Entitlement causes war

Why does no one speak up that entitlement is just wrong?

Israel launched it's ground offensive into Gaza today. All I have heard out of the media for the last week during Israel's aerial bombardment of Gaza is how war is not the solution: there must be a ceasefire and a political solution.

But that political solution is really dealing with entitlement. It doesn't matter if it's bankers on Wall street feeling entitled, or gangs in a big cities, racial issues on large or little scales or even a group like a union feels that are oppressed. Heck, even English and French Canadians want to separate because they feel entitled to not deal with each other. If someone believes they are entitled to something, there's gonna be trouble. Sometimes revolution is required to stop being a doormat and bring change. Been lots of good revolutions. But as soon as entitlement takes over, war begins, to take something you believe is yours.

Where is Hamas on this subject? Israel says it will stop if the rockets stop. Hamas keeps firing. In fact, during the last 6 month 'cease fire', there were 38 rockets fired from Gaza in the first 4.5 weeks. I'm sure there were operations from Israel too, but then in the next 6 weeks 290 rockets and a further 200 plus rockets before the aerial bombardment started. Plus the *kind* of rockets changed from little rockets to bigger rockets that threaten a million Israeli's. Hamas seems to have used the cease fire to get bigger and better weapons to kill Israelis with. They seem pretty bent on a fight to get what they want. They are waging war, are they not? Just not a very good one.

Israel feels entitled to things, so does Hamas. I think Israel's is open to Gaza and the Palestinians as a whole having their own autonomy. Hence, if Hamas stops the attacks, they stop. Hamas, as I understand it, want every Israeli dead and doesn't recognize Israel. They are entitled to death to Israel and to take over Israel to boot.

So where does this leave us? Someone please tell me who can control Hamas, and who can get Hamas to join with the Palestinians (which is in the worst internal mess since 1967) to decide that Israel is a State, and choose to stop fighting. No one has stated a goal from Hamas. Hamas that treats Israel as an equal. Until they stop feeling entitled to kill every Israeli, how can there be peace? Surely Israel will need to lighten up too, but they cannot if their neighbour is trying to kill them.

If you poke a hornets nest, you're gonna get stung. Does that make sense to anyone? Why doesn't the media talk about what people believe they are entitled to? Surely that is the issue here.

Why doesn't Robert Mugabe just end it and let Zimbabwe go?

Simple answer? He can't now.

The BBC's foreign affairs analyst Allan Little gives some important data points here.

Mike also noted 'The effect of control is to propagate suffering.'

The people that have helped Robert Mugabe's 'Liberation' and massed huge fortunes over war and theft are now stuck with the inertia of their crimes. They can't let Mr Mugabe 'retire with dignity' as they will be held to account for their plundering. The only protection they have is to stay in power, and they do that by keeping the people full of fear.

That is why it all keeps escalating: the leadership has to be more brutal to keep the fear greater than the people can risk confronting. Each turn requires more force, more control. Mugabe is now caught up in the machine he has created. Even if he wakes up tomorrow and decides it's time to change, and let go, he can't without his own partners tearing him limb from limb.

He took control for the sake of 'liberation from colonial powers', but in the end now he has used control for his own good which has propagated suffering out to a whole country. Now it's coming back on him.

What *can* he do then? The choice he has, is the same choice we all make every day. He can choose more control (more killing, more fear), or choose to trust (some level of self awareness to let go of control and entitlement). Huge consequences either way, but the effects are of his own making.

The real question: Is Mr. Mugabe out of things left to control and manipulate?

Where does the Church fail? Since Jesus isn't here to tell us what to do, should the church?

I heard an interesting interview on the BBC. You can get the podcast here:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is interviewed by Carrie Gracie and introduced as being on the front line of the Pope's campaign to bring secular Europe back to God. Carrie Gracie asks Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, President of the Bishop's Conference, for his views on contemporary Europe and Christianity.

In his opening statements, the cardinal positions the church as having a vital role in ordering, controlling, defining how life ought to be lived. In fact he says,

Carrie Gracie: What do you think Jesus Christ would make of contemporary Europe?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: I think what he would make of contemporary Europe is probably what I would make of contemporary Europe, or Pope Benedict, namely, it's a place where the voice of Religion, and the voice of faith communities needs to be heard, and there needs to be a space in all the communities and people of Europe hear this voice which is good news, and why we say, you know, this is a Secular continent, Europe, my instinct and understanding is there are a large number of people that really want to hear this voice.

Carrie Gracie: And you say the message is Good News, just very briefly, what is the message?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: Well, the message quite simply is that, the God of Jesus Christ, exists, He is a personal God who loves us, who accepts us, who forgives us, and who has communicated the way we ought to live in order, to live according to what He's made us for by his son Jesus Christ, that's the Good News, and because of that, we have hope and meaning in our lives.

Carrie Gracie: And just sticking with the idea of Jesus Christ and what He would make of things, which of the Christian churches do you think he would feel most at home in, I mean you were talking about faith communities, is there a particular one where Jesus Christ would feel comfortable?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: [polite chuckle]

I think that all Christians, I'm talking particularly about Christians now, would feel that they are being Jesus Christ for the world and particularly the Catholic church would say it continues the teaching and promoting the way and the life of Jesus Christ in our world today, so I think the Catholic church has a particular role, as it were being Christ in our world today.

It's seems that the Cardinal would define the Church as having an authoritarian position in our lives to tell us what to do. Could he really be saying that? Someone please explain to me how that possibly can be correct, because I just can't see that being correct. In fact, I see all the religious conflict and strife as a direct result of that. Who's right? The Christians? The Muslims? How is this not flaming the flames of anger, and stealing life and liveliness in the name of the Good News?

If we define religion as the rules of faith, then that would explain why many (including me) react to 'all the rules'. It's unbelievable to me, but I really do think the Cardinal is on a mission to put Europe under the control of the church, so Europe can hear the Good News. But isn't that somehow completely backward? How can you teach people to trust, in a system of rules? Is there any doubt why Europe is fleeing in droves?

I don't think you can talk about being 'inclusive' and 'tolerrant' while you say that the Christian Religion is the answer. It's just rules, that may be helpful to some to point to truth, but rules to discard as soon as it thinks it's right, justified, in authority, the answer or replacing Christ himself. I think that perhaps is the first clue that something is amiss.

Mr. Mugabe dares God. Will God intervene? Similarities between Canada, Zimbabwe, and Kosovo

Being Canadian, I am a bit familiar with the problem of part of country wanting to secede. Now without starting the debate, and being obviously biased as living in the western part of Canada (AKA the very non-french part of Canada), I think it's fair to say it's mostly a political lobbyist drive that has largely failed, and not the burning desire of most of the people of Quebec themselves. I'll even go further, and since I see it as a political drive, I'll even say it's a political campaign of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) which tried to scare people from a French background into 'getting something they were entitled to'.

Everyone is good at fighting for what they believe in. The politically correct question now is 'How do we all get along'. Unfortunately I think is that some would choose to rather die, than get along. The question may be when do you pull the plug on the people that hang on to entitlement? At some point, you just can't work with someone that won't just let go. I think God is active and interested, but letting us choose and I don't see why he needs to take control here. It's up to us.

When it comes to a group seceding from the mother ship, how many countries secede from where they are based on something people believe they are entitled too? And in certainly some cases, freedom from persecution and oppression of any sort would be good things to believe your are entitled to and worth a revolution to achieve. As always, it seems that motivation is key to understanding one's quest to get what we're entitled to. God lets us struggle with this. God wants us to choose.

In the Quebec political struggle for separation, some French people believe their language and culture are being 'persecuted or oppressed' as they must belong to a different set of Canadian rules. They probably have a point: just like every thing that is there in the beginning, is lost over time to new empires, new ideas and new needs. I honestly believe that the rest of Canada really tries to accommodate and included as much as possible. And one must appreciate how tenacious some are to keep up the pressure. But as they fight, one has to wonder about the indigenous peoples they displaced. Can they fight for entitlement to preserve something that violates the preservation of what was before it? I've heard Canadians say, 'Go for it. Take your share of the debt, get your own military, and build your own country.' Staying together is better if we can work together, but separation would be preferable to a dysfunctional relationship. God wants us to choose life and liveliness, and sometimes one has to just let go and be ready to support someone wanting to go their own way.

And what of Kosovo?
A long history going back to the first century BC and the Dardani tribes. We've got different ethic groups, and political groups and religious groups all fighting for control. I have to believe that each group is fighting for it's own entitlements. Some probably relate to 'historical homeland', some to culture and language, and probably everyone is right to some degree or another. How on earth do you sort this one out?

Funny enough, from what I see in the BBC news, Serbia is unhappy having a chunk of it leave, presumably because they loose some sort of control, but historically anyway Kosovo has a chance of moving forward if they all now put their entitlements to death as they form the 'Republic of Kosovo'. Various world governments, including Canada, have offered their support to the disdain of Serbian Canadians.

Dusan Batakovic, Servia's ambassador to Canada had this to say:

He said the decision sets a "dangerous precedent" for sovereignty movements around the world, including Spain, Russia, India, as well as within Canada.

"Can you imagine, for instance, if the Quebec parliament declared its unilateral independence the same way the Kosovo parliament did? Would they recognize, in Ottawa, Quebec as an independent country or not?" he asked.

Not surprisingly, the political French body interested in separation from Canada praised Kosovo's move.

"Canada is recognizing a country, a new country, although the country it was part of disagreed," Turp said. "That is something that is new. We're happy that that has happened."


I guess Mr. Turp is saying that if the Canadian military slaughter ethnic French people, they then have a right to separate? I would agree with him on that.


That brings us to Zimbabwe.
President Robert Mugabe said Friday that "only God" could remove him from office

Here's a country poised for all the ingredients of slaughter, at the entitlement of one man. No religious excuses, no homeland issues, just one guy entailed to it control and servitude of those that get in bed with him. I say you can't work with this guy. Motivation wise he's serving himself. Please someone tell me why anyone should work with him. I believe God is active and cares. I'd be very worried if I was Mr. Mugabe that God just might agree.