Perhaps peace will come to the Mid East when the two adversaries find a common enemy. A recent blong-exchange opened my eye to some new facts.
In a blog exchange, "shimshonit" chides me for suggesting (inter alia, in a comment on his blog) that the Arab Israeli conflict is essentially one fueled by hatred, that hatred itself facilitated by symbols of dissimilarity. My thesis being that even when the interests of two tribes are the same, their apparent differences, and the dynamics of power, can result in mindless internecine war (as among the houses of Lancaster and York, the Lilliputians, the Daevs and Asurs, the Marovingians and Carolingians, ad nauseum through history).
Now, I have the deepest regard for the tribes of Issac and Ishmael. The Israeli's are a more peaceable nation, and one with no lesser regard for human life than any other. The Arabs are a prouder folk than any that walked this Earth. Steeped in history and lore, the two are as similar in their sense of destiny, as they are dissimilar in their world views. United only by tragedy, the flip sides of which they share, the one regrettably the fodder for the other's victories, they appear locked in a tragic struggle.
However, this struggle, though very real, is not entirely unavoidable.
Referring back to my post on shimshonit's blog, I state that "The (most) Arabs hate Jews. Jews (many, if not most) hate Arabs." The statement is inaccurate according to him, because, "most Jews do NOT hate Arabs, and there is certainly nothing in Judaism that suggests that we should."
So how do we explain the seemingly excessive bombardment of Gaza-- and it is excessive. He goes on to provide arguments that I will, in all of this blog, fail to counter, viz., " Islam is viewed by Judaism as one of the religions of The Book, and in their avoidance of any graphic representations of God, they resemble Judaism much more than Christianity. If Jews did hate Arabs (Muslim or Christian), they would not treat them in hospitals despite their enemy status, give them the right to vote and hold office, own property, or any of the other rights they are given in Israel."
This is sincere and impassioned polemic. Everything he states is true, and worth quoting. The case he makes, with an eloquence borne out of honest and informed conviction, is true at least for a majority of his compatriots.
And yet, he appears to discount the disconnect between the intentions and beliefs of a people, and the policies and practices of their state. If the state of Israel feared that the Obama administration would be less hawkish than the Bush regime, which is widely expected to be the possibility, and if an election was imminent in Israel, as it is, and if at the confluence of these portends Hamas started inviting Israel's displeasure, then, it is possible, and it did indeed so transpire, that the state of Israel would unleash an overabundance of force against their hapless, if primitive and ignorant, neighbors.
Now, in private discussions there is always a greater emphasis on intent, and in public discourse ever the greater care for appearances. My wise and insightful interlocutor is giving voice to his peoples unquestionable intentions. He is not willing to see that his leaders, individually of an equally sterling disposition, are collectively the practitioners of a less generous creed.
What is this creed? This is the creed of "an eye for an eye." This is the belief that, faced with a fratricidal struggle, the indiscriminate decimation of the enemy's ranks furthers ones security better, than does a reasoned attrition of the hateful few among them.
It is my view that the Israeli-Arab conflict is fueled by parochial hatred and promoted by political opportunism. Israel individuals by conviction, and the state by constitution is inclined to compassion. However, the dynamics of power-struggle among Palestinian factions, and electoral rivalry among Israeli parties sets off a lethal dynamic of belligerence toward the other. In the thrall of this competition, the Israeli leaders all become hawkish, and the thugs within Hamas the more vicious. The more Hamas can constrain Israel to ruthless adventurism, the tighter their (illegitimate) hold on power. The more the Israeli leaders can appear uncowed, even ruthless, the better their chances of (undeserved) electoral gains. The same gullibility of the public that makes it defend its leader's mistakes in such times, also persuades it to hate the projected enemy.
It is this game of hatred that I was alluding to in my comment on his (very interesting) blog.
Now, in no way do I absolve the Arabs, whom you will notice I call "primitive" and "ignorant", of their culpability in the fate that befell them. The Muslims represent, at once, the flower of human progress, and the blight on human weal. They developed and spread science and civilization in a time when Europe was in dark ages, and the East was isolated. But today, lead by greedy and ignorant leaders, the Muslim Umma has come to profess some of the most retrograde views to infect any people.
What the Muslims are NOT is deserving of the current pogrom. My friend makes the error of proposing that, because I watered a man on a Monday, thereby I may torment him on the Tuesday. A peoples virtue does not apologize for their sin, or the transcendental law of Karma would decay into the secular rules of consumer credit.
Posts
