Can We Coordinate? Resisting the UK Uniparty in 2024

 All Hail the Uniparty

The next general election will happen within the year. That we know. We also know that we are now governed by a Uniparty. At the next election this pro-war, neoliberal austerity Uniparty aims to once again be in government 

 

All Hail the Uniparty!

 

The Uniparty could carry the name Conservative or Labour (or, to be honest, Liberal Democrat or Reform). It makes no discernible difference. Has there ever been a time when the political class of Great Britain was so united and yet so out of touch with the concerns of people "on the ground"? It would be an interesting question with which to research history, but, to me, looking at it in the first half of 2024, the gap has never appeared to be wider. 

 

What grates, as much as the clear differences between "them" and "us" in how critical issues should be approached and dealt with - is having to put up with tedious, discredited homilies that include phrases such as "we've maxed out our credit card". The fact is that when you look beyond the shallow pantomime that presents itself as party politics in 2024 you see that the political class has seemingly merged into one, while "the common people", hopelessly addicted to arguing on the internet, distracted by the bread and circuses of the mass media, and divided by the rabid press, appear hopelessly atomised.

 

As the dearly departed George Carlin once opined, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." 

"If a large majority of your population wants to stop genocidal war crimes and yet your government officials double down in doing the opposite, you do not live in a democracy."
Jason Hickel

 

Can the Uniparty be resisted? Well, possibly. Around the country resistance is finally mobilising. 

 

What Does Resistance Look Like

Image taken from the Morning Star

Whatever you think of George Galloway - and not everyone's a fan - his Rochdale by-election victory was important to those who are horrified at the cosy, genocide enabling consensus which dominates Westminster. It demonstrated there is a hunger for an alternative to the Uniparty. The hysterical reaction from the establishment, which included a ridiculous speech by Rishi Sunak outside No. 10 Downing Street and further draconian measures to "deal with extremism" on the way, care of Michael Gove, showed how angry we make them when we don't play the game by their rules. The resistance has been galvanised, for sure. But what does this resistance broadly look like?

What we see now are many strong independent candidates coming forward, hoping to replicate Galloway's success and shock the Uniparty out of its complacency. We also see The Green Party assert themselves as an alternative force who will stand candidates in every constituency. And there's more.

There are also alternative parties such as George Galloway's Workers Party of Great Britain,Andrew Feinstein's Collective mass movement and the new Never Forget Gaza party. Just Stop Oil have also announced they will field candidates. And there are others such as Transform Politics and Left Unity. And outside England there are parties including SNP, Alba, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

However there is a danger here: what if these alternatives start to get in each other's way? The last thing we want is to see the Uniparty triumphing because the resistance were siloed, disorganised and taking votes from one another. We need some form of coordination to fight the genocide consensus.

Many people still hope Jeremy Corbyn will throw his hat into the ring as a leader of a new party, or as a unifying force for this burgeoning anti-establishment movement. But if he is going to do something he's leaving it very late. The fact is that despite everything, there is only one political party in Corbyn's life as far as I can see it, and for better or worse, that party is Labour. The big question after that is can Corbyn, for the sake of his constituents, abandon the party he has dedicated his life to and run as an independent at the next election? Even doing just that would be a shot in the arm for the resistance - and the latest signs look promising for this.

What should the Strategy Look Like 

Image taken from the Palestine Return Centre

So what should the strategy be, if and when a general election is called (and time is running down) to maximise the Resistance vote and do as much damage as we possibly can to the Uniparty? How can we maximise the Resistance's potential and give it the best chance we can to be real force for good in the next parliament?

My thought is we need to organise constituency by constituency. And in every consituency you will find different circumstances, conditions and priorities for the voters. In some constituencies there could be a strong independent candidate like  Leanne Mohamad in Ilford North. In others like Bristol Central the Green Party's Carla Denyer is best placed to defeat the Uniparty.

So, here's what, maybe, we could do to address this issue:

1. Check which resistance candidates (not Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem or Reform. Sorry Lib Dems but I don't consider you with the good guys) are running in your constituency.

2. Call a public meeting for all resistance candidates and their allies. The first item on the agenda at this meeting would be to to get to know each other and see if we can work together. We don't have to agree on all issues - it would be unusual if we did - but I would suggest we should agree on certain red line principles.

3. Examples of red line principles as things stand now could include, but not be limited to: an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, action on climate breakdown, protecting the NHS, electoral reform and taxing the super rich.

4. As long as we can agree on a set of critical principles such as those stated in point 3, the next critical question to examine would be "which of our resistance candidates stands the best chance of defeating the Uniparty in this constituency?"

5. Answering this question honestly and objectively would make demands of people: for some maybe it would require them to sacrifice their ambition and ego for the greater good.

6. But once the most likely anti-Uniparty candidate has been chosen then everyone can put all their energies behind this candidate.

What about the Green Party's pledge to stand candidates in every constituency? Is it possible this might get in the way with them coordinating with the resistance in some constituencies? Possibly, but I don't think this has to be a barrier to them taking part in this exercise. As ever, local conditions will dictate what actions they, and others wish to take.The strength of the Green Party is that there is a lot of autonomy granted to granted to local parties.

These are my thoughts. I don't claim they are perfect or particularly original. What I do hope is that an urgent conversation is begun between people of different parties and factions. As stated, time IS running short. 

 

 

The Story of My Baby Oak Trees

 So here they are, my babies! 😁 Their story?

This time last year, in Autumn 2022, I was still looking after my elderly mother. Every day, just before tea time, we would go out for a walk. We always traced the same route around the estate where we lived. I would remind her of the road names as we walked and she would reminisce on the people that she knew, who were living or had lived at certain places on our route, some of them long gone. We would comment on people's gardens, on the flowers that were growing there, some of them covered in bees and butterflies, which was always nice to see. We also had our favourite trees. One in particular was a birch tree with beautiful, flawless silver bark. As we approached our house we would stop and marvel at the huge buddleia which grew in a neighouring garden - alive with buzzing, flying, pollinating and hovering things.

On Doe Bank Lane, which boasted views across green fields and up towards the ancient Beacon which is the highest point in the West Midlands, there was a mighty Oak tree. I would pause and pick up an acorn from the ground, and when we got home, I would drop the acorn into a bowl of water. Sometimes the acorn would float, and I would leave it in the garden for the squirrels. But sometimes the acorn sank to the bottom of the bowl. Then I would keep it, and put it in the fridge with a little damp soil.

There were also other trees I collected from: I went to a protest camp run by Palestine Action in the woods around the local Elbit weapons factory in Lichfield. And I would pick up acorns. I went to the Green Party Autumn conference, outside of which grew a huge Horse Chestnut tree. From there I picked up some conkers (and ran the same test).

Then tragedy struck: my mother had an accident and broke her ankle. She went to hospital and never returned. Now she's in a care home in Bromsgrove. To pay for her care, we sold our family home, which was heartbreaking. I moved to a flat not far away, but I kept my acorns and my conkers, as they underwent the Winter stratification process.

Spring came, and I was on trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court for my part in a Palestine Action protest. My barrister was not hopeful, and feared that my sentence may be very severe, should I be convicted (which I unfortunately was). The judge presiding over our case was aggressively strict. We nicknamed the prosecutor, who appeared to be carrying out a personal vendetta against us "The Ghoul". It was a gloomy time, even if there was good camaraderie between the defendants, and we still managed to joke about a lot of it.

I planted seven of my acorns, and two of my conkers.

And they grew. To see something like this grow from the beginning is a special feeling. Amidst the endings, and the darkness, new life was sprouting.

As Summer passed, and I awaited my sentence, I gave away two of my Oak seedlings to friends. Now you see the remaining five. As you can imagine it is very much my hope that I can find places for them where they will be safe, and grow in peace. Maybe somewhere where I could visit and check on their progress.

 

 

Does Planet of the Humans Ape the Environmental Movement

A Perspective on the Controversial film, by an Extinction Rebellion (XR) Supporter

Taking Liberties

The new Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans puts the Climate Cat upon the environmentalist pigeons. Indeed, to many Green supporters it is about as welcome as the sight of the Statue of Liberty was at the end of the movie its title is a play upon: Planet of the Apes. It is arguably Moore’s riskiest release to date. 

Previously, everyone knew what Michael Moore was about; or at least they thought they knew. The bane of arch conservatives, and a continuous thorn in the side of the American ideology that is often disparagingly referred to as the “Guns and Bible” faction by its critics. The vast majority of this faction are very strongly aligned with the Republican party and their view of the world.

Moore has gained a reputation as a darling of the “left and Liberal wing” in America with movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, Which Country Shall We Invade Next and Bowling for Columbine. And people have come to expect Moore’s works to poke holes in the rigid worldview of the right leaning targets of his polemic creations.

Whose Side Are You On?

Planet of the Humans takes aim at what producer Moore and director Jeff Gibbs refer to as “our side”.

Who do they mean by “Our Side”? According to Moore, “our side” are the Liberals, the environmentalists, the “Progressives”. 

How does this relate to Extinction Rebellion? Well, like it or not (and some members of XR might not like it; such as the ones that consider themselves, in the words of one of XR’s slogans, “Beyond Politics”) there is a certain perception of environmentalism. This perception is held in America, where every major issue is now strongly partisan. And the perception is that environmentalism is to the Left of the political divide (even though achievements like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US are credited to the Republican Party).

And how does Planet of the Humans take aim?

Publicity for the film claims that it will show us the “dark side” of the “sacred cows” of environmentalism. In practice that means an attack on renewable energy and notable groups and figures in the environmental movement itself.

Some Inconvenient Claims

Here are a few of the contentious claims made by the film. They are relayed without further comment for now:

·       Renewables cannot go all the time, and need fossil fuel power plants idling in the background to power in reserve. Having to turn a fossil fuel plant up and down constantly makes it extremely inefficient and even more hostile to the environment. 

·       Renewables themselves can be very destructive for the environment because of the vegetation that needs to be cleared to construct a solar or wind farm, and also because they can be made of concrete and steel (wind turbine) or mined material (solar panel). At one point Gibbs looks at a huge wind turbine and muses “can we use big industry to save us from big industry?”

·       The shelf life of a solar panel or wind turbine is relatively short (20 years approx) before they need to be replaced. This means more mining, more concrete and more steel as the replacements are constructed.

·       Often when coal plants are shut down they are not replaced with renewable energy but with natural gas, another fossil fuel. Sometimes the natural gas plant that replaces the coal plant is even bigger that the power plant it supersedes.

·       To overcome the problems of intermittence in Sun and wind, you need to store power in batteries, but this greatly increases the carbon footprint of the power source you are using. At the moment (according to the film) we are only at a fraction of 1% of the battery power that we need to make solar and wind a viable replacement for fossil fuel and nuclear power sources.

·       The search for funds can lead environmental groups to “get into bed” with big banks, polluting companies and fossil fuel corporations – in other words they rely on the people that got us into this crisis to get us out of it. Two major targets for the ire of the film makers are Bill Mckibben of 350.org and ex vice president Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth fame.

What to Make of it All?

So what is an Extinction Rebellion supporter to make of all of this? Should we endorse this work, condemn it, or something in between?

In the opinion of the writer is is useful to separate intent from execution when we assess this piece.

Intention wise, I believe there is much in Planet of the Humans that supporters of Extinction Rebellion can relate to.

However when we examine the execution of the project problems arise.

So let’s look at each in turn.

The Failure of Environmentalism

Gibbs and Moore believe that the environmental movement, even though it has achieved good things since it began in the 1960s, has failed. In his recent podcast Moore read out a damning set of statistics:

Since the first Earth Day:

·       90% of large fish (cod, tuna etc) have disappeared from our oceans. We are eating them out of existence.

·       95% of (non human) mammals on Earth that now exist are our pets or our dinner.

·       Between 2,000 and 10,000 animal species are going extinct every year.

·       We have lost over half of our topsoil, and some scientists and agriculturalists predict it may all be gone in the next 60 years (it takes 1,000 years to generate 3 cm of topsoil).

·       Of the 34 main aquifer systems (underground water supplies) on the planet, 21 of them are approaching total collapse.

·       We lost 1.2 billion acres of rainforest in 2018 ALONE.

And, of course, we are, at 415 parts per million CO2 in our atmosphere, way past the 350 ppm “safe limit” for life on Planet Earth.

Hitting Earth’s Limits

One of the most haunting moments in the movie is when Steve Running, an ecologist from the University of Montana, discusses how humanity is transgressing multiple planetary limits: multiple instances of the boundaries of what we can exploit from the Earth. And yet we continue to hope that a miracle of technology will save, not us a species, but the way of life that we have become addicted to.

Humanity (and particularly the “Western World”) are addicted to consumption; we are addicted to endless expansion on a planet with finite resources.

And so far there is nothing in this that Extinction Rebellion would argue with. We also want to end humanity’s addiction to growth and consumption. One of Extinction Rebellion’s main themes right now is Degrowth, and the need to end Gross Domestic Product as a measure of a nation’s success. XR’s Clare Farrell mentioned this specifically during her discussion with the makers of Planet of the Humans.

We also have been trying to warn our species that humanity is overstepping planetary boundaries, one of which is in the state of our climate. And, terrifyingly, that is only one of boundaries we have transgressed. As with Planet of the Humans, XR is sending out warnings that we cannot pin all of our hopes on technological solutions that will come and save us in “10 years or more”. By then it could well be too late.

Like the makers of Planet of the Humans , XR set out to shake up the environmental movement. Like the makers of Planet of the Humans, XR believes that, despite some breakthroughs, the story of the environmental movement is the story of failure, and that different approaches are needed. And why are Moore, Gibbs et al sending out this message?

Because the makers of Planet of the Humans want humanity and the governments of the world to ACT NOW!

And so does Extinction Rebellion.

So, so far so good then.

So what are the problems?

The Problems

When Jeff and Ozzie from the Planet of the Humans crew visit the Solar power generating system in Daggett California they are shocked to find that it has been “raised to the ground”.

It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates mournfully as he surveys the desolation, “a solar dead zone.” 

But was all that it seems?

It transpires that what Gibbs was looking at was the sight of SEGS 1*, a solar generation plant that was closed in 2015. It will not have been long before this plant was replaced by Sunray 2, a far more powerful Solar plant.

So, not a solar dead zone any more then.

The new Sunray system is better in every way: more efficient, takes up less land, and does not need water to cool it.

This is far from the only time in the film that Gibbs and co mislead the viewer when it comes to their criticisms of renewable energy.

Accusations

Another target of the documentary is Biomass, a form of energy that entails turning trees into woodchip, which is then burned to provide electricity. The movie portrays a “pro-environmental movement” that seems to consider Biomass as a renewable source.

It does not take much research to realise that biomass is anything but renewable.

During the course of the film it is implied that Bill Mckibben, founder of the 350.org climate change movement, looked favourably upon biomass as a replacement for fossil fuels. And while it is possible that may have been the case in the period between 2010 and 2012 (the time period in which much of this film is shot), it is no longer the case now, as Mckibben is keen to point out in his response to Planet of the Humans posted on 350.org’s website.

Is this slander?

Population

While the phenomenon of an exponentially growing human population and its effect on the planet is an issue we should not hide from, we should always treat this issue with the greatest care, and make sure that it is placed in its proper context.

There is no doubt that population growth on Earth has exploded since the Industrial Revolution, which is incidentally also the time when greenhouse gases began to be pumped into the atmosphere on, well, on an industrial scale.

But that doesn’t mean that the environmental footprint of all human beings is the same. 

The documentary makers would have done well to cross reference population with the other huge issue they seek to bring to our attention: that of consumption. If they did this they would find that in several key measures, including co2 emissions per head and land use per head, the consumption of human beings in the Global North outstrips the consumption of those in the rest of the world by a very wide margin.

The Girls of the World

As well as this, it should be said that a very effective way to deal with population growth is to educate and empower women and girls. That is because by educating and empowering women and girls across the world, you will inevitably get more birth control as a result. And more birth control means more population control.

Gibbs and co could mention either one of these qualifications as they warn us of the spectre of unrestrained population growth. The fact that they don’t, and instead present us with a parade of white faces from the Global North to commentate upon “the heard of the elephants in the room” leaves them vulnerable to accusations like a colonialist mentality and eco fascism.

When challenged, Gibbs and Moore strenuously deny a “Malthusian”** approach to the issue of population. I give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have to admit their approach is clumsy at best.

Making a Judgement, Overall

So, a film that is noble in intent but deeply flawed in execution. Important questions are asked in the film: about consumption, about placing our trust in “miracles of technology” to fix problems, and about the multiple planetary boundaries that we are crossing. 

Unfortunately to make this point, they use information that in many places is painfully out of date, make criticisms that are arguably slanderous, and approach issues in a way that leaves them vulnerable to the charge of Eco fascism.

Perhaps the most pertinent question to ask in summary is, “do the ends justify the means?"

This is a question that Extinction Rebellion has often asked itself during and after our more controversial actions. Can we as supporters put our hands on our hearts and say the answer has always been yes?

One of the pre-emptive criticisms of this film was “I guess they’ll say they were trying to start a discussion”. But is the aim of starting a discussion so wrong? A discussion has started. Even the most ardent critics of this movie admit it made some valid points.

Moreover, if putting the climate and ecological emergency into the common discourse was the aim of the film, then with nearly 7.5 million views at the time of writing, you have to say it has been a success.

Whether the ultimate influence of Planet of the Humans will be seen as positive or negative can only be judged at some future point.

Conclusion

Like Extinction Rebellion, Planet of the Humans seeks to build awareness. Like Extinction Rebellion, the film is telling us that infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is not possible. Like Extinction Rebellion, the film concedes that is not any particular chemical, or particulate, or atmospheric condition that is destroying the natural world.

The thing that is destroying the natural world is the greed we have unleashed, and the system we have allowed to dominate both nature and ourselves.

“Humankind is challenged, as it has never been challenged before, to prove its maturity and mastery, not of nature, but of itself”.

Rachel Carson

* SEGS = Solar Energy Generating Systems

** Malthusianism has attracted criticism from diverse schools of thought, including Marxists and socialists, libertarians and free market enthusiasts, social conservatives, feminists and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, misanthropic or inhuman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Bibliography

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs - https://youtu.be/MrOcBdnC3kw

Michael Moore in a live discussion with Extinction Rebellion co-founder Clare Farrell - https://youtu.be/674qCYOcMXo

Filmmaker Josh Fox responds to Michael Moore on bombshell climate film - https://youtu.be/iTYJCAxlOgs 

Michael Moore, filmmakers respond to criticism of new bombshell environmental film - https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0 

Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths - https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ 

Green Energy Sham? Michael Moore Seems To Think So - https://healthybodyhealthyplanet.blog/2020/05/05/green-energy-sham-michael-moore-seems-to-think-so/?fbclid=IwAR255lI-_zLSwHPhdLEQTgSx0e1PXwdMRLqh--sOnMOmS2IzoJpxdeKTiuU 

We are in a Planetary Emergency Podcast by Michael Moore: https://youtu.be/joxstIt1Jh4 

Planet of the Humans… Let’s just have a Think: https://youtu.be/ZmNjLHRAP2U

Response: Planet of the Humans Documentary by Bill Mckibben: https://350.org/response-planet-of-the-humans-documentary/

Epilogue to a Dream

Once, you had a dream

And you had a song 

That went with the dream

And then the dream died

So sad

Then later, one day

You remember that song

And you think "how will it sound?

Beyond my dream's death?"

And so you listen

And it's not quite the same

Obviously

Could a Citizen's Assembly Solve the Israel/Palestine Conflict?

The Changing Map of Israel and Palestine

What is a Citizen's Assembly?

A Citizen's assembly is a panel of selected members of the public, who deliberate on a particular subject or issue, and, with the help of evidence and objective expert testimony, arrive at an informed decision. A Citizen's assembly can vary in size (anything from a handful of people to an assembly numbering in the hundreds or even the thousands), and could be formed to deal with any kind of issue.

Often a Citizen’s Assembly is called upon as an option because a subject is regarded as "toxic". This means that elected officials would have a lot of trouble dealing with this issue effectively, as controversial decisions that will harm their chances at the next election tend to be shied away from. One example is the issue of abortion in Ireland: a Citizen's Assembly was formed to deal with this, and it eventually recommended a referendum. 

In Britain, the environmental pressure group Extinction Rebellion is currently campaigning for a national Citizen's Assembly to deal with the issue of Climate Change. There was even a Citizen's Assembly formed to deliberate upon Brexit, though its recommendations were ignored.

It has been theorised that a Citizen's Assembly that is called a "Multi-body Sortition" could be used to replace conventional representative democracy as we know it and run a country.

How is a Citizen's Assembly Formed?

A Citizen's Assembly is formed by means of a process called Sortition, which is a kind of random selection method. Think of it as something not dissimilar to being chosen to do jury duty; or being chosen as a lottery winner. Your name or you address, or some identifying signification will be picked out, and you're in the Assembly!

If a Citizen's Assembly runs for a considerable length of time, or has been formed to deal with more than one subject, its membership is often "refreshed". Meaning some of its members will leave and other members will join. But a whole Citizen's Assembly is never completely refreshed. That is there is never a point where every single member of the Assembly is replaced all at once - and so in this way, and through the use of facilitators and subject expert advisors - continuity can be assured.

Is this a Revolutionary New Idea?

No, not at all. There were Citizen's Assemblies used in ancient Greece, and apparently they even had a special machine which performed the function of sortition and selected the people who would form the Citizen's Assembly.

The kleroterion - Sortition machine used in Ancient Greece

What are the advantages of a Citizen's Assembly?

Well, firstly a Citizen's Assembly is truly representative. This is not the case in our modern conventional democracy, where only those people on the electoral role get to vote. This usually means that certain demographics - say those of a young age, or the homeless, or refugees (often referred to as “the 10% hard to reach”), will be under represented, while other demographics - say, white middle class males - will be over represented.

A citizen's assembly can ensure that every demographic can be represented in its proper proportions. Say 5% of your country or region's population are females of Indonesian origin aged 20 - 30. That means 5% of the Citizen's Assembly will be composed of that demographic.

Now, you may be asking yourself at this point, "Hold on a minute, if Sortition is a process of choosing participants entirely at random, then how could we guarantee a proportion like 5% of the Citizen's Assembly being composed of females of Indonesian origin aged 20 - 30?"

There is a way! Keep reading!

Secondly, it is much less likely that a member of a Citizen's Assembly will have a conflict of interest. This phenomenon is a stain on modern parliamentary politics, and often politicians are accused of having a vested interest in making sure that, say fossil fuel corporations, or certain pharmaceutical companies will not suffer penalties or even have to pay taxes. A good example of a conflict of interest is the fact that many British MP's are also landlords that rent out multiple properties, meaning that it may not be in their interests to pass laws that improve the rights of tenants. The aforementioned process of regularly "refreshing" the Assembly members also helps in this regard, as it prevents the build-up of power and vested interest.

Thirdly, the fact that decisions are evidence based is a perhaps the biggest advantage. Subject Matter Experts are used as advisers, though they do not make pronouncements ("Experts on tap - not on top"), and the findings and recommendations produced by the Citizen's Assembly are informed and objective evidence based decisions ("Public Judgement - not public opinion").

Random Stratified Sampling

The way we get a truly representative Citizen's Assembly is through the method of stratification. This "weights" the random sampling - or Sortition - procedure to ensure that the makeup of the Citizen's Assembly is truly representative (or to put it another way, this is the way you make sure that 5% of your Citizen's Assembly is composed of females of Indonesian origin aged 20 - 30, if that is appropriate).

And this is where we come to Israel/Palestine, where the stratification exercise would be a fascinating challenge.

Let's stratify! 

Citizen's Assembly Process Map

Holy Land Stratification

First, let's get 50% male, 50% female.

Next we go 50% Israeli, 50% Palestinian.

Then things start to get thorny - religious splits. Across the Holy Land we must take the correct proportions of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian citizens. Then also take the correct proportion of those of other faiths and of no faith.

Then things get even more complicated. For instance on the Palestinian side we must take the correct proportions of those who live in Gaza and those who live on the West Bank. If they are Muslim we must take the correct proportions of Sunni and Shia, Khawarij and other schools of thought. Should we stratify further? In Gaza the government is Hamas, but there are other factions present there also. Should they be represented? Same with the West Bank, where Fatah by no means enjoy blanket support.

Then we go to Israel, and we stratify by Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardic, Orthodox and other strata of the Jewish population. We must also take the correct proportion of the Palestinian-Israeli population, before we go to other groups like the Druze.

And we haven't even started on stratifying by age groups, income ranges, suburban dwellers versus country dwellers, more detailed ethnic compositions and so forth.

By now I'm sure you can see things are getting involved, and I believe we would need a fairly large Citizen's Assembly in order to get something like a correct representation of the various factions and groups that live in this land of trauma.

A Question of Experts

This poses a potential roadblock - not because there are no subject matter experts on the issue of Palestine and Israel: there are many. However what we need are objective experts. Or should I say, what we need are experts that are perceived to be objective. This is quite a challenge considering we are talking about the most polarised of subjects.

A Question of Settlers

The illegal Israeli settlers who occupy Palestine’s West Bank would be another potential stumbling block. Should they be represented and given a say in a Citizen's Assembly? This is a problematic issue, since the presence of the settlers is illegal under international law and they are widely viewed as one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the way of any kind of peaceful outcome. Also, there is a strong chance that the settlers would not be interested in any kind of treaty that most of the world would view as just and equitable, due to their absolutist stance.

Having said that, the point of a Citizen's Assembly is to bring together those who may have seemingly unbridgeable differences, so we should not abandon all hope at the start. And besides, solutions have been proposed that do take the presence of the settlers into account in a constructive manner.

Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach

For any of this to go ahead, we would need to have the political will to search for a peaceful, just solution to this conflict rooted in a deadly cocktail of quarrels over land, history, politics and religion. Pushing for a solution does not seem to be in Israel's interests at present, however, as it is sitting pretty with the backing of America's government, which grants it such boons as the recognition of Jerusalem as its capital while asking for nothing in return.

But ultimately - and even from the start, going right back to the Balfour Declaration - this conflict is a testament to how conventional politics has been and is still failing us. We need fresh approaches to these seemingly intractable dilemmas.

Otherwise all we can do is carry on looking the other way while our fellow human beings suffer and perish.

For more information on Citizen's Assemblies and Sortition, please visit https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/

Breaking #Brexit News! Parliament Votes to Do Something!

People were cheering in the streets today when, after weeks upon weeks of interminable deadlock broken only by recycled arguments over exactly the same issue, parliament voted to do something with regard to Brexit! The something was agreed by all factions in the debate and received an overwhelming cross party consensus!

It fell to Prime Minister Theresa May, wearing a smile as wide as the English Channel just at the point where it is widest, to deliver the good news in the House of Commons.

"Parliament will act now," she declared, "to deliver this vital something for everyone: it will be good for business, good for jobs, good for families and good for future prosperity. It will be good for an economy that is strong and stable.

"By the way Brexit means Brexit". She managed to hurriedly get in before she sat down. But by then everyone on both sides of the House were standing and hollering and waving bits of paper in approval. Then they checked with each other whether they were actually meant to be waving bits of paper in approval since it was so long since they'd actually approved of anything they'd forgotten what it is they were supposed to do.

Oh well done Theresa!

It then fell to opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn to endorse the something proposed by Theresa May, which he happily did. "This something that Parliament has approved today, will be for the many," intoned Corbyn dramatically, "and yet at the same time it will also be for the few! It will be for everyone! How about that!"

This caused more rapturous applause, more waving of bits of paper on both sides of the House, and Chuka Umunna cried like a girl he was so happy.

Amidst the frivolity Speaker of the House John Bercow could be heard yelling "Order! Order!"
And then he could be heard yelling "Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps please!"
He was standing by the bar you see.

Smashing Job Jeremy!

Perhaps the most poignant moment of the day was when arch Brexiteer  Jacob Rees-Mogg could be seen sharing a tender hug with hardcore Remainer Anna Soubry.

That was up until he tried to sneakily cop a feel and was rewarded with a punch in the whatsits for his troubles. But for a moment there, there was real love. And that should be our takeaway from the incident I believe.

Tomorrow, parliament will reconvene in order to decide what the something they have agreed to do actually is. At which point everything will probably turn to shit. Again.

But, ya know, for now, how about we just enjoy the moment, eh?

For once.

How about we do that?!

FFS.

A Review of Reza Azlan's "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"

The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is  split into three parts:

Part One deals with the Jewish revolt against the government of Rome in Israel, which was initially successful but came to a horrific conclusion with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Part Two deals with Jesus of Nazareth: the man, his world and his mission.

Part Three deals with the legacy that Jesus left behind after his death upon the cross.

In a way, the book begins by telling the end of the story, which is an account of the legacy that Hebrew zealots, including Jesus left in the minds of their followers and countrymen. It was this legacy that inspired the Jews to rise up against their Roman occupiers and cast them out of Jerusalem in 66 AD. For 4 subsequent years Jerusalem knew "independence", before a vengeful Rome launched a brutal assault on its besieged and now starving population: massacring men, women and children and burning the Temple on the Mount to the ground.

Those that survived the rout were driven into exile. And in this the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem shared the fate of Jews throughout Palestine, as Rome enacted collective punishment. And so the diaspora was born.

But not everyone left: a small population remained around the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and other major cities, and peasants continued to till the land in the countryside. It was from these peoples that today's Palestinians are descended.

And thus the seeds were planted that are still bearing their bitter fruit in the Holy Land.

So Who Was Jesus?

Finding the historical Jesus was no small challenge: all the historical references the author had to go on was a brusque contemporary reference in the chronicles of Flavius - wherein Jesus is mentioned as "the brother of James, called the Messiah". This is indeed brief, but it is also significant: it confirms that, as a claimant to the title of "messiah", Jesus would almost certainly have been crucified for sedition, as this was the standard Roman punishment for this crime during the era of the Empire.

The other document is what the author refers to as the "Q", and was a collection of the sayings and accounts of Jesus and his ministry. Each Gospel author would have used Q as a basis for what he wrote. Some points in the life of Jesus then (such as his baptism by John and his arrival in glory in Jerusalem) can be taken as more likely to have happened (because all four gospels feature these events, based upon information given in Q) than others (like the full account of Jesus's birth in Bethlehem and any tales of his youth, that only appear in the book of Luke).

Azlan does not have much time for any of the details of the wondrous virgin birth in the City of David. And he pours scorn on the claim that a Roman census could have lead Mary and Joseph to seek out this place. Which beggars the question why concoct accounts such as these if they are so obviously false?

Fake News

Well, in the 1st and 2nd century AD, we are told,  "historicity" did not mean the same thing as it does today, and chroniclers of these histories would willfully change events and insert convenient new ones, especially when it came to fulfilling prophecies. This was not only not objected to at the time, it was actually expected by contemporary readers. The mindset of the 1st few centuries of what we call Anno Domini was that exact historical details were not important: what was important was the essential truth of what your story propounded (it feels strange to recount this given what goes on with the "fake facts" of today. Perhaps when analyzing the present's view of news and events it is something to take into consideration).

The conclusion is that it is very likely that the historical Jesus was both born and raised with his brothers and sisters in the tiny hamlet of Nazareth, and that nothing remarkable happened to him before he was inducted into the life of a prophet by his mentor, John the Baptist, by the banks of the River Jordan.

You Wait Ages for a Messiah and then Ten Turn Up at Once

It should be mentioned that Jesus (called "the Nazarene" by his contemporaries, and "Son of Mary" by his detractors) was far from the first claimant to the title of Messiah in Roman Palestine - nor was he the last. For in those tumultuous times the hills were alive, not only with would be Messiahs, self proclaimed kings and insurrectionists - who invariably met a brutal end at the hands of Rome or their Judaic collaborators - it was also bustling with faith healers and magicians who claimed to make the lame walk, the blind see and to cast out demons. That Jesus took the role both of Messiah and magician was something of an oddity.

It should also be said that the historical Jesus, so Azlan tells us, was very much a family man. The unearthly celestial being of much of the new testament as portrayed by the Paulian epistles, and by Catholic traditions is the figure of Christ, that was born of Mary, who is a perpetual virgin. Azlan has so little time for this view he barely bothers mentioning it, and instead gives us a Jesus with several brothers, sisters and cousins - many of who became his followers.

Who Did Jesus Think He Was?

One of the thorniest issues - and the most fascinating, as dealt with by Azlan’s work - is how Jesus might have seen himself. Did he think of himself as the Son of God? As portrayed by this book, probably not. In fact Jesus appears to be far more ready to refer to himself as “The Son of Man”. But what does that epithet even mean? I will let a reading of the book answer that question; it is personally one of my favourite aspects of this work.

But there is no doubt about one thing as far as Azlan is concerned - and that is the Zealous outlook of The Nazarene. Whether he was expelling the money lenders in the Temple, preaching the Beatitudes or analyzing the thorny aspect of who the Jews should be paying their taxes to, Jesus applied his zeal; a fiery spiritual nationalism wherein the nation of Israel would be redeemed through the destruction of the existing order, be cleansed of its occupiers and hallowed through its treatment of the poor and the outcasts - who would be raised up to rule in the imminent Kingdom of God.

Of course it didn't turn out that way, and eventually the Romans and their Jewish collaborators decided they had taken as much provocation as they could bare from this latest self styled Messiah. Jesus was arrested and, with very little ceremony, was sentenced to die upon the cross: the sign above his head, "The King of the Jews" proclaiming to the world why The Nazarene had been sentenced to his fate.

It should have ended there. Jesus's followers, including his brother James, having witnessed the humiliation of their leader and inspiration, should have melted away and returned to their homes, as one obscure rebel cult leader was consigned to a footnote in history. The mystery of why it did not will probably never be explained, save through the application of faith.

A New Religion

So the recounting of the life of Jesus ends, and the story of his legacy begins. And the story of Jesus's legacy starts with a battle. On the one side is his brother James (known to all who knew him as "James the Just" because of his piety and devotion to the Judaic Laws) together with the surviving followers who walked and talked with The Nazarene. On the other hand, the self proclaimed thirteenth apostle, Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus. Saul was an implacable enemy of the Jesus movement, but after his conversion and adoption of his new identity as Paul, this perhaps original "born again" Christian has a zeal to not only follow Jesus, but to found an entirely new religion in his name.

It is perhaps the depiction of Paul, that is, arguably, the most controversial aspect of this work. The man who opened the way for the gentiles is not portrayed as a sympathetic character, and instead what we are presented with is an ego driven fanatic desperate to stamp his own mark on the nascent Christianity, at the cost of an almost flagrant disregard of what Jesus actually said and wanted. And yet it is Paul's interpretation of this faith that we are mostly left with, despite his conflicts, and at times his humiliations at the behest of his rivals James and Peter, who were Paul's superiors in the early church whether he liked it or not.

Well Researched

I read this book on my kindle app (sorry traditional format fans, however I do also still read printed books!) and was somewhat surprised when the book finished while at a status of 50% complete. This gives you an idea of how extensive the footnotes are. Fortunately these end notes actually add to the experience of the book. Here is where Azlan discusses the various theories that underpin his vision of the historical Jesus, which theories by which historians he agrees with, and which ones he disagrees with and why.

To my mind Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a fascinating read and I would recommend it to anyone, no matter what their faith or lack thereof.