Is Bachchoo’s constant begging for two sips

From the cup he held, which was now roughly snatched away

When Saki left the inn in disarray,

Leaving Bachchoo to wonder deeply now

Have the sips of the chalice truly endowed

Life and hope for all who want to eat

Or was it merely the poisoned cup of temptation?”

By The curse of modificationby Bachchoo

The closest I’ve come to Chicago is perhaps New York, and my personal introduction to the city would be my reading of Norman Mailer’s book about the riots that plagued the Republican and Democratic party conventions, Miami and the Siege of Chicago.

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson declared that he would not run again and the Chicago Democratic convention selected Hubert Humphrey as their presidential candidate. Humphrey had already declared that he did not support ending the war the United States was waging against Vietnam.

For the America of that time, with thousands of disillusioned war veterans, draft dodgers, millions of hippies, African Americans and the left-wing liberals who were deeply affected by the recent assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, this was a red rag. The bulls charged.

Chicago was experiencing the symptoms of the civil war that Elon Musk so laughably and ridiculously said ravaged Britain in July and August.

The police fought the chaos in Chicago, but the riots were undoubtedly an important signal for Richard M. Nixon. Five years after becoming president that year, he withdrew from Vietnam, saving face by defeating the North Vietnamese who, led by Ho Chi Minh, stormed Saigon.

Some callous agitators noted that this week’s Democratic convention, again in Chicago, where the party’s presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz are being endorsed, could see the same kind of demonstrations and unrest as in 1968. Only this time it would be about Gaza.

Yes, outgoing President Joe Biden and his team have repeatedly endorsed “Israel’s right to defend itself” after Gaza-based Hamas commandos launched a killing and kidnapping operation against a rock concert and several kibbutzim on October 7 last year. Mr. Biden has backed his support with lethal weapons shipments to Israel, which have undoubtedly contributed to the approximately 40,000 deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Kamala Harris, as his vice president, did not distance herself from Biden’s policies and complicity in Israel’s war, but now that she is a presidential candidate herself, she has softened her stance by publicly condemning the “outrageous” killings and bombings of schools, hospitals and other facilities in Gaza, where the Israel Defense Forces says Hamas militants are stationed.

Ms Harris has consistently supported a “two-state solution” in the past, although she has never gone so far as to endorse or recognise a Palestinian state of Gaza and the West Bank.

Although US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is now in the Middle East and has announced that Israel has been persuaded to respect the US call for a ceasefire, Kamala Harris has given no indication that she will stop supplying Israel with deadly missiles and billions of dollars in military equipment.

This partial call for peace and condemnation of the “excessive” killing of civilians may have helped limit the number of protesters outside this convention in Chicago. The reports are that the protesters are peaceful, hopeful and awaiting further ceasefire announcements.

Perhaps the approximately 15,000 protesters, who according to protest leaders also support a two-state solution.

But what does such a solution mean? Does it mean that the presumed future administration of President Kamala Harris will initiate negotiations to freeze the borders as they are now, without demanding a withdrawal from recent armed settler incursions and de facto annexations in the West Bank? Can the borders of the two states be drawn with some reference to Israel’s withdrawal from at least some of the territory it has conquered since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948?

My cake in the uncooperative sky is not a two-state solution, but one that strikes me as very civilized. (Dear reader, I just said I am eating cake in the sky, so don’t laugh or mock as you would conspiracy theorists or space invaders. wallahs.)

My argument is based on the fact that religions have certainly inspired decency, but they have also fueled and caused some of the worst human behavior in history. Think: burning at the stake, crucifixion, crusades, wars, persecution of minorities, denial of science, misogyny… (I only have 900 words!).

There are those who believe that God impregnates virgins, some that He dictates books, and others that He promises land to people of a certain religion. The state of Israel, despite the fierce opposition of ultra-orthodox Jews, is based on this belief in the “Promised Land.” Is it in the Old Testament?

And isn’t the sixth commandment of Moses from Jehovah: “You shall not kill”? 40,000 and counting, Bibi Netanyahu?

Some of the most enlightened people, even in the recent history of the twentieth century, have attempted to establish non-religious, “secular” states in which any religion would be allowed to exist and flourish.

Can there ever be, on that principle, a solution for a single secular state in Israel-Palestine? It would inevitably include constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of course a democratic structure that would exclude the supremacy of any religious section within it.

That would mean the end of his ‘secularity’.

It has happened elsewhere too.