|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-29 00:03:41
jwitt:
My suggestions are "impractical" by the very nature of the problems in the Middle East. I will try to answer your posting succinctly. I realize fully that my suggestions will appear impractical. I will give reasons for that later in my reply.
You say "...I must agree that the "hardline Jewish cultural elements" have a resoundingly disproportionate influence in Israeli politics, but would strongly disagree that this represents a desire among the preponderance of Israeli society to subjugate another people...".
This is not what I said or meant. I make the distinction between the Israeli people and Israel, the state; Israel, the government. Please look through any of my comments and you will not find me passing judgements on the Israeli people. I always point to the Israeli government or its policies. When I use "Israel" I refer to its official representation, and not to its people per se.
The oppression of Israel on Palestinians is expressed by its policies and the acts of Israelis who condone these policies and not necessarily indicative of the attitude of all Israelis. The tragedy is that Israelis seem powerless to reverse this trend. That is why I alluded to "... the Israeli government is actually robbing its own people of the soul that it claims the Jewish faith bestows them with...".
You make a good point regarding Israel's democratic framework and how it creates disproportionate representation of hard-line ideologies. I agree with your thoughts on this regarding Canada. IMO, this danger is not peculiar to Israel but to any democratic society that aspires to ideals that its people are not yet ready for.
Your reference to the 'Balfour Declaration' is interesting. I do not think there would have been any "better" home to designate as the Jewish State for the people of any inhabited location would have felt pushed out by the Jews. I had alluded to the blame that western nations (and Britain) must all share with regard to the Jewish people's plight. IMO, it would have been much better to have these nations welcome the Jews and for the Jews to have the courage to try to live solely amongst gentiles again. As it stands, Israel as a nation was born out of a religious imperatives and is now still struggling to survive because of these imperatives. Given you misgivings of organized religion, I am sure you see the inherent flaw in this primary tenet of Israel's policies. Will it ever end. What would happen if the US withdrew financial support? Could Israel stand on its own without being propped up? What constitutes failure and success as a nation state?
I agree with your assessment that a secularized Israel must consist of both moderate Jews and moderate Muslims. However, I do not agree that it is impossible and again, I will explain later.
As for my question about your Palestinian friends' opinions of the Israeli government, you indicate that they can make the distinction between Israeli people and their government and policies. You seem surprised I would ask. However, IMO the overwhelming impression one gets is that many Palestinians are reluctant to make such fine distinctions. However, I accept your assessment that many do make the distinctions. I also agree that most people caught in this mess are "REAL PEOPLE" who prefer to be in peace with one another.
Now I come to my final and most important comments. You indicated that my suggestions are "impractical", that they "won't work at all..." and that moderation is "an impossible sell". Well, I would say that from your own observations of your jazz-playing friends' behaviours that they really do want to "bury the hatchet", share their common interests and be friends. I would also say that you believed they could have made friends with each other. You did try...once. Your impression was that your friends "pooped out" on you and on themselves.
Why?
Because they thought it would have been "impossible", "impractical" and "impossible to sell" (to their peers). They were essentially afraid. They were too "practical" and "conventional". Your idea wasn't. Why do you complain about mine?
I believe there is never an easy way out of the strife that is born out of vicious sectarian differences. We can try to keep people apart with fences or threats of violence but there would never be peace. We just prolong the misery, rack up more grudges until the next big confrontation. If you want to solve the real problems you must tackle the fundamental basis of this sort of strife - IMO, it is the blind, primitive nature of all organized religion. Unless you get the parties to moderate and live in the same spot as neighbours they will always eye each other's intentions and each other's possessions with suspicion and resentment. Thus, my suggestions are not actually impractical. They are actually extremely hard to achieve but the reason why they are so is because they strike at the very heart of the problem. So take your pick. Take the easy, practical route and procrastinate or put some courage and vision into your actions and actually try to solve the problem.
In fact, I think you already made a start on this route but just haven't realized it yet. Why else would you have tried to get your friends together?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
