation on Jesus and other related themes in the following clip (warning, offensive):
14 --> This disgraceful incivility not only reflects a classic example of the planks in eye problem, but is based on the cynically manipulative Saul Alinsky rules for radicals that counsel subversives thusly:
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . .
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
15 --> Of course, this artfully side-steps the otherwise plainly and painfully obvious fact that ALL of us cannot consistently live up to sound moral principle -- what being morally fallen means -- and that as a result, the great Russian prophetic writer, Solzhenitsyn was apt: the line between good and evil passes not between classes and nations, but right through the individual human heart.
16 --> We are neither angels nor devils, but instead fallen men who may listen to either or both. And who, if we are wise, will seek to repent and reform ourselves in light of the counsel of the angels.
17 --> A deeper problem lurks, the challenge of rampant amorality driven by the is-ought gap of the atheistical or agnostic secular humanist evolutionary materialism that haunts our culture today. For, in his 1739 A Treatise of Human nature, David Hume argued:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
18 --> What Hume has artfully side-stepped [for, sadly, he full well knew or should have known the teachings of the relevant major theologians and the scriptures], is that -- contrary to the dilemma the Greeks faced with their multitude of too-small and quarreling, capricious gods -- the essentially good and wise Creator God is an IS who can ground all oughts. In his unchanging, holy character. So, ought is not arbitrary, nor is it independent of God; indeed, to do the right, loving, just and fair is our reasonable service to God. (Also cf here and the onward linked William Lane Craig podcast on the grounding of objective morality in God)
Rom 2:2Now we know that God's judgment . . . is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on [others] and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? . . . .
13:8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
20 --> By contrast, once we strip away the intimidating aura of scientific pretensions, evolutionary materialism falls apart intellectually and morally. For instance , here is historian of biology, professor William Provine of Cornell, at the University of Tennessee [Shades of the Scopes Monkey trial!] Darwin Day, in 1998:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them . . .
21 --> But, if humans have no true power of choice, we cannot choose to reason correctly or decide to act morally; and so, not only does the foundation for ethics vanish, but also that for reason itself. Manipulation then replaces a sense of duty to think clearly, correctly and ethically soundly. Thus, all too soon, we arrive at the sort of cynically poisonous incivility that we are addressing.
. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].)
Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity . . . .
In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.
"Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home. Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences.
Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless . . .
23 --> The resulting chaos brings us full circle to the sobering counsel of Scripture in Romans 1:
Rom 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised . . ..
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless . . .
24 --> So, it becomes clear that the root of the breakdown of reasonableness and civility in our day is ingratitude-driven rebellion against our good Creator God, who has given us more than adequate signs within our hearts and minds, and in the world without that would lead us to him, if we would but listen.
25 --> But that's exactly the problem. For, as Jesus warned us in John 3:
Jn 3:19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
____________
So, if we are to be effective witnesses to God in today's world, we must understand, then effectively and cogently address some strident challenges. I trust that the above will be of help in that process. END
Only a few days after having to address the sad recent events in Jamaica [NB: updated Jun 1, 2010], we now have to look at the bloody battle on board a Turkish flagged merchantman seeking to break the Israeli-Egyptian anti-weapons smuggling blockade of the Gaza coast.
______________________
As the Middle East spins out of control towards a major confrontation between Israel and Iran over the ongoing attempts by the latter to acquire nuclear warheads for the ballistic missiles it has developed with the aid of North Korea [and others], Israel has found itself in several confrontations with Iranian proxies, often over rocket bombardments from Lebanon or Gaza. In recent years, despite the UNIFIL presence in Lebanon, Hezbollah has reportedly moved from the 13,000 rockets and missiles that posed an acknowledged "existential threat" to Israel in 2006, to a claimed 35,000. Early last year, after some 6,000 rockets in four years, Israel invaded Gaza and broke up the rocket infrastructure; to loud international outcry over a "disproportionate" response. Since then, it seems that "only" some 95 rocket and mortar bomb lobbing incidents have been reported.
In recent months as Iran -- which has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map -- has moved closer and closer to nuclear weapons, Israel and the Obama Administration have had a public falling out, and Iran has moved to cement ties with both Turkey and Brazil. In that situation, the announced sailing of a blockade breaking flotilla from a Turkish port takes on deep significance.
This is multiplied by the significance of the chants that the blockade runners were filmed making:
(The chants refer to Mohammed's troubling relations with three Jewish tribes at Yathrib [apparently originally a Jewish settlement], which was renamed Medina after the early Muslims took refuge there from Mecca. Over time the tribes were stripped of property, exiled, enslaved and in one case the men were massacred by Mohammed's order. Seven to nine hundred men were beheaded in one day and buried in a mass grave.)
{UPDATE, June 23: David Parsons of ICEJ News therefore exposes the media ambush in the following video report (NB: IDF sources subsequently corrected the timeline to say that their soldiers began to use their pistols in self defence about two minutes after descending to the decks of the ship, in the face of a captured soldier with a gun to the head):
This report allows us to see how the world first heard of the sad events of May 31, from a media report that conspicuously failed to mention the attack on the IDF soldiers as soon as they descended to the deck of the ship, with metal pipes, clubs, knives and captured guns. The delay of many hours before the IDF videotapes were released then allowed this selective report to cement itself in the minds of the public and many policy makers as the material truth, rather than a highly tendentious and deceptive half-truth in violation of all canons of journalistic ethics.}
Against this backdrop, it is significant to observe the request of the Israelis that the flotilla divert to Ashdod where the cargo could be inspected under the observation of the peace activists, and transferred by road to Gaza, similar to normal supply movements. (NB: The banning of cement and pipes came in for particular notice. Apparently the Israelis have restricted and rationed such items to known projects to minimise diversion to bunker building and making of rockets.)
The next video is from the bridge of an intercepting Israeli vessel:
From the refusal it is clear that the real objective was to break an anti-weapons blockade [as, large missiles cannot easily be smuggled though tunnels from Egypt . . . and Israel's main nuclear centre, Dimona, is about 50 miles from Gaza, within reach of large rockets], not to get humanitarian supplies to Gaza, which could easily enough have been accomplished through the request to divert to Ashdod. "Negative, negative . . . "
While the issues of the legitimacy of a blockade and enforcing it at distance in International waters will be debated back and forth -- NB: in both the First and Second World Wars, Britain enforced a long distance blockade of Germany [UPDATE, Jun 2: Cf. a discussion of the relevant 1994 San Remo international treaty clause here(and as well the official legal opinion here)] -- it is clear that the Israelis were dealing with a blockade-running attempt. So, they sent over parties of naval commandos, armed with paintball guns and sidearms they were instructed not to use save in defence of their lives. Apparently they expected some demonstration, but did not expect to meet street fighters armed thusly in the key case, Mavi Marmara [the other five vessels apparently were taken under control with no major violent incidents]:
Pickaxe handles, high power slingshots and stones, hammers, metal pipes, sledgehammers, daggers, knives, ice picks and Molotov Cocktails are not exactly typical peace activist paraphernalia.
UPDATE, Jun 2: The ship's security videoshows just such weapons as were shown above being prepared and brandished by the rioters:
In that context it is unsurprising to see that rappelling commandos were ambushed, mobbed, clubbed and stabbed, then in at least one case tossed over the edge of the deck:
Reportedly, once a sidearm had been captured [apparently from the soldier tossed headlong to a deck 30 ft below as can be seen in the above Infra red video], IDF soldiers were then shot, and received permission to fire in self defence. The IDF reports say that they shot at legs, but of course this needs to be checked against the -- sad and regrettable -- fact that at least nine deaths occurred among the rioters, along with a significant number of wounded. (NB: Handguns are notoriously difficult to control under stress.)
UPDATE, Jun 3: An experienced military analyst discusses what happened when Israeli soldiers rappelled down to the deck of the ship, including identifying a soldier with a paintball gun and how the use of life jackets and face masks by the rioters rendered these non-lethal weapons largely ineffective:
This analysis has highly significant implications. For, if the rioters prepared themselves to render paintball gun shots ineffective, they plainly expected that the Israeli soldiers were going to be primarily armed with such guns -- probably on analysis of previous interceptions of blockade running ships. Further, it strongly suggests that the intent was not just to batter or swarm down and maim or kill the soldiers, but probably to seize several soldiers as hostages to force a hostage crisis; thus compelling the Israelis to allow the ships to go to Gaza without inspection or hindrance.
But instead, on seeing their lives were in danger, the soldiers were authorised to shoot; which resulted in the deaths of it seems nine rioters.
{UPDATE, June 11: A smuggled out video provides inadvertent corroboration of the earlier IDF videos and reports from soldiers [cf. Appendix below, June 4]. We see the IDF speedboats, but not the brandishing of clubs, chains etc, nor the use of flash grenades or firebombs and fire-hoses to try to fend them off. We see the hovering helicopter over the edge of the upper deck, and glimpses of descending soldiers. We follow someone into the aid station, and at about the 2 minute mark, hear a fusillade of pistol shots, then a burst of automatic fire and scattered shooting thereafter. Wounded come in, first in the legs, then in the head-throat region. We do not see the battered, disarmed and captured IDF soldiers who were brought to the same station, nor the knives and clubs that appear in the pictures Hurriet published on them. We do not see the IDF soldiers' paintball guns. This is consistent with an attempt to use a soldier with a gun at the head to get the unit to surrender, met with shots to kill the potential shooter, and then leading to a rush at the IDF perimeter, stopped by a fusillade of shots, and onward pursuit of rioters.}
Predictably, once such a violent and bloody outcome occurred [and on live TV and Internet broadcasts due to dozens of media crews being aboard], Israel has been subjected to International censure and there have been demonstrations against Israel around the world. If one looks to the blogosphere, some very ugly remarks are being made too.
{Update, June 11: one of the most serious accusations is that that by stopping the ship on the high seas, the Israelis commited an act of piracy and kidnapping, and it is also suggested that the Israelis are subjecting the Gazans to a humanitarian catastrophe.
On the first, ironically, the same Reuters that seems to have been caught out clipping off knives in activists' hands from the Hurriet photos of captured IDF soldiers, has responded aptly:
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose . . . .
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say . . . .
Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," [Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College] said . . . .
"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.
On the wider question, it is now evident that while there is undoubted hardship and poverty in Gaza, in significant part due to the dislocations of an ongoing war with Israel, and there is need to rebuild what was lost during the Cast Lead counter attack to 6,000 rockets fired from Gaza at civilian towns in Israel, over a million tons of humanitarian materials have been transshipped into Gaza through Israel or from Israel since January 2009, and there is no threatening or existing humanitarian catastrophe. One hopes that the proposal by Abbas to go back to the line of discussions on a settlement adjusted from the 1949 - 67 borders, will be fruitful.
As we read in today's Jerusalem Post article,"Nobody denies Jewish history here":
[Abbas] said he was looking for agreement from the Netanyahu government that the basis for borders would be the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps, an arrangement he said was in place during his direct talks with the previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert.
“Everyone around the world talks about the ’67 borders, but with some amendments, some swaps here and there,” he told a Brookings Institution forum the day after he met with US President Barack Obama and other top American officials . . . .
Abbas reaffirmed publicly positions more often heard from Palestinians in private, such as his willingness to have a long-term international presence in Palestinian areas in order “to make the Israeli people feel secure inside their homes.”
He pointed to NATO as one such organization he had discussed with American officials, declaring through a translator, “We have no objections to NATO.”
He rejected out of hand the concept of a one-state solution, but said the popularity of this idea was growing among Palestinians and added to the urgency of resolving the situation so that there would be “no more demands” and an “end of claims.” He also said that the matter of Palestinian refugees would be handled by an “agreed” solution . . . .
On another sensitive issue – the notion that Jerusalem would be a shared capital for both countries – Abbas indicated that he recognized Israeli claims to west Jerusalem as its capital, but not to east Jerusalem. At Wednesday night’s dinner, he stated, “We say that west Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” . . . .
When asked about whether under a final agreement the PA would recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas told the crowd of 30 leaders of major Jewish organizations, former national security advisors and think tank experts that Israel would be free to describe itself however it wanted.
But he also said, “Nobody denies the Jewish history in the Middle East. A third of our holy Koran talks about the Jews in the Middle East, in this area. Nobody from our side at least denies that the Jews were in Palestine.”
While there are obvious points of contention, this is more or less where things stood in September 2000, when Arafat walked away from the peace table and triggered the current wave of conflict. It is also close to what was on the table in 1948 and 1967.
It is sad that so much blood and treasure have had to be needlessly expended to come back to the lines of a compromise that could have been had 60 years ago, simply by being willing to sit down with the Israelis, and again 40 years ago and yet again 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, matters may be spinning further out of Control as Iran is threatening to send in convoys backed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.}
Most menacingly, Turkey is reported to be threatening to exploit its NATO membership and send in a follow up convoy under Turkish naval escort, which could -- in principle at least -- trigger the mutual defence clause of the NATO treaty; against Israel. All, in a situation where Israel has just announced openly that its submarines (which can carry cruise missiles, including potentially nuclear armed ones) are on regular patrol off the coast of Iran.
And so, events are plainly spinning dangerously out of control.
Let us pray that wiser heads will prevail in the Middle East and globally, before things spin completely out of control, triggering a regional nuclear war.
For, that is what is plainly on the table now. END ______________
PS: For those who need a refresher on the history of modern Israel and the linked question of the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism in their ancestral homeland, I suggest here.
UPDATE, Jun 2: Humanitarian supplies delivered to Gaza overland from Ashdod, Israel:
(In a late-breaking development, IDF's blog announced late on June 2, that twenty truckloads of aid from the flotilla were being blocked from entry into Gaza by the Hamas authorities.)
____________
APPENDIX, Jun 4: The sergeant who shot six of nine attackers on the MV Mavi Marmara tells his story. Excerpting:
When St.-Sgt. S. fast-roped down from an air force Black Hawk helicopter onto the Mavi Marmara Turkish passenger ship on Monday morning, he did not expect to be landing in what he called “a battlefield” and facing off against a group of “murderous mercenaries.” [NB: Elsewhere in the linked article, it says the attackers showed signs of military training, were coordinated in 20-man squads, had ceramic flak vests, and had thousands of [US?] dollars each in their pockets.]
The 15th and last naval commando from Flotilla 13 (the Shayetet) to rappel down onto the ship from the helicopter, S. said on Thursday that he was immediately attacked by what the IDF has called “the mob of mercenaries” aboard the vessel, just like the soldiers who had boarded just before him.
Looking to his side, he saw three of his commanders lying wounded – one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee. A third was lying unconscious; his skull was fractured by a devastating blow with a metal bar.
As the next in the chain of command, S., who has been in the Shayetet [the IDF unit involved] for three and a half years, immediately took charge.
He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol [which has a 17-round magazine, standard] to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.
The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three . . . .
“When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes,” S. told the Post. “These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us” . . . .
[CORRECTION:] In contrast to earlier reports, the commandos said that they began using their weapons within a minute and a half after boarding the ship, due to the extreme violence they faced. One of the reasons S. pulled out his gun right after landing on the ship was because one of the mercenaries was pointing a pistol, snatched from one of the commandos, at another commando’s head.
This is the first eyewitness report on the circumstances surrounding the nine deaths, and it fits with the already established picture we can see from the above videos. So, while we of course will want other accounts, including from the other side, it gives some important -- and sadly sobering -- context for our reflections.
Negroponte suggests in the interview that the Marvell Moby based prototype would lead on to the intended plastic tablet, by 2011- 12. 
