Occupied Palestinian Territory Is Not Israel - at Least Not Yet

Watching the news about Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar not being welcome to  visit Israel I'm astounded.  Who started the rumor that they were going to Israel and who believes it?  The stated purpose was a visit to oPt i.e. Occupied Palestinian Territory, i.e. oPt, i.e. Gaza and the West Bank, and Jerusalem, i.e. the remnants currently recognized as Palestine, internationally.

Maps depict Palestinian loss of land over several decades.

The third map from the left shows in green the Palestinian territories Israel took in the 1967 war.

see "The Occupation" at PalestinianPortal.org.

It's not the fault of those who want to visit oPt that they have to enter the West Bank through Israel, or Gaza through Egypt with Israel controlling the entrance/exit, like Israel also controls the Jordan entrance/exit.   It's not their fault the nations of the world did not make Jerusalem an international city, not under Israel's dictates, so that everyone would be welcome and the folks to whom it is an important site for their religions could visit, or any reason other folks want to visit too, given interest due to Jerusalem’s long history.

And who started the rumor that BDS is for the purpose of the destruction of Israel?  Who wants to believe that and why?  Wanting Israel to decide to put an end to political zionist policies that violate international law it is signatory to,  because of the way it manages the occupation, is not about destruction of Israel.  It is about stopping the destruction of the Palestinian people because of the illegal policies of the government of Israel which result in brutality, infrastructure destruction, and death of Palestinian people who live in the oPt.  

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction all together become a system that tightens the screws by peaceful economic means to persuade nations to make necessary changes.  It is not violent and does not advocate the use of weapons and violence to change political policies.  It worked to change policies of South Africa for the purpose of abolishing apartheid when the international community of nations applied BDS to South Africa.  We were discussing how the same needs to be applied to Israel in the early 90s.  It also took decades for the South Africa BDS effort to become organized enough internationally, too, to make a good difference as intended.

Fact is the Palestinian people have a legal right to resist the occupation.  Saying so is not necessarily advocating the use of violence.  It is simply stating a fact to enhance understanding of the choice BDS is.  That bears repeating.  "It is simply stating a fact to enhance understanding of the choice BDS is."  Those who use violence are wrong because it leads to 10 times and more damage being done to Palestinians.  Those who would be tempted to use violence know that, which is why when violence is reputed to be from Palestinians it is often suspected to be an undercover false flag operation of the government of Israel. 
 
Why would Palestinians want to take violent actions that would result in all Palestinians being targeted by destructive policies of the Israeli government, in vengeful retribution?  That the U.S.A. behaves as it believes Palestinians want to invite violence, is disingenuous.  As astute as folks in government can be  about other issues, they can not believably claim total ignorance about Israel/Palestine issues to the extent that the only sources they are willing to believe are those enabled by the Israeli government to spread the hasbara the American media and government want to so willingly buy into and spread as fact.

The Ants

Yesterday, I woke up to what was the start of an infestation of little teeny tiny ants.  Luckily, they were only a few feet past the door, and were not thick as thieves - yet.  When I have found them in the past, there has always been a trail of them leading to where they are entering and exiting.  Not this time.  My guess is they are traveling through a small gap between the door and casing at the top.  I used my handy dandy vinegar, with a small amount of dish detergent, and some water in which I had soaked and strained out red chile flakes.  A few dashes of hot sauce would work as well, without diluting the vinegar.  I don't know if the vinegar kills the ants, but what I read is they do not "like" vinegar, or chile.  I haven't crushed garlic, soaked it and strained it out, to add to the mix yet, but that is suggested as part of the mix to keep pests off of plants in the garden.  The dish detergent apparently clings to the critter.  I Don't know if the poor things die from it, suffer a torturous death, or what.  But the spray appears to have been effective.  Have only found less than a handful of stragglers, this morning.  I remain vigilant.

A Scouting Party

I guess yesterday’s infestation was the scouting party which was more than large enough to be noticed and invasive.  When that is successful, without having been observed, before they are detected they then make an effort bring all their immediate relatives (and they have a lot!), their extended families, shirt-tail relatives, in-laws, extended family and in-laws of past spouses and all their families and  friends too, and their neighbors!  You get the picture - a real infestation without invitation, even though  preventive security measures in place make it clear there was no entrance allowed, and certainly no invitation was extended to invade and colonize!

I mean, really!  Ants have the entire world to colonize and have done so, and they work diligently to do so with good security in place given the location of their homes.  I sometimes wonder how the folks living in the Amazon basin, for example, manage to avoid the danger of huge ant nests getting too close to where they live - huge nest like most  have seen in documentaries.  Granted, I am not part of the world of the ants.  But when I am outside of my own space (the house where they are not allowed), I don't bother them in the yard - unless they start biting me when I water, or when I sit to have morning coffee and watch the hummingbirds playing chase, feeding, flying up close to greet me, or when I am  maintaining the flora and fauna.  Once the ants start biting it is then  all out war on them in their territory! 

Those bites can be felt, but it is not until later that day or the next day that they itch like crazy - and sometimes for days at a time.  Who could imagine a tiny little critter less than the width of a millimeter and less than 2 mm long could pack such a punch?  Every time I am bitten I recall one of the other trainees in my basic training unit who jumped up and ran faster than I have ever seen anyone run, all in one motion, toward the bathroom building 90 feet away, the other trainees who had been sitting with her following hard at her heels!  We learned she had been sitting on the entrance to a fire ant colony and had been taken to the infirmary.  So from observational experience which was a learned lesson at the cost of another, I do find these little critters quite alarming, not only because one or two bite are uncomfortable for several days. 

Ant Homes

The ant homes are underground for their safety and security, and at least I do not try to dig into where they have made their homes - until they start biting.  And then, at least, I do not take a shovel and dig down closer to their living spaces.  With so many entrances and exits to their main living areas, and the depth at which nests are located, it would be a fool's errand, anyway.

However, I do dig many inches into the entrances to spray pesticide that is the least damaging to pets and people I have found.   Many inches into the dirt I spray a directed stream into the tunnel until the liquid stops going down the tunnel and leaves a patch of damp no more than an inch in diameter.  In some cases that results in a lot of pesticide going down the tunnel maybe some into a  nest - but at least it fills up the tunnel.  The pesticide is not on the surface because I then cover the place I have sprayed with many inches of dirt, and hope to God it does no damage other than to the ant nest.  I just do want it harm the lizards, cats, or beneficial insects by dousing the entire yard on the surface.  The only entrances and exits to the nests I have actually ever seen are in the pathways in the yard which are without vegetation.  I suppose that is because the ants avoid putting their tunnels in areas that are watered.  After having attacked the tunnels, and covered up the evidence, I then spray any ants that are active on the surface with the above mentioned homemade concoction that IS harmless to pets and people.  My system actually works.  The survivors move.  And they usually do not return to the same area . . . unless it rains.  So sometimes repetition is needed a day or two after rain.

When I first moved to his house, there were not huge colonies of ants in the back yard.  There was no vegetation either, except a handful of  nightshade plants which perhaps is why the ants were not there - given little or no food sources.  So when I did start making some of the space into a garden, and all of it a haven for trees, I was not disturbing their homes.  I suppose vegetation actually is what drew them to colonize the back yard, eventually.  Although, later, it was also most likely the dog poop in the surrounding yards, and the pesticides the neighbors used from which ant survivors fled.  Also, when I moved to this house the neighbors adjacent to my property, all around, did not have dogs.  Those a few houses away did have.  As time went by I realized that almost everyone had acquired at least two dogs, and in some cases the dogs equaled or outnumbered the people - like one of the neighbors who was raising puppies without a license. 

The Neighbors

The poor dogs.  Almost all of the neighbors keep them outside all the time, in all weather, and I have never once seen any of the neighbors take their dogs out of their yards like maybe to a dog park.  And I have never seen the immediate neighbors, at least two houses deep in every direction,  ever walk their dogs, although other folks on other lanes and further down the  block in the community, do.  At least the the dog owners do not let their dogs run loose.  I have to give them that, gratefully.  We all have enclosed back yards but they are actually not enough space for a dog, especially if it is medium sized or larger.  Some of the neighbors who do walk their dogs allow their dogs take a leak on the rosemary at the edge of my property.  One time when I was up in the front of the house adjusting the curtain, after checking to see if the trash had been picked up, yet,  someone walking a dog was standing there on the sidewalk, big as life, holding the leash while the dog took a leak on the rosemary bush! 

The point is that even when the neighbors do clean up their dog poop - irregularly so - there is no way to get the stench from their dog pee out of the ground.  By now it has saturation some areas of their yards.  When it is spring and autumn it stinks.  But the heat dries it out in the summer, and when it is  cool the stench does not travel as far.  When it rains the stench of dog pee is worse and when the breeze is "just right" it then wafts into the swamp cooler on top of the house in place of fresh air.  Thing is that the folks directly behind actually made a pen for their dogs along the side of the house, and the direction the breeze and wind comes from is from that direction, directly through that area!  And of course when nearby neighbors grill outside, the "jet fuel" stench they use to douse whatever fuel they use, fills the house.  By the time the first whiff is detectable, it is too late.  The entire house is filled with that the strong stench and it is necessary to put the cooler off, then open doors and windows at the hottest time of the day and year.  Once in a while, it is inevitable.  However, there have been years when it is nearly every evening.  I suspect the same thing has happened to those neighbors because they do not grill nearly as frequently as when they first arrived.

The Neighbors - Continued

The  grilling problem is secondary to the ant infestation, related only in that it demonstrates the thoughtlessness of neighbors in an area of more urban density in the suburbs, with more density than the older parts of town with business districts nearby i.e. walking neighborhoods. The  residential properties in those areas are larger.  But clearly,  as time went by, the size of a normal lots highly degraded by becoming much smaller as the city spread outwards.  So while all the homes in this community have features that invite outdoor living, in reality they are primarily for show, because the lots are so small, and the density of people and dogs so thick for any given block, that anything other than quietly sitting in one's yard is likely to be disruptive to the neighbors, not only the immediate neighbors but nearly an  entire block - at least several houses deep on all four sides 

Thing is, and what I will NEVER understand, is that the neighbors mostly  keep their kids inside almost all the time to avoid "disturbing" the neighbors.  I just do not understand that children are not allowed to play outside.  In one case the folks next door, who have since moved, kept their kids out of their own yard because the neighbor’s dog would jump into their yard, frequently, and they didn’t trust it.  The neighbor adjacent to that house on the other side had to raise the wall to prevent the same dog from jumping into their yard.   Barring that problem, since when has the joyful “noise", of children having fun playing outside, ever disturbed anyone?   It is adult noise that is disruptive.  More than one adult in a yard and it becomes a problem of loud talking, and raucous laughter that often is extremely loud and sounds maniacal.  Ordinarily there is not loud music.  I give them that, gratefully. 

But the loudness of obtrusive adults, without any warning, to say the least, raises unexpected havoc with scheduling.  Ordinarily, that is not as frequent as it used to be.  The renters next door used to talk loud on their cell phones outside, but seem to have finally stopped doing so. However, there is still one woman across the lane and four houses down whose cell phone conversations are audible when she is outside talking.  The closeness of the homes to one another creates echo chambers in the small spaces between.  Either building code was violated, or it states that the house can be no closer than about 5 - 6 feet from the property line which leaves 10 - 12 feet between the entrances of some adjacent homes and creates echo chambers which increases the decibel level of any noise.  Most of the neighbors are thoughtful, actually, because they have experienced the same problems so do not ordinarily create them for other.

Government Policies

Fact is the dog litter problem and pesticide spraying problems are  primary to my ant infestation, in that the liter attracts insect pests, then when the neighbors douse their yards on the surface with spray, supposedly "harmless" to pets and people (which it isn't), the pests migrate to yards not doused with pesticide, and without the same "food" source.  I guarantee those neighbors are responsible for any damage their spraying does.  And if the neighbors make the companies who sell the spray responsible for the damage other than to insects - good - whether the neighbors buy and spray, or hire pest companies to do so.  To sue the socks off of those companies who sell poison but who could, instead, stir up organic concoctions to sell to people who are too inconvenienced or too lazy to do it themselves, might start to eradicate two problems, 1) the insect pests, and 2) the cumulative damage to health that should not exist.  It is not as if plenty of research, and personal experiences of many people, have not made it clear that pesticides using poison actually do create health conditions decades down the road, and sometimes much more immediately.  Knowing that should be common sense, but does not seem to be, to short-sighted people.  Of course by now most folks know it has decimated the pollinator populations.

Manufacturers know, and hope that health problems will not be connected to the  poison concoctions they sell.  Thing is that when anyone reads the labels, that include the warnings required by law, it is quite clear the pesticides are not safe.  Presumably, government agencies responsible for allowing the use know that too, but are more interested in what they believed to be their  clandestine "population control" efforts which they think are cleverly disguised, as a way to insure people will become ill with serious medical conditions midway into life.  That cascades into a way of increasing profits for the illness industry which is for-profit and  differs from the health industry in that it exists because of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, the entire combination not putting patients first i.e. the illness industry.  It insures death for many before they can retire, or shortly thereafter for many.  Like I said, the intended "clandestine population control" is extremely obvious to increasingly more folks like most similar efforts eventually become, rather than remaining clandestine.  Even when the efforts are discoverd without huge efforts from we, the people that result in prosecution, it does not put an end to the pograms ( oops "programs" misspelled,  or is it - really).

Thus, ants have colonized my yard, but they can not bring their entire colonies into my home and make it into what they want it to be which essentially means without my presence, which is an inconvenience to the way they live their ant lives.  I have no reason to believe the same level of colonization will not diminish as summer wears on - being directly proportional to how much poison with which the neighbors douse their yards.  I smelled it a few days ago, wafting into my house and of course was angry about it, which from then only took two days before the next infestation effort.  Apparently dousing with poison pesticides is a choice people make to damage themselves.  But what they apparently do not know is that they pay the cost too for the damage it does to others, and the environment. 

Nature

The ants probably find plenty of food in my yard as a result of compost, vegetation, and because I feed the birds.  The ants  probably dine on roots too, unfortunately.  I don't know if they go after beneficial insects.  I suppose so if there is opportunity.  Thing is - the bottom line - I am not going to invite or allow them and their overpopulated entire colonies of several generations to invade my home. I do not invade their underground homes unless necessary, and then only the entrances when their large populations result in droves being busy above ground so that it is impossible not to step on them which is when they start biting to protect one another.

Good thing this morning is there were only a few stragglers.  I actually only saw four and doused them with the vinegar spray.   So currently, there is a lull . . . we'll see if the effort to invade starts up again.  Given there are many weeks of pleasant weather ahead, after another week or two of the hottest days of summer, it will be necessary to be constantly vigilant.

No. The Sacred Boundary

No.  No, means my consent is not given, because it never was given, and I say no now, as I would have said no, then, about a sacred boundary in my life that was violated without my knowledge.  And I continue to say no about the right to consent having been violated the times  when I have said no.  And I say no, now, to past violations unknown to me at the time to which I could not say no then because I did not know about the violation.  It is my right, as it is everyone's right to insist, in retrospect, that the sacred boundary of no be respected as the sacred boundary it was then and still is. Some may not understand this, but it actually is not a cryptic statement.

No.  It is easy to say and easy to understand.  But what if you do not have the opportunity to say no?  Then it is a crime, actually.  Anything done for or to someone else without their knowledge means there was no consent.  It is simply criminal to do something to or for someone without their consent particularly when it results in damage to that person.  The absence of knowing something was  done to or for oneself never did confer consent - the absence of consent, can only and always be understood as no having been said. 

Yet every day in every way people use and abuse children without their knowledge which also means it was and is without their consent.  The same people who get away with doing so, do the same to adults by honing the skills  on young children they know they need to be able to abuse teens and adults without being apprehended by those they abuse.  And the first skill required is successfully being able to denigrate, lie about, misrepresent, and twist truth about a child.  That is how abusers hone their skills which are later applied to adults, especially adults who have been abused in that same way by the parents or guardians in their lives who considered themselves to be “owners” of their children instead of knowing they were divinely entrusted to be sacred guardians of their children.

I am here to say, to tell wounded souls that after the fact, even long after the fact, every one has a right to say no to what happened without their knowledge and consent.  Can they consent later once they do know?  Sure, if they have concluded it was for the best and want to consent.  But no one can ever be deprived of his or her right to say no,  after the fact.  The boundless nature of time allows that, actually. 

Even when an adult is required to make a decision for an infant, an infant needs to be spoken to and informed as the fully souled human being the infant is, whether or not an adult realizes that and whether or not it is believed the infant understands.  That is what it is part of raising a child as a divine guardian rather than an “owner”. 

 It may be, in the youngest years, that a child does not always have a choice.  That does not mean a child should not be informed of decisions made on his or her behalf.  Maybe the child is even able and willing to agree or disagree.  Point is that in later years, and in retrospect, we become spiritually aware enough to take personal responsibility for processing our lives and knowingly taking full responsibility for our entire lives.  We become the parent to self who was needed then, and as such we have the right and ability to say no about anything done to or for us without our knowledge, and without our consent, even if it was with our consent at the time when we might not have known what we said yes to, were coerced into saying yes, or did not object to avoid being punished. 

Taking our rightful place as the trustworthy loving parent to self, we now know enough to ask for consent from our younger selves, all along the way, child and adult, about individual choices made for us.  We discuss  to the extent necessary with our younger self to be able to arrive at a  decision which may or may not be consent from our younger self.  Remember, our younger self is fully souled, however the main job of a young child is needing to master every aspect of physicality which is daunting and overwhelming hard work as much as it is an adventure.  It is our job as the parent to self, in retrospect, to know that and to be able to offer our guidance in discussion with the younger self at all ages, in ways we know the self is able to understand. 

However, once the younger self understands what was not previously known, even when a child, that younger self has the absolute right to provide consent, or not.  And because we are that child and that child is us, all of our own wisdom and knowledge, all of our ability and need to live in love, is within that younger self, also.  It is our job to make it right, especially vital to the damaged child, so that damage can be undone.  The process is similar to needing to make it right with that child for choices we ourselves made.  However this is about the sacred boundary everyone starts life with which is about consent that can only be given when it is with one's knowledge of what is being consented to; without one's knowledge consent can not be assumed to be granted - which is the sacred boundary.

The beauty of “processing” one’s life is in being able to understand, comfort, console, guide, love, and in some cases make it right for that younger self, particularly the child who was self, so that the harm is undone, or at least highly minimized. When possible restitution can and must be made, not simply required “payment” as punishment to the damager because it is not about punishment and it is not about payment as restitution. Real restitution requires restoration of all the good that was damaged, taken, destroyed by the individual souls who were misguided “owners” of their children and/or spouses, or in some cases restitution made for damage caused by souls given permission by those who “owned” or were a sacred guardians to a child, some of whom may have believed they were making a good choice for the child, or in some cases may not have been able to make any other choice. 

All that we need to know is actually revealed to us, when we have  spiritually prepared ourselves to be able to receive what we need to know.  First what we need to know about self is revealed to us.  Then depending on the work we do in life because of our purpose, sometimes what we need to know about ourselves and others is revealed to us for the purpose of healing self.  Sometimes that puts us in a position to do what is possible to assist those others to spiritually prepare to receive what they need to know, so that it is also revealed and entrusted to them to apply properly in their lives and the lives of those they are in a position to help in that same way. 

We often find the people who damaged others because of considering themselves to be “owners” rather than sacred guardians, were “owned” themselves in childhood.  Unfortunately for some, that ownership extends into adult life and becomes increasingly difficult from which to extricate oneself.  It requires determined consistent work to do so.  Often in such cases that problem extends back into many previous generations.  When we seek what we need to know we will be granted the insight and wisdom that accompanies it, to be able to know when and how a specific aspect of the problem entered into an ancestry line, and we will be able to see how it developed into a far more complex problem in subsequent generations, also how it was eradicated in some of the ancestry lines. 

In some cases what we need to know will take us far back into the unrecorded history of our ancestors, even into prehistoric times, as needed, so that we can be informed, and know what it is possible to more fully understand and either consent to, or put an effective end to a choice that was never consented to because someone made a choice for us without our consent.  We are there, in the ancestry line, no doubt about it, so connecting with self does happen.  Given the needed information, we can put an end to a problem that has been  revealed to us in our ancestral lines at whatever point it became a problem that violated our sacred boundary. 

In my personal experience that is what is know as a way of  healing our ancestors by healing ourselves, as well healing ourselves by healing our ancestors.  There is potential for healing to be activated in many ancestral lines, not only our own. Sure it is a rabbit hole much longer and deeper for some than others.  But it is ours to enter into in total and complete faith in our own divine guidance.  We do not even need to know any of our ancestors for this process to activate in our lives.  When we are spiritually prepared, it will.  It can be easier to understand if one has at least a vague memory of having happened upon information that was imparted at some point which then becomes pertinent.

To repeat, to have knowledge of and give consent about everything done for or to us is a right of all.  That means everyone has a boundary that is inviolable which must be respected - that being nothing can or should be done to or for anyone without their knowledge.  Anything that is without one’s knowledge is automatically understood to be a violation, because it is impossible to provide consent when one has no knowledge of what one does have a right to say no to.  It is supposed to be understood by all as a boundary, a sacred boundary as part of everyone's life that IS  inviolable which does not allow someone else doing to or for us without our consent.  

It is a boundary that is everyone’s and everyone should know that from day one and be able to expect and trust the boundary will be respected.  And when old enough to speak a person needs to know they can and should insist that inviolable boundary be recognized and respected in their own life as they recognize it is to be respected by them and everyone else, in the lives of others. 

A soul not willing to make amends is required to make whatever restitution is required to undo the damage that was done because of no consent, when there was no knowledge of something that was done to or for another. Without one's knowledge an understood yes does not exist, ever.  It never means yes simply because someone imagines they can get way with violating and it will not be known.  The damaged soul always knows, and in time with enough spiritual evolution the details of what happened and the identity of the souls responsible will be revealed, no matter how complex the collusion might be throughout time.  The damaged individual needs that knowledge and retains the right throughout time to still say no in the here and now, the right which  did not exist in the past because it was violated without the damaged soul's knowledge.  It is necessary for that to be revealed for a soul in life to be able to become whole again, in body, heart, mind, soul, and spiritual universal consciousness.  And a certain amount of spiritual evolution must occur naturally before it is divinely revealed.  If it is not possible for amends to be made then an additional lifetime may be required of the offender though the soul to whom the amends need to be made may not necessarily also be in the subsequent lifetime as the soul to whom the amends need to be made. 

If it sounds like karma, yes, it is. However karma is not punishment.  It is opportunity to work at perfecting the soul when we step up to take the spiritual responsibility of perfecting our souls.  Spiritually evolved Christians might understand that to be taking personal responsibility to become more Christ-like.  Even though many believers in the monotheistic religions are not aware reincarnation and karma are part of the religions, they are. Working off karma is a process.  It is known more simply by some as forgiveness.  However, the details of the process are not provided, only the concept of forgiveness being granted is taught.  Reincarnating for a few or many reasons a soul chooses to incarnate, when the soul is again prepared  to do so, is an opportunity  provided to learn lessons which need to be learned and to prove the lessons have been learned.  There are  shorter processes that occur very quickly by comparison in the "present".  It can be crazy making, or it can be a blessing - though often it starts out crazy making and ends up a blessing. The shorter processes in the present are almost always demanding and strenuous processes.

Sacred boundaries are important in life.  And our right to say no is one of the most important that should not be violated which often has a high and unexpected price for those who do violate anyone's right to say no. That "price" can depend on the extent to which violated souls have evolved.  When we are compassionate, merciful, say and do all with our life energy in love with divine guidance, then violating souls do not always pay as high a price, once our own souls naturally expand more fully into aspects of Christ Consciousness, Krishna Consciousness as it is known by some. 

No.  No, means my consent is not given, because it never was given, and I say no now, as I would have said no, then, about a sacred boundary in my life that was violated without my knowledge.  And I continue to say no about the right to consent having been violated the times  when I have said no.  And I say no, now, to past violation unknown to me at the time to which I could not say no then because I did not know about the violation.  It is my right, as it is everyone's right to insist, in retrospect, that the sacred boundary of no be respected as the sacred boundary it was then and still is.  Some may fully understand this is not a cryptic comment.