I happened upon the New York Times’ “Faces of the Dead” website this morning. It’s quite an amazing recognition of the young men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. It got me thinking about which states are bearing the burden the most (the purpose here is benign — and certainly not to shun those who have not lost as many people!). Here’s one map (through December 1, 2006) that I came across:

I was interested in the state-by-state breakdown, and in particular relative to population. What I found is that Vermont, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Alaska have borne the heaviest burden relative to population, while New Jersey, Utah, Connecticut, Florida and Massachusetts and New York have borne the least burden relative to population. For example, New Jersey has lost one person for every 161,814 while Vermont has lost 1 person for every 33,824 — nearly 5 times the burden. The pattern is clear — except for Utah (which is probably low due to the high portion of mormons, who hold values of non-violence). With few exceptions, more rural states have borne the burden more so than urbanized states.

Here is the full list, compiled from HERE and correlated with population (2001 Census).

Through December 1, 2006

¹ Burden being the number of casualties per population.

What a glorious week for the unity of Canada! No, I’m not talking about the French-English question. I’m talking about the Jewish-Muslim question. Let’s recap this week’s events.

In trying to admit one mistake (i.e. saying that he wasn’t losing any sleep over the loss of civilian lives in Qa’na), Michael Ignatieff opened himself up to further criticism (by now claiming that it was a war crime by Israel). That remark sparked outrage by various Canadian Jewish groups and individuals, forcing Ignatieff to issue yet another clarification (i.e. that war crimes were committed on both sides). Even mindful of a political opening, Stephen Harper and the conservative blogosphere pounced on what they saw as a strategic opening to once again show how the Liberals are divided and, in the words of the Prime Minister, “anti-Israel” (their goal: to siphon Jewish support away from the Liberals). Likewise, supporters of Ignatieff’s leadership opponents seized on his remarks in an effort to paint Ignatieff as unfit to be leader of the Liberal Party. Ignatieff’s Toronto co-chair resigned, and the wife of former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Ariel Cotler, quit the Liberal Party. Ignatieff supporters, for their part, continued to defend Ignatieff as someone who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is”, in contrast to the “career politicians” like Bob Rae.

So it seems that everyone is quick to use Ignatieff’s comments, and more importantly, the very serious unresolved Middle East crisis, for their own political advantage. From my perspective, everyone who has used the distressing problems in the Middle East as a wedge to divide and conquer has vacated their moral centre. Ignatieff may yet pay a price for his part in escalating tensions (in terms of second-ballot support in December). But what of the damage done of escalating an already difficult issue within Canada? Will there be consequences for those who sow the seeds of division? The by-products of using tragedy for political advantage will surely trickle into the ground like rainwater, only to be manifest as problems at another time and place — increased mistrust between Canadian Jews and Muslims, more voter cynicism of crass political games, and a nation that is more divided today than a few days ago. Perhaps the next time people want to take advantage of the suffering of others, they might think of the big picture, and the damage it does to the nation they claim to love.

Iggy Awakens, Not Losing Sleep Over Dead Children
By Gregory D. Morrow

Finally, like the big bear that has just awoken from his long winter hibernation, Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has finally returned from his month-long hiatus to Europe (he was reportedly in Hungary with his wife’s mother, who was ill). And apparently, one of the reasons for his long slumber was that he was not losing any sleep over the fact that children are dying in Lebanon. And his sleep was so good that he could not get on one of Hungary’s 3,577,300 telephone lines, borrow one of the 8,727,200 cell phones or 261,294 internet hosts to write a response to the Israeli-Lebanon crisis, or even dictate a memo to one of his staff. No, he was simply “unavailable”.

Well, either Ignatieff had taken one of the limited edition George W. Bush-say-what you-mean-and-don’t-mince-words-about-it pills, or Ignatieff’s staff hasn’t given him the old it-looks-really-bad-not-to-sympathesize-with-innocent-people-getting-killed pep talks. Imagine the outcry if Stephen Harper had said such a thing! And that is what worries a lot of people about Michael Ignatieff — while I’m sure his learning curve is quite steep, the fact is, he is had been a politician for about 5 minutes, well, OK, a few months, but that’s only a few months more than Martha Hall Findlay, who shocked many people by her audacity to run for Liberal leader without ever having held elected office.

(more…)

New poll out that shows that just 32% back Prime Minister Harper on his Middle East stance. Canadians, it would seem, prefer to play a neutral position rather than simply play second fiddle to U.S. President George W. Bush. It gets worse for Harper in Quebec, where just 17% back his position. Only 19% think that Harper’s decision to back Israel was made out of principle, while 53% think it was to get in line with Bush. That number goes up to 72% in Quebec. An earlier poll also put opposition to the Afghanistan mission at 56%. Mr Harper will have to tread lightly.

Overall support is not much different than it has been for a while: 38% for the Tories, 29% for the Liberals, 15% for the NDP, although it should be noted that Ipsos-Reid polls tend to skew a couple points towards the Tories.

FYI…

Lebanon’s biggest environmental catastrophy: 15,000 ton oil spill hits coast
Wael Hmaidan, Electronic Lebanon, 28 July 2006

(Zena el-Khalil)

“The escalating Israeli attack on Lebanon is not only killing its civilians and destroying its infrastructure, but it is also annihilating its environment. Last week a 15,000 ton oil spill resulted from the Israeli air raid on the Jiyyeh power plant South of Lebanon. The power plant has six fuel tanks. Four of them have burned completely, while the fifth one, which is also the main cause of the spill, is still burning. The Lebanese Ministry of Environment is worried that the sixth tank, which is underground and so far intact, is going to explode and increase the magnitude of the problem.

Lebanese environmental NGOs have labeled the spill as the worst environmental crisis in Lebanon’s history. Just for the sake of comparison, in 2003 a 50 ton oil spill in the North by a cement company was a huge blow to the Lebanese coastal environment, and required a years clean up effort. The current spill is 300 times bigger, and there is a big possibility that more oil will go into the sea.”

Terrorism is the Symptom, Poverty is the Root Cause
By Gregory D. Morrow

Terrorist acts are those of desperate people who have lost their morals, creating a context in which killing random people is justified in the name of resistance. But no terrorist act is justified, regardless of how unjust the underlying causes that motivate those that perpetuate them.

That being said, many people flat-out refuse to accept that anything other than insanity and innate evil motivates terrorists to commit their horrible deeds. Many people don’t want to accept there might be underlying causes as to why terrorists have become so desperate as to kill innocent people. To do so, they feel, would be to lend credibility to their actions. This is understandable. But, unless we accept that people who go to such extremes are not simply insane or born into this world as evil, unless we try to understand why they are so angry, we will never defeat terrorism. Terrorism is hate translated into violent action. There are short-term battles that are necessary to fight in order to quell the immediate dangers posed by terrorists, and perhaps the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict is just that, but in the long-term, we must identify and solve the root-cause that motivates such anger.

The United States, Canada, and Israel, among others, believe that Hezbollah’s terrorist acts are the “root cause” of the current hostilities. Indeed, there is little doubt that the latest round of violence began with Hezbollah’s attack on an Israeli convoy, which lead to the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Both Hezbollah and Israel, however, are carelessly killing civilians, although to be sure Israel is not purposely targeting civilians, while Hezbollah is (a difference that leads people to call Hezbollah’s attacks terrorism).

But terrorism is just the symptom of an underlying problem, not the root cause. I would argue that poverty is the root cause of violence between Israel, Shi’a Muslims (as represented by Hezbollah), and Sunni Muslims (as represented by Hamas). Hezbollah and Hamas have been successful at recruiting supporters because they wrap their promises in a nationalist agenda infused with religion, and can point to the vast differences in quality of life between Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Middle East as evidence of what they believe is a war against their faith.

(more…)

As the world watches Lebanon and Israel shell each other, back in Iraq, Civil War is all but declared. Over 130 dead in Iraq the last two days. According to a U.N. study based on Health Ministry statistics, 2,669 Iraqi civilians were killed in May and 3,149 were killed in June. The total Iraqis killed since war began is between 39,228 and 43,687 (as of 19 July 2006). Why is it that the Canadian and American media never talk about how many Iraqi civilians have died?

Just to give you a sense of the scale of civilian death in Iraq, proportional to national population, here is a comparison:

IRAQ
26.7 million population –> 39,228 to 43,687 dead

CANADA
33.1 million population –> 48,631 to 54,159 dead
Comparable Size Cities:
Vernon, BC (51,530)
St-Hyacinthe, QC (49,536)

USA
298.4 million population –> 438,413 to 488,247 dead
Comparable Size Cities:
Long Beach, CA (475,460)
Albuquerque, NM (471,856)
New Orleans, LA (469,032)
Cleveland, OH (461,324)
Sacramento, CA (445,335)
Kansas City, MO (442,768)

CHINA
1.314 billion population –> 1.93 million to 2.15 million dead
Comparable Size Cities:
Dalien, Liaoning (2,118,100)
Hangzhou, Zhejiang (1,932,600)

You get the point.

So, how did we get to the latest round of violence between Israel and Lebanon? In an attempt to free its prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah — a Shi’a Muslim group with both civilian and militant (terrorist) wings — attacked an Israeli convoy, killing three and capturing two (hoping to exchange Israeli captives for their own). Fed up with these continued attacks, Israel has responded with a large-scale assault on Lebanon. But if the purpose of Israel’s response is to isolate Hezbollah — which seems like a laudable goal — I question the wisdom of taking out Beirut’s airport, roads, and other civilian infrastructure. Surely, a weakened Lebanon makes it more susceptible to influence by Syria and Iran (which is definitely not a good thing). Israel’s rationale seems to be borrowed from George W. Bush — that anyone harboring a terrorist is a terrorist. And since Lebanon has done nothing to stop Hezbollah terrorists, Israel feels justified in conducting a country-wide assault.

But can Lebanon itself really destroy Hezbollah? For much of its existence Lebanon has had its own internal conflicts, hence its 1958 civil conflicts, and the 1975-1990 civil war. Lebanon is not comprised solely of Muslims, let alone Shi’a Muslims (for whom Hezbollah purportedly speaks). Not even close. Lebanon is 40% Christian, and less than half are Shi’a Muslims. It is a country comprised of diverse religious groups, both Muslim (Shi’a, Sunni, Druze, Alawite), and Christian (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, etc). It is naive to think that any one group is strong enough to remove Hezbollah right now (even if it was desired), or that a coalition can form immediately after so many years of sectarian violence. By taking action against Hezbollah, Lebanon risks another civil war (it should be said that 1990, the Lebanese government considered Hezbollah a legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon; Israeli withdrew is 2000). Now, after 15 years of reconstructing its civilian infrastructure, and despite the fact that most Lebanese are not Shi’a Muslim, the entire country will now suffer.

(more…)