It may seem presumptuous to suggest that I know what the problem is with the Middle East. But I think I do. I don't know how to solve it, unfortunately, or rather I have no sensible way of achieving what needs to be achieved, but I can see where we're going wrong.
Gaza is, like so many violent flashpoints, riven by religious divisions. In this particular case, we have to go back to 1947 when the British Mandate of Palestine, designed to provide a "national home for the Jewish people" and accepted by the League of Nations, was interpreted by the UN as a partitioned Palestine: part Jewish and part Arab. Indeed, Jerusalem was to be an international city, presided over by the UN.
The state of Israel, unhappy with this arrangement, then declared independence in 1948, which started a war with its neighbours. A war which has, to all intents and purposes, never stopped.
The problem here, and it is fundamental, is a lack of humanism. The Jewish people and the Arabs are not different in any significant way. Indeed, one could argue historically that they worship the same god, more or less. But that's just it - worshipping under a different set of rules shouldn't matter.
The Jewish people feel that they have been persecuted over the centuries. This is undoubtedly true, but they are far from being the only religious/ethnic group who have suffered, and they must not use this as an excuse - all it amounts to is "he hit me first" - which has never been accepted by parents dealing with brawling children, after all.
On the other hand, we currently have Hamas, a bunch of Islamists who are undoubtedly as bad as the serious Zionists. Their presumption (and it drives them) is that people of other ethnicities and other faiths are inherently inferior. Evil, even. This is so ludicrous I almost don't want to discuss it, but I do think it's important to explain why they are wrong.
I don't expect everyone to love each other. That's not how people work. Jesus was a great teacher of loving kindness, but he was an idealist too. Nevertheless, we must understand that if the human race is to operate in any sensible, productive way, we must rise above the ancient religious bickering and start to respect the human. Because we are all human: the reason agnostics in Milton Keynes get upset about the slaughter of children in Gaza is not because they are Hamas supporters; it's because they are witnessing entirely needless human suffering. And it isn't helpful to blame one side or the other. That merely reinforces an artificial divide.
The Middle East is being torn apart by the great falsehood of the ancient religions: that by adhering to your particular religion, you become better than those who don't. This isn't true. I hope this is self-evident. A human being is a human being, not inherently better or worse than any other. If that human is doing nothing to harm anyone, it should be left alone to get on with its life.
This surely shouldn't be so hard. But for millennia it has been. Humans feel threatened by difference, but they shouldn't: if someone is trying to hurt you, they are bad, and you should fight it. But if someone simply wants to live next door, or even share your country then have a good look - is this person actually any sort of threat? Or are they a simply another human just like you?
Posts
5 comments:
Israel may be a predominantly Jewish state, but it is not the Jewish people.
You can usually spot the bigots when they refer to Israeli's as "Jews", when people in Israel may be Jewish, may be Arabs (I agree there is no real distinction between the two - the people of Northern Ireland managed to divide over much smaller differences), may be Christians, may be atheists.
I don't believe the Israeli's use historical persecution as an excuse. Although the scale of their persecution is without parallel in human history.
The relevant issue is the lesson the Israeli state has drawn from their suffering. Which is that they have chosen a policy of hitting back hard when they are attacked. This policy is designed to dissuade others from attacking them, because they will consistently strike back harder than you hit them.
I don't support Israels action in Gaza, on the other hand it is easy for people who aren't under constant missile bombardment to say "it is wrong/inhuman/unacceptable".
So in answer to your question - is the neighbour any sort of threat - the answer in this case is clearly yes, otherwise Israel wouldn't be striking back.
So whilst I agree with your sentiment, you have to convince the Arab side that the Israeli's present no threat, and that the best way to address outstanding grievances is not to attack Israeli militarily.
You are of course right - Hamas are aggressive and of course the Israelis see them as a threat. The point is that neither side is blameless - I'm not defending Hamas.
The reason Israel look bad in this particular episode of the conflict is that their approach has been so heavy-handed. Israel has lost a few soldiers to Hamas, Gaza has lost hundreds of Palestinian civilians to the Israeli bombardment. That is an inexcusable human cost. And past persecution of the Jewish people, whilst it may partially explain this approach, does not excuse it.
Incidentally, whilst of course living in Israel does not necessarily mean you are Jewish, Israel is the Jewish homeland. That is important, certainly to the practising Jews I know. And it is not really credible to claim that Israel's conflict with the Palestinian Arabs is independent of religion.
This is a point of principle - human beings are human beings regardless, and no amount of history or religion changes that. I'm not saying that it's easy to put into practice - I've admitted I don't know how to fix this - but it must be what we aspire to, because it is the only way to actually resolve this sort of conflict.
You are still suggesting that the Israelis are using past persecution as an excuse. I don't believe they are.
Having missiles fired at your territory daily is sufficient excuse for any sovereign nation to take military action against a neighbour.
No democratic government could stand by and allow missiles to be launched against it routinely without taking some sort of action.
One might argue that the Israelis are wrong to draw the lessons they do from their history. That hitting back harder isn't the right approach, but one has to substitute a policy that will stop the incoming missiles. Simply saying that what worked last time is wrong is not helpful to people dodging missiles.
The prior action in Lebanon was widely reported as a defeat and/or humiliation for the Israeli Defense force stopped the missiles. So the Israelis are no doubt hoping for something similar. The difference is that the UN doesn't have the stomach for policing Gaza, and there is no other group prepared to step in. Such policing would have to be done against the wishes of Hamas.
The Israeli's aren't the only country to operate such policies.
The American military also takes similar care and interest in the fate of all their personnel, and are robust in the defense of American citizens all over the world.
The British made a similar response to Germany, in response to the Blitz, which whilst widely criticized did ultimately stop German bombs falling on London. I think those British actions in WWII were even less defensible than Israels current actions, but similarly the British were unable to find an alternative approach.
I didn't claim the conflict had nothing to do with religion, I just said you can spot some of the bigots by their assumption that Israelis are Jews. This is classic in-group/out-group mentality, and it needs challenging when you see it.
Israel does apply slightly different rules for national service to different ethnic groups, and I think they would be well served to eliminate such "discrimination". That said the IDF actively encourages recruitment from all ethnic groups in Israel, and was reporting growing numbers of Bedouin and Muslim recruits before the current hostilities, although they are still far short of being representative of the population of Israel as a whole.
I think we've wandered slightly from the point I was making. I understand why Israel have done what they have done, and I even understand why they built that wall. But I think their reasons are faulty in exactly the same way that Hamas' reasons for bombing Israel are faulty.
The reason is simple: neither side's approach is humanist. Their approaches are based on grouping the other side in to an amorphous mass, and dehumanising them thereby. I suspect that most Israelis who support the bombing of Gaza, and of the entity called Hamas, would find it rather difficult to contemplate killing an individual innocent Palestinian. And vice versa, of course - most Palestinians would have no wish to harm any individual innocent Israeli, whether they were Jewish or not.
For me, this is the heart of the problem with the Middle East and anywhere else riven by these sort of religious/ racial divides. Dehumanising the other side is the only way most people can justify the murder of innocents. It doesn't matter who the players are - the game is still being played by, I think, the wrong set of rules.
"most Palestinians would have no wish to harm any individual innocent Israeli"
One has to wonder why then they elected Hamas to govern them.
One doesn't have to group individuals beyond the groupings they choose for themselves to justify killing (or harming) innocents, one just has to believe that the use of force is justified in self defence, and be faced with an enemy group you can't easily deal with on a one by one basis. That applies equally to the individual as the nation state.
The general issues of pacifism is one I've struggled with myself. However my conclusion is that the world shouldn't be expected to be free of dispute, and thus one must be prepared to defend ones own interests.
Post a Comment