Dear America,
Over the course of millennia, mutual immolation has been the rule in the history of the middle east rather than the exception: civil wars in Yemen and Syria, the Iran-Iraq war, Hezbollah brutality in Lebanon and as perpetrated against Israel across their mutual border as well as the Israeli responses, Syrian attacks in the Golan Heights, Sunni's against Shiites over who killed Mohamed's son-in-law, Ali, and later over whether Islam should be led by Mohamed's dynasty or by the established clergy--Shia vs. Sunni respectively--and on and on back through the annals of the Levant and the middle east for four thousand years. Even the Romans were not immune from the sanguinary ethos of the region as manifested in the siege of Masada and the first Jewish-Roman war of the first century CE. So today's conflict in Gaza and Israel is no surprise, especially considering the conflicts that have raged there since 1967. In consequence of that 1967 war Israel occupied Gaza and allowed several thousand Israeli's to build and live in settlements there and in "Samaria," which is in the West Bank. Then in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the dismantling of those settlements and the evacuation of the 8,000 or so Jews who had occupied them for the sake of making Israel's borders more defensible, and the buildings they had occupied were destroyed rather than leaving them for use by the Palestinian residents of Gaza. I mention that destruction because it is symbolic in my mind...scorched earth. The Israeli's could have left the buildings standing, and thus usable by the Palestinians who remained in the area for the purpose of offering an olive branch to them, but they didn't. I am not saying that doing so would have prevented the various periods of intifada and outright war that have intervened between then and now, but it could have softened the enmity between Palestinians and Israeli's. It would have been worth "a shot" if you'll excuse the expression and it would have saved the Israeli's the cost of demolition in the bargain, but that shot wasn't taken. Instead, millions of gunshots have been exchanged, and thousands have died.
Today we have the atrocity perpetrated by Hamas, entailing the outright slaughter of 1400 Israeli men, women and children, the vast majority of them completely unarmed, and the Israeli response in which more than 8,000 Palestinians have been killed mostly by bombs in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians justify their slaughter of innocents with, among other things, today's Israeli settlements in the West Bank territory occupied mostly by Palestinians and formerly belonging to Jordan, and on those grounds they claim the moral high ground. Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed in a speech he gave over the past few days that the Israeli's occupy the "moral high ground" in consequence of Hamas's outright murders. Concomitantly, the supporters of both sides reiterate the moral high ground claims around the world from the opinion pages of the New York Times to the streets of Turkey, thus entrenching themselves in bellicose rhetoric and, at least in their own minds, justifying continuing hostilities. But I say this two sided colloquy is at best self-servingly misguided, but at worst nothing but rationalization of the bad intentions harbored by each side. The fact is that there is no moral high ground in the middle east, and historically, it seems that there never has been. The pugnacity inherent in the raging debate proves it. The occupants of the middle east are incapable of civility and mutual consideration, even if it is to facilitate peace, and thus self-preservation.
I recently had a conversation with my son about the conflict that rages on in Gaza and Israel, and he expressed an opinion cleaving to the rhetoric of one side; I won't bother to tell you which side as it really doesn't matter given all the history I have just cited. My response, and I must admit that I am ashamed for the callousness of it, was that the rest of the world should build an immense wall around the middle east like the one the Chinese built along their northern frontier to ward off the attacks of their enemies. But the wall the world should build today would not be to insulate us from our adversaries. It would be to isolate us all from the consequences of the insidious internecine politics of the region. It should be built for the purpose of allowing the rest of the world to obviate involvement in the most futile and spuriously justified series of conflicts that have ever been perpetrated in all the world. As I said, I am ashamed for thinking it and now for saying it for others to read. But I'm afraid I am not inclined to retract a single word.
Your friend,
Mike
Over the course of millennia, mutual immolation has been the rule in the history of the middle east rather than the exception: civil wars in Yemen and Syria, the Iran-Iraq war, Hezbollah brutality in Lebanon and as perpetrated against Israel across their mutual border as well as the Israeli responses, Syrian attacks in the Golan Heights, Sunni's against Shiites over who killed Mohamed's son-in-law, Ali, and later over whether Islam should be led by Mohamed's dynasty or by the established clergy--Shia vs. Sunni respectively--and on and on back through the annals of the Levant and the middle east for four thousand years. Even the Romans were not immune from the sanguinary ethos of the region as manifested in the siege of Masada and the first Jewish-Roman war of the first century CE. So today's conflict in Gaza and Israel is no surprise, especially considering the conflicts that have raged there since 1967. In consequence of that 1967 war Israel occupied Gaza and allowed several thousand Israeli's to build and live in settlements there and in "Samaria," which is in the West Bank. Then in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the dismantling of those settlements and the evacuation of the 8,000 or so Jews who had occupied them for the sake of making Israel's borders more defensible, and the buildings they had occupied were destroyed rather than leaving them for use by the Palestinian residents of Gaza. I mention that destruction because it is symbolic in my mind...scorched earth. The Israeli's could have left the buildings standing, and thus usable by the Palestinians who remained in the area for the purpose of offering an olive branch to them, but they didn't. I am not saying that doing so would have prevented the various periods of intifada and outright war that have intervened between then and now, but it could have softened the enmity between Palestinians and Israeli's. It would have been worth "a shot" if you'll excuse the expression and it would have saved the Israeli's the cost of demolition in the bargain, but that shot wasn't taken. Instead, millions of gunshots have been exchanged, and thousands have died.
Today we have the atrocity perpetrated by Hamas, entailing the outright slaughter of 1400 Israeli men, women and children, the vast majority of them completely unarmed, and the Israeli response in which more than 8,000 Palestinians have been killed mostly by bombs in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians justify their slaughter of innocents with, among other things, today's Israeli settlements in the West Bank territory occupied mostly by Palestinians and formerly belonging to Jordan, and on those grounds they claim the moral high ground. Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed in a speech he gave over the past few days that the Israeli's occupy the "moral high ground" in consequence of Hamas's outright murders. Concomitantly, the supporters of both sides reiterate the moral high ground claims around the world from the opinion pages of the New York Times to the streets of Turkey, thus entrenching themselves in bellicose rhetoric and, at least in their own minds, justifying continuing hostilities. But I say this two sided colloquy is at best self-servingly misguided, but at worst nothing but rationalization of the bad intentions harbored by each side. The fact is that there is no moral high ground in the middle east, and historically, it seems that there never has been. The pugnacity inherent in the raging debate proves it. The occupants of the middle east are incapable of civility and mutual consideration, even if it is to facilitate peace, and thus self-preservation.
I recently had a conversation with my son about the conflict that rages on in Gaza and Israel, and he expressed an opinion cleaving to the rhetoric of one side; I won't bother to tell you which side as it really doesn't matter given all the history I have just cited. My response, and I must admit that I am ashamed for the callousness of it, was that the rest of the world should build an immense wall around the middle east like the one the Chinese built along their northern frontier to ward off the attacks of their enemies. But the wall the world should build today would not be to insulate us from our adversaries. It would be to isolate us all from the consequences of the insidious internecine politics of the region. It should be built for the purpose of allowing the rest of the world to obviate involvement in the most futile and spuriously justified series of conflicts that have ever been perpetrated in all the world. As I said, I am ashamed for thinking it and now for saying it for others to read. But I'm afraid I am not inclined to retract a single word.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment