Sticks and Stones

In Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, a religious school for Torah study, a group of terrorists opened fire with an automatic weapon, murdering in cold blood 8 civilians and injuring many more besides, before thankfully being killed by an Israeli paratrooper on the scene.

Rabbi David Simchon, director of the yeshiva, bravely declared that “No terrorist will succeed in stopping our faith, our values, the justice of our cause or what we teach here at the yeshiva.” Whilst the moderate Mahmoud Abbas rightly condemned the attack due to its targetting of innocent civilians, in Gaza, Hamas asserted that they “bless the operation. It will not be the last.”

Hamas ask the world to give them financial aid. They ask to be considered at the negotiation table for a future peace settlement. They demand that they are taken to be serious political players due to their democratic mandate. Yet they practice the mantras of their charter; their unwillingness to recognise Israel’s right to exist and in so doing support the most heinous of crimes against the most innocent of young religious Jewish men who have dedicated their life to Torah study. They are terrorists since the only bargaining chip they use is the tool of coercion, through which innocent lives are needlessly lost.

If Hamas want peace, if they want a Palestinian state, if they want to be taken seriously as politicians and not criminals, and above all, if they want to continue to exist they must rapidly change. Terrorism will only cause more deaths, not least their own. I guess we can hope.

Editor: The world continues to be full of ignorant prejudice, and unjust hatred. Sticks and Stones does not lay claim to educating the world on all that must be highlighted, but we endeavour to shine our spotlight on what we can. Today marks 100 posts at Sticks and Stones but we will not be celebrating, because we are in mourning. 8 innocent people died today.

No Comments

“Just as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This is my idea of democracy.”

This idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln is a simple but fundamental one to the workings of a democracy. In order for it to function properly, it must include everyone capable of voting, and take them as equals.

So, do 16 and 17 year olds fall into this category? Do they deserve representation, and are they mature enough to use it responsibly?

Why should anyone have an interest in being represented? People should care because representation ensures your opinions are voiced on areas which affect you and that government listens. These are applicable to 16 year olds just as they are to 18 or 45 year olds. But what is more important, still, is that this demographic needs a voice on issues which are specific to them. The availability of youth facilities, the quality of schools, of children’s hospitals, policies towards combating youth crime and drug abuse: these are all aspects of society and politics on which many young people have a strong view, and a view which is relevant in informing policy. Few adults, it seems, can boast such an insight into these areas, and how best to solve them.

Representation is also desirable simply for the purpose of a more thorough democratic count. Since 16 year-olds do have to pay taxes, they are contributory members of society. Should they not have a say into how their money is spent, or how highly it is taxed in the future?

But we must strike a balance. It is clear that one should possess a certain level maturity before being allowed to vote. Have sixteen year-olds developed a sufficiently rational mind to be making such an integral decision?

Scientific research shows that, whilst there is evidence to suggest the development of the frontal lobes past sixteen, there is no discernible difference in the ability to weigh up different options and reach a reasoned judgement between sixteen and eighteen year-olds.

Young people do not go uneducated in political matters either. Many take Economics, Law, History or Politics at Advanced Level and it is compulsory to receive grounding in ‘Citizenship’ until the age of sixteen.

Yet the strongest argument, by far, for giving young people the vote is to look at what they can already do. I, at sixteen, am able to leave school, join the army, get married, have children, and, if that were not bad enough, hand over a good proportion of that directly to the Tax man. A discrepancy on this scale is simply unacceptable. Why is it that I am able to die for my country but have absolutely no means of influencing whether I go to war in the first place?

Admittedly, even if many sixteen and seventeen year-olds are politically astute and interested, perhaps far more are totally uninformed and irrational. Is it wise to extend suffrage to such a demographic? No less wise than to allow adults of all ages to vote despite the same level of knowledge and interest. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” If this is true, it is sadly true for the entire electorate, and not merely pubescent teenagers.

Those who truly have no interest in deciding their future will more likely not bother to vote than vote irrationally. Thankfully, it seems too much bother for such people to register to vote and go to their local polling station. Those who are disenfranchised with their party are increasingly likely to not vote at all, out of protest, than they are to vote for a rival party.

This is a trend that needs reversing. In Hamburg, when this scheme was introduced, not only did 16-17 year-olds turn out in greater numbers than their 18-21 year-old counterparts, as they grew older they retained these good habits of voting, and turnout on the whole went up.

Young people need to learn how to be part of our democratic system whilst still young; whilst still enthused about issues which affect them. ‘Citizenship’ is only a ‘Mickey Mouse subject’ so long as it won’t affect you for another few years. But when it becomes important, now, young people start to sit up and listen. And this is what they need to do, if they have any desire in shaping the world in which they are to grow up.

No Comments

Today, Venezuela ramped up the size of the military force on the Colombian border in an effort to show President Uribe of Colombia that President Chavez is tough, and means business. What Chavez didn’t realize is that the world now thinks of him as a posturing, menacing bully who is throwing a tantrum over an issue that is irrelevant to his country.

Chavez claims he acted in the interest of defending Venezuela from potential Colombian incursions, even though the entire episode was conducted in a jungle along the Colombian and Ecuadorian border, a jungle which does not have a line cutting through it and is totally lacking in border security, much to the chagrin of Colombia because Ecuador harbours FARC terrorists who move freely across the Amazon into Colombia. The real reason for this audacious force deployment is sheer braggadocio. And it comes at a time when the famously socialist politics of South America lacks a clear, distinct leader.

CIA’s World Factbook reveals that Colombia’s armed forced are technologically and numerically superior to Venezuela’s military, which makes Chavez’s posturing breathtakingly stupid. Not only is he endangering the lives of his soldiers, he is ruffling up South American politics needlessly. At a time when the continent needs to build on its successes and work out several current issues, including deforestation in Brazil, Argentina’s energy problems, and growing political tensions, Chavez’s foolhardy actions distract the the leaders of South America from addressing the real issues they face.

With Fidel Castro gone as the figurehead of South American politics, Hugo Chavez is attempting to step up into the now vacated position. To do this he needs a scapegoat, preferably one easily denounced for differing from the socialist norm popular across the continent. He needs a scapegoat that is successful despite choosing not to act in accordance with Fidel Castro. He needs a scapegoat with friendly relations with his enemies.

He needs Colombia, a nation struggling to combat vicious and illegal terrorism from FARC, a nation expertly steered by an internationally lauded Harvard-educated President towards successful democracy and capitalism. He needs to vilify Colombia, to threaten it with unfeasible military action, so as to cement his role as the figurehead of socialist South America. To do so, he will trample all over Colombia, he will denounce it as an American ally (which in South America appears to be a bad thing, as it is for Israel in the eyes of nearly all of the Middle East), and he will work to undermine its successes.

Reyes was a vicious terrorist whose actions within FARC threatened the safety of Colombians. It seems entirely irrelevant to Chavez that the assassination of Reyes was a very good thing. But for Chavez, who illegally supported FARC in its efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of Colombia, the assassination of Reyes was not a good thing, because the operation led to the discovery of a laptop linking Chavez directly to FARC.

As Fidel Castro exits, a new demon enters: Hugo Chavez. Venezuela’s rejection of his constitutional alterations is one hopeful sign. All of us at Sticks and Stones want to see more hopeful signs from democratic Venezuela, before Chavez eradicates democracy itself.

2 Comments

It has been said in the past that the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and Robert Kennedy stole hope, idealism, youthful vigour, and inspirational politics from the US in the 1960s. That has to be tempered with reality, because those three men were not the only idealists in politics but had JFK lived on, and had Robert Kennedy succeeded him, we would likely be looking at a very different world. The neoconservative mindset would likely not have been as prevalent, and government would likely have followed a more liberal course. The fictional Matthew Santos, and the real-life Barack Obama would have been mainstream politicians in this world, but history did not unravel that way; instead both men are candidates of change - with striking similarities.

In Slate V’s Life Imitates The West Wing Torie Bosch visits the fictional portrayal of a ‘Yes We Can!’ candidate and the not-so-coincidental similarities with Barack Obama. I am careful to avoid labelling things ‘best’, because such extreme phrases inevitably require compromise and future reassessment, but as I have said before, Barack Obama is the best candidate today for the United States, and as I’ll say now: The West Wing was the best TV show. What surprised me most about the video was that it refused the connection between John McCain and Alan Alda’s Arnold Vinick. Nevertheless, I hope the outcome of the election will stay faithful to the finale of The West Wing. A clue about what I mean: Find out who became Secretary of State in the Santos administration.

No Comments

The United Nations is often (although not always) ineffectual, time wasting, spineless and bureaucratic. We all know that. But perhaps the United Nations would do better for itself if it actually sought to solve the real issues facing our world and not waste a disproportionate amount of its time slating Israel.

Issues such as genocide in Sudan, covert nuclear proliferation in DPR Korea and Iran and the ruins of Iraq collectively occupy a fraction of the UN resolutions passed on issues surrounding the Syrian Golan, the Palestinian territories and the future of Jerusalem.

Sure, these are questions that need dealing with. But why do they merit any more UN time than any other issue at all? Israel is one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world, and the UN instead of being an international forum to build closer links between nations with differences has become an instrument of unfair isolation and condemnation.

1 Comment