Tag Archives: politics

Actions speak louder than words

Education, , , , ,

I am sure we all agree that we value human life, we defend human life, for some even before this, life is fully formed, and yet: we destroy lives in all armed conflicts and continue doing so at an alarming pace. We tend to say “It is for the good of all”, or “It  is for the better.” We also say: “We need to fight the ENEMY to protect our values”, “We need to punish the “bad guys”, the evil, the other side, etc.” The list of reasons given is long. We also make a difference concerning the lives that are lost. Not every human life seems to deserve to receive the same respect. The value of human life has become  relative. Taking just one example (as you know, there are many): When studying the available sources concerning the casualties in the long-standing conflict in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians, the ratio of people killed over the decades seems to be 5 to 100. For 5 Israeli killed, 100 Palestinians are killed. In the recent atrocious 2 years the difference  seems to be even  greater: 1 to 100. Who can call this a necessary, proportional response to the atrocities of  “the evil enemy”. Apparently, only in the last few days we can start to hear heads of state and governments of the west cautiously  reacting to the sheer abomination of what is going on.

And it could be so simple: Stop supporting those who act in an unacceptable way. Stop offering them financial, ideological and moral support. So simple, yet, the money continues flowing, the calls for peace are weak, and the fear to be labelled antisemitic looms large. It is is time to realise that this cannot continue any further.  No, do not even try to put the label antisemitic on this. It is not antisemitic to strongly criticise the Israeli powers that be, those who decide, those who send others out to kill, and those who let this happen. The attempt to silence critics and to protect one’s unjust and cruel decisions and actions has been overused. And too many people have fallen into that trap. I am not going into the details of what the different sides of this ongoing struggle have done or have not done: the list of wrong-doings is too long, the risk of leaving something out is too huge. 

One thing, the only reasonable and morally acceptable reaction, that the powers not involved directly in the conflicts can and should have in any violent conflict, is the the following: they can force the warring parties to stop the destruction and the killing, to sit down at the table to negotiate a non-violent solution that can be accepted by both sides. Offering continued material, financial, ideological and moral support for one or the other or for both sides just continues the destruction. But to stop the support until the parties are ready to sit down and seriously negotiate can save lives and end wars. This is what real sanctions could look like and should be used for. Only for this. Not an endless number of sanctions packages against on side of the conflict. The negotiations that follow should be taking place in the framework of an impartial, only accountable to facts, the truth and to justice. We do have institutions that are supposed to play this role, however they would need to revive their impartiality.

This approach would work wonders in most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet. Why do we not see it happening? Well, “Cui bono” is the eternal question and it will deliver valid  answers. As long as the support for the conflicting parties pays off in direct financial, geopolitical and/or ideological gains the powers that be are inclined to follow that route. 

What they say publicly sounds different, of course. There they talk of justice, of blame, talk of more or less democracy, talk of defending the free world, of duty to support the “good guys”…  And who the “good guys” are usually depends on which side you place yourself.

War is never the solution. Many before us have seen that, have said and have received The Nobel Peace Prize for it in the case of Bertha von Suttner. Never. The moral and ethical reasons for that are obvious. I will not  further elaborate on those here. But I want you to consider this: every injustice imposed on people, every killing and every destruction of livelihood generates the wish for justice and also for revenge when justice cannot be found. So unless you, the “good guys”, are prepared to kill and exterminate all the “bad guys”, and unless you want to prepare the grounds for endless, eternal retaliation, you will have to stop making war.

NB: You might attempt to kill every enemy – terrorist as they are often called – in sight, and accept the civilian casualties in the thousands in the process. Know that history has shown that final solutions do not work to bring peace and prosperity. It has never worked and it will never work. It just kills a lot of people and destroys a lot of what civilisation has built over centuries, even millennia. 

That is too high a price, I would say. Well, I hope.

Is war war or is war a promise of peace?

Education, , , , , , ,

Europe is already spending more money on arms and military (about 300 billion)* than Russia (about 110 billion)* and still we hear of the Russian threat to the European Union. We hear about Russia going to conquer Europe all the way to Portugal and kill everybody and do other abominable things to those who is doesn’t kill. And we hear about one village to the east which resists and fights for the freedom of us all.*

There are those who hail the freedom fighters to the east and support their struggle which maims and ends the lives of many, young, men, destroys endless swaths of vital infrastructure and thus lays the foundation for generations of resentment. A fact we tend to forget.

Those voices come from comfortable armchairs in places where the destruction and killing is only present through the media, and where, after having written another comment of encouragement to the fighters in the east, they leave the quiet house and garden, get into their quiet electrical car with a good climatic conscience and a “I stand with ….” on their minds and social media profiles, and drive off into the sunset for a margarita on the rocks or on the beach.

Out of whose scrap book did this vision escape and become reality? The ghosts of our great grandfathers and mothers? The trigger happy writers of crime and punishment books? The composers of tragedies? The self-righteous cliques of all colours? The producers and vendors of arms? I do not know, although the latter group is quite a promising candidate to invent and support scenarios which promote their sales.

Paired with a total absence of historical knowledge and understanding, of rational, logical and critical thought, it leads to an overwhelming number of war-mongering statements of European political leaders, lesser leaders and followers, void of sense and just good to stoke the fire.

“800 billion euros more over the next 4 years for a rearmament plan of Europe” (Van der Leyen, 5 March 2025)*

There used to be a peace movement, strong before the two world wars of the 20th century with Bertha von Sutter receiving the peace Nobel Prize in 1905; and strong again after the wars, in the 60s and 70s. Somehow something was lost on the way, how else can you explain that parts of the former peace movement are passionately speaking out for the war efforts to continue.

We can note a certain tendency to forget the fundamental fact: actions have consequences, and what happens at a given moment always has roots in the time and in the actions of various players leading up to the present moment. Acts happened and they had consequences and lead to other acts, which again have consequences. 

No, history did not start on 24 February 2022. If you want to understand what is going on you need to look at the actions and their consequences in the years or decades leading up to  that moment. No, history did not start on 7 October 2023. Before judging one or the other conflict party you must analyse what happened before, the actions and their consequences.

When I look at the publicised opinion, in the media, statements of politicians, of opinion leaders of all sorts I always hear the unsaid implication that before these two dates everything was just fine, hunky-dory, great, fantastic … and then some bad villains started the violence and now innocent us, we have to defend ourselves. 

If you challenge their narrative by asking questions, by pointing out that there were things that happened before and that these might perhaps have to be taken into account before passing judgement, you are quickly relegated to the camp of conspiracy theorist and populists. 

Of course I am not saying that this could serve as an excuse for anyone who committed  unlawful acts, took part in carrying out atrocities and ignored international and national law. However, it has to be applied to all the involved parties, not just to one side. No-one has the right to ignore the law, no-one is justified to kill and destroy. As I said in earlier posts, there is not just war, there has never been a just war. Attempts to solve problems through the use of ultimate violence is not a solution. It is not ethical and it is not sustainable; it is just the breeding ground for future violence and future wars. 

Certainly there is the right to self-defence. Especially on a personal individual level. But on a country level? How far can we extend this right when we know the cost at present and the cost we and the coming generations will have to pay in the future. 

1 https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024

2 https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/

3 I apologise to Asterix and Obelix for this misplaced analogy

4 https://www.euronews.com/tag/ursula-von-der-leyen

Is war war or is war a promise of peace? | Education 3Download

Krieg ist ein schmutziges Geschäft

Education, , , ,

Das deutsche Umweltbundesamt berichtet auf seiner Webseite das die Emissionen der EU zwische 1990 und 2022 um fast 1500 Milllionen Tonnen CO2e zurückgegangen sind: “Zwischen 1990 und 2022 sanken die Emissionen der EU-27 um 1.492 Mio. t in CO₂-Äquivalenten (-31 %)” (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-der-europaeischen-union#trends )

Das sind ca 45 Millionen Tonnen weniger pro Jahr.

Das ZDF berichtet auf ihrer Webseite dass der Krieg in der Ukraine im ersten Jahr die Atmospähre mit 120 Millionen Extratonnen CO2e belastet hat: “Demnach hat der Ukraine-Krieg allein im ersten Jahr 120 Millionen Tonnen CO2-Emissionen-Äquivalente ausgestoßen.” (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/klima-fussabdruck-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html)

Also kurz gesagt, das was alle EU Länder in 3 Jahren an Emissionen eingespart haben ist nach 1 Jahr Krieg wieder in der Luft.

Wir haben jetzt schon ca 3 Jahre Krieg in der Ukraine. Das wären ca 9 Jahre Einsparungen wieder “aufgeholt”.

Wenn wir nun andere kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen dazuzählen dann sind wird dabei uns in Windeseile wieder zurück in die 90er Jahre des letzten Jahrhunderts zu verschmutzen.

Die einzige Forderung die derzeit Sinn hat ist “Stoppt Krieg – verhandelt!” Alles andere hat nur Sinn wenn wir uns nicht in ein dunkles Zeitalter zurückschiessen.

@PBU @letztegeneration #klimawandel #klimaaktivist

War vs Civilisation 2:0

Education, , , ,

This is not my war! These are not my wars! Stop pretending that you are fighting in my name, for my values and for my security. You are not. If I could, I would forbid you to include me in your “We are fighting for your values”. If I could I would force you to say “We are fighting for your values, but not the ones of Josef.” And then I would hope that many other people would tell you the same. 

In Ukraine you are not fighting for me, you do not protect my values, actually you kick my values with your boots.

In Israel you are not fighting to protect me and my values, actually you drown them in blood and destruction.

You are not fighting for me. Stop pretending.

You are fighting for yourself, based on your own values and for your own gain. There is no good and compelling reason to destroy and kill. There is no compelling reason for war. No compelling reason with one exception and that is if you have to save your own life. And so you say that you do fight for your life and with this you put those who really have to fight for their life to shame. The soldiers in the war zone, yes, they do, but not you, the leaders who order them to fight. Not you the followers who applaud the leaders and not you the benefactors who give a platform to leaders and who send money and arms to the leaders. You do not fight for anybody’s life. You destroy life. 

Then you also all say that you are fighting in self defence, and that you have a right to self defence and self determination. And you are saying send us money, send us weapons, send us all the support you can so that we can defend ourselves and our values… but you do not add “for our aims and our plans, for our goods, our influence, our power, our profit” you say you do it  “… because we are fighting for you.”

No, you are not fighting for me. Stop pretending.

And no, you are not fighting to save your lives. It is not a fight for a life against another life. Stop repeating this…. With exception of the soldiers you send out to kill and to destroy. Of course every killed soldier and every killed civilian is a tragedy and it is always one too many. However, whether in Ukraine or in Israel, the “enemy” whichever way it is described and defined – and from whatever side of the battles you are looking at it – the enemy does not plan to take everybody’s life. 

Of course you want to rule your country as you see fit. And you do not want outside interference – except to send you weapons, arms, money and every support that you need… 

Let us look at it from an outside, non-partisan angle:  In one case the ruling elite of one country wants to replace the ruling elite of another country. As a whole, or at least in parts of the country; in the other case the ruling elite of one group of people in a “region” (for a better word) wants to have a country of its own to rule and the ruling elite of the (stronger) group of people there does not want to allow that (and has not allowed it for decades).

Billions of euros and dollars have already been spent, goods worth billions have been destroyed, lives have been ended or mutilated, people have been forced to run away, people are forced or “persuaded” to risk their lives (“we need more soldiers…”, no man between 18 and 60 is allowed to leave the country…), millions of people are suffering from the consequences of the conflicts… conflicts that could have been solved already by negotiations, and will have to be solved by negotiations between the warring parties anyway. With the help of outside parties. 

These outside parties have up to now decided to either stay silent or, in many cases such as the EU and the US, to draw benefit from these conflicts for their own agendas: financial and  geopolitical. Power and influence. Selling these efforts to us, the people, as necessary support for a just fight, to support countries and people who after all fight for freedom, for the right to self determination, for us and our values and our well-being and freedom… Sorry, I have not seen that the profit drawn from this war has reached the man and the woman in the streets of Western Europe. It lands somewhere, for sure, but not in our pockets.

No, you are not doing this for me either. Stop pretending. 

If these outside parties were to use their influence to force the warring parties to the negotiation table – a thing they can do if they use all their influence – these conflicts would have been solved a long time ago. Do not tell me that this cannot be done. Of course it can be done. History is full of the power of persuasion of stronger parties. But somehow it seems that letting these wars run their course is serving some certain aims and certain pockets in the true sense of the word. 

The old question “Cui bono?” – and its opposite “Cui malo?” – come to mind. Asking these questions, and trying to reply to them might help understand why the wars are still ongoing. And no, it is not because you have monsters who are so evil that they just want to kill everybody everywhere. Evil people exist, certainly, but they are not the ones who let the wars and the destruction continue its course. The ones who could stop the fighting and destruction do not do it  – and they have their own reasons for it. And these reasons most often revolve around money, influence, power, geopolitical stratagems, and the like.

We, the common people, are fed the stories and narratives of freedom, values, protection, self-defence, or heroism and enemy-brutality which needs to be fought. Stories where atrocities committed by one side are taken as justification to commit similar atrocities oneself. 

There is a lot of bitter irony in the fact that the religions all these parties relate to, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam most of the time do preach the contrary (although they all have their cruel parts or brutal revanchism too). 

The societies we live in say that they value peace, understanding, rule of law, human rights, … however, when an enemy breaches these values then we feel that we have the right to do the same and ignore the values, become beasts ourselves, again. Is this the civilised world?

Decades of peace education, education for human rights and for democracy, for anti-discrimination, for independent and critical thinking, … something has gone really wrong! Decades of lip service to these values and guiding principles yes, but little real education and character formation. Otherwise people would say with me

“Stop pretending you are doing this for me!”

And please, stop repeating that all you do is only to secure peace and prosperity, human rights, diversity, equality and democracy. Because if these were your driving principles and driving force you would do everything to bring the warring parties to the negotiation table – you would have done it right from the start – and you would stop financing the wars, the killing and the destruction and you would stop sending arms and other military support to the warring parties.