PSA

[sabotabby]

If you believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and sundry conflicts throughout the Middle East, will never be solved while current political and economic structures are intact, then I think you're likely right.

If you believe that said conflicts will not be resolved because you are the sort of curmudgeon who believes that people will always be fighting for some reason in one part of the world or another, then I disagree with you, but I'll shrug it off and not think any less of you for being cynical. I like cynics—I am one, at times—but if I didn't think a better world was possible, I'd have to pretty much give up, y'know?

If, however, you believe any of the following:

• there is something different about people in the Middle East that makes them fight more than people elsewhere, either because of a genetic factor or because of deeply rooted cultural values;

• Jews and Arabs have never gotten along and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on since the beginning of time and they never will get along because of something moronic written in some book somewhere;

• the ones who want to fight should be put on an island somewhere where they can duke it out and everyone else will shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives, and furthermore you are very clever for coming up with this solution all by yourself;

• "they" don't want peace;

• a resolution will only be reached once one population is deported or slaughtered; or

• the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East is if a) the desert is turned to glass, b) the desert is turned into a parking lot, or c) someone drops a giant fifth-dimensional alien squid on a heavily populated area;

then really, you are an idiot, you lack historical perspective, and you are a racist schmuck. I got over that "turn the desert to glass" bullshit in high school at around the same time I got over Ayn Rand. It's basically the fascist end of the liberal "a plague on both their houses/cycle of violence" mentality and is just as absurd. The only reasons to think that you're living at the end of history are because you have an ego problem or are heavily invested in your own apathy, or both.

Yeah, just braid my hair and call me Pollyanna, motherfuckers. This too shall pass.

Comments

[caudelac.livejournal.com]

Basically, my 2 cents-- two things need to happen here:

Israle/Palestine need to be combined in a singular, secular state. Jews and Muslims can, I think, due to the restrictive nature of their religious laws, only be truly protected (alongside the natural rights of individual citizens) by a state dedicated to ensuring religious freedom for all of its citizens. Such a state would be dedicated to ensuring that Halacha and Sharia could be carried out quietly-- AS LONG AS SUCH DID NOT INTERFERE WITH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, or were enforced on non-practitioners of those religions, as much as possible. Do I think this would be easy or without problems? Of course not. But is it the solution that would ensure things like, oh, Muslim homes being destroyed or denied building permits because of where they wish to dwell could not happen, as well as preventing the persecution of Jews that Israel was created to prevent? I think so. At the very least, it would give recourse to those prosecuted. But I believe that all state should be separate from religion; I take the opposite view as Dostoevsky and think that the state has a responsibility to protect the practitioners of any given religion from persecution, and everyone else from religious restriction.

2) Jerusalem must become, like Vatican City, an independent religious city-state ruled by a triumvirate of Jew, Muslim, and Christian representatives, or at least Jew and Muslim, but neutral as much as possible. Either way, allowing it to remain a point of contention is... bad. I can think of no better term.

But seriously, the Jews (all Jews, especially the Israelis) ought to be considering how to contribute more to Tikkun Olam, rather than being bristly when it comes to their Arab neighbors (which I mean in a sesame street, 'these are the people in your neighborhood' kind of way-- the folks you have to live with, whether you like it or not). And as to the Muslims... I'm far less familiar with their beliefs than with the Jews, but I hardly think that peace is beyond them either, and that they can find repairing the world an undesirable thing.

Oddly enough, it seems that most of the things I'm hearing on the news (I listen mostly to NPR, admittedly), are very pro-Palestine, and are if nothing else, being quite chilly towards the Israeli actions here, and critical of American silence on the matter.

But that could be just me.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't think religion and specifically Halacha and Sharia are really at the root of this conflict.

It's far more about nationalism and a secular jewish ethnic identity, and it's role as a settler state and the dispossession of the indigenous arabs. The PFLP was always a secular outfit. You have to understand how figures like George Habash fit into the conflict. Atheistic (and agnostic) jews are so cliche as a stereotype, and not just in the journals of nice jewish girls against the occupation like sabotabby that it has it's own Wikipedia reference and claims that among Israeli jews... 44% are secular, 35% don't believe in God.

The U.S. is a far more religious society.

When civil society suffers from war, and secular and leftist organizations are systematically destroyed, people often turn to both religion and militant acts of desperation. Iraq, for example, was once a very secular society: next to Israel, women there had the most rights of anywhere else in the middle east.

However, your idea for a single, secular state in the Israel/Palestine has merit. The late Edward Said, once a supporter of a a two state solution, eventually came out for a single state: "after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

[sabotabby]

I think a prolonged just peace (as opposed to all of the ceasefires that have happened so far) would go a long way to reducing religious fervor. Both Israeli Jews and Palestinians have historically been more secular than other populations in the region, and turning to religion is mostly an act of desperation. Deal with the underlying issues and you'll see the religious bullshit cut down to the usual craziness you see in religious hot spots.

Also, this is the kind of thing that has made me get more statist in my advancing years. Because I really do think that a strong, though not coercive, state would go a long way to solving some of the problems there.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

Strong states mean less ethnic conflict? Not so sure about that.

Strong states mean less religous conflict? Not so sure about that.

I guess we have to start with your definition of "the state".

If anything "The State" has been the greatest proponent of ethnic and religious Homogeneity in the name of national unity.

It might be nice to believe that the Stalin, Mao, Tito or Lincoln were able to use the strength of the state to stop ethnic and religious conflict--but I don't think it holds true.

I do think multi-ethnic and secular societies are just peachy, I'm not sure that it is "statism" that brings them about or holds them together.

What would a non-coercive state look like? Anarchy. Libertarian socialism. Free Soviets. IWW's Industrial Democracy's Administration of Things. Kaianere'kó:wa. Whatever term you like best.

[sabotabby]

I think there has to be something, at least in the beginning, that restricts the ability of either side to kill each other (or use economic or political privilege to pass apartheid-type laws). But more importantly, there's a redistribution of resources that needs to happen, and that wouldn't work without some sort of overarching structure.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

I believe the redistribution of resources and the relation of workers to the means of production is the social revolution, comrade. It's the material component.

Now, "overarching" is a whole another ball of wax. I believe the Bolsheviks were convinced that the Ukraine needed to redistribute it's grain to Moscow by a ratio that Ukrainians regarded as punitive. The problem with overarching structures, is the overarchlords.

[sabotabby]

Well, that much is true. But it's also a matter of scale, which is one of the reasons the Bolsheviks fucked up (there are others, obviously).

[caudelac.livejournal.com]

I rather agree. If religion here is largely a blind, a thing clung to out of desperation, then it seems to me that a single, secular state is an even more reasonable option. If religious freedom is made a tenet of the state, then (perhaps I am optimistic here but) it seems to me that this pulls the teeth out of the religion argument.

Though I will say that it saddens me a great deal-- to see two angry and militant people using their religions as, essentially, meat shields. To coin a gamer phrase.