Enter Brexit

Werner Heisenberg was born December 5^th, 1901. I'm sure of that – but not much else about him. Except for the fact that he was uncertain.

His uncertainty arose from the idea (fact) that “everything in the universe behaves like both a particle and a wave at the same time.” That's the way author (of, among other things, How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog) Chad Orzel describes the problem, and that it results in the Heisenberg Principle: that you can never simultaneously know the precise position and the exact speed of an object. You may know how fast you're going, but not where you'll end up. Or you may know where you are and where you're heading, but not have any idea of when you'll get there.

I don't pretend to understand what it all means. I'm not a dog, so the explanation eludes me. But it's clear that the principle, which is one of the basic ideas of quantum physics, operates on all levels – not only those of sub-atomic particles.  Proof of that was provided last week when British voters expressed their will to leave the European Union. The decision was unexpected, but the Brits decided to wave goodbye to the continent. Whether the world will ever be the same is uncertain, but even if it is, when that would occur cannot be guessed.

There's a lot being said and a lot being written on the subject, and it's all very tentative. At this point no one knows the timetable for action, not even the British themselves. At least they won't admit to any formal program. (It would be surprising, however, if they hadn't considered possible scenarios, and their reactions to them, prior to the vote, but they aren't revealing any plans yet.) In the meantime, stock markets around the world are fluctuating wildly and negatively to the results of the vote. Economists, bookmakers, and other oracles had expected a decision to remain, and the markets had been going up in anticipation of that outcome. The actual result was a (n alarming) surprise to all of them. The world's largest gambling houses – the stock markets – had bet wrong and were scrambling to minimize their losses. In Heisenberg's terms, they could see what was coming and when, but they had no idea where it was going.

The economic effects of the vote shouldn't be a surprise however. The “science” of economics is advanced well beyond Heisenberg. Economists know neither where they are going nor how fast. They speak with confidence, but the results of their predictions are often wrong. And the prophesies of different practitioners often contradict each other. That's the case even in “normal” times, when there is no extraordinary circumstance like the current crisis.

What's to be done? Many in England are calling for a “do-over,” a repeat of the balloting. Some claim that they didn't have any idea of what the results of separation would be. They had been misled by the plan's proponents. Others stated that their votes had been intended merely as protests – that they hadn't expected this result. But there will be no new vote. The results are final.

But maybe the results are a signal of what's to come. They had as much to do with nationalism, immigration, and pride as they did with economics. And these are all international issues. Perhaps those favoring isolationism around the globe will feel validated by the British vote. Populism may propagate like a wave around the world. England may be the leader of a spreading movement.

For while the wave of the future may lead to world-wide uncertainty, it may not contain a particle of truth. One possible explanation is that the damage is being caused by the rhetoric of paranoids who haven't thought out the implications of their actions. Perhaps unintended consequences are the heritage of this vote, and of others to come.

The time has come to stand there and do nothing. Populist-led action and change are not necessarily the recipes for improvement. We mustn't be led blindly into the “last refuge of scoundrels.” We don't know what lies ahead; indeed there's a lot that we don't know, and never will. Heisenberg has told us this. Brexit proves it. The only possible positive result will be that we learn from it.

The Flotilla

 

Another flotilla is plying its way to Gaza, nominally with the goal of delivering “humanitarian” goods to a territory blockaded by Israel. Here is a part of the report of that event that appeared in the EU Observer yesterday (June 27, 2011):

All 27 EU countries in Brussels on Friday signed a statement saying: "Humanitarian assistance ... [to Gaza] should be in accordance with the relevant framework and decisions of the UN and should take care not to endanger human lives."

There are ulterior motives, however, and endangering human lives is the flotilla's goal, notwithstanding the declarations of its supporters.ⁱ Indeed, the need for a flotilla to provide “humanitarian assistance” is imaginary, since there are legal means for delivering needed resources – both through Israel and Egypt.ⁱⁱ

Also included in that article:

The IDF's [Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Avital] Leibovich said it has a right to stop the boats under the maritime law, the San Remo convention. She added that three months ago a ship claiming to be carrying food to Gaza, the Victoria, had bullets, mortars and ship-to-shore missiles on board.ⁱⁱⁱ

But that is irrelevant to the situation which is really intended as a propaganda measure at a time when more are anticipated.

As I noted a few weeks ago, "The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the latest Durban clone,^iv are certain to attract further attention by the media and, through them, the public. Whether the questions raised by the debate are themselves legitimate is arguable though. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights. There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Should Syria exist? Like Israel it is the creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason^v to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself.^vi"  This effort, like many previous ones and, sadly, like many to come, is linked more to public opinion than to fact, logic and equity.

Whatever the arguments of Muslims, Jews, and “bystanders,”^vii there seems to be a dearth of critical thinking and discussion of other countries – countries which already possess hundreds of times the area and population of Israel – and by other countries. Is it purely a matter of selling papers or is there more involved? The vast majority of the media will probably not notice the cautions sent by the European Union, Israel, the United States, and other nations to those participating in the provocation. The press's stories will be based on whatever propaganda releases come from the ships or Palestinian sources.

What is the reason for such attitudes? Different people will have different explanations for the desperate call to discredit and delegitimize Israel.  I know I have my own.^viii  But they're not relevant.  They're all focused on Israel. They don't address the real problem. They don't ask the right questions.

i     Extensive publicity was gained from the last flotilla when members of the IDF, attacked by passengers on one of the ships, fought back and killed some of them.

ii    Egypt recently opened its border with Gaza. While smuggling of weapons into Gaza from Egypt took place before that, the new situation makes such acts easier.

iii     Israel has also been forced to stop other ships containing weapons from reaching Gaza and Hamas, an organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It is disingenuous to suggest that Hamas will be willing to make peace with Israel. They proclaim loudly that they will never do so.

iv     In polite society the question will be raised as “Should Israel be delegitimized?” At the “Durban” conference it is more likely that it will be “Shouldn't Israel be delegitimized?”

v     Actually there are many more reasons.

vi     Syria is only intended as an example. There are other tyrannies in the Arab world that oppress their own citizens, as the “Arab Spring” is demonstrating. Whether those tyrannies are legitimate is a subject that is worthy of wider debate.

vii    “Objective” observers whose views are formed by the media and other Palestinian propaganda. Sadly there is a pro-Palestinian bias in the media, and the vast majority of “news” from the Middle East satanizes all actions taken by Israel, and sanitizes those of the Palestinians.

viii    It's hard for me not to see anti-semitism as part of the hidden agenda of those who want to see Israel destroyed.