Middle East and understanding
There is no escaping of what is going on in the Middle East today. People and parties on both sides of the spectrum never fail to see the issue at hand in black and white only and as vocal as I normally am about issues, I don’t quite know what to make of this one. Every time I tend to lean toward one side, I read, hear or otherwise find something that pulls me to the other. I am balancing on that thin rope between the two sides and although a storm is ravishing around me, I will be standing on that rope for quite some time.
I have tried to understand the history of the conflict, but mostly failed and I know for whom the hottest place in Hell are reserved, so I don’t claim neutrality. I support the side of peace and stability, which, as it stands, is neither of the two sides.
During these recent weeks I have read two outstanding pieces that are especially memorable. One is philosophical, the other matter of fact, both contribute greatly to understanding the current events.
An op-ed in The New York Times by Harvard professor Daniel Gilbert took an abstract and philosophical approach without explicitly naming an issue or picking a side: “Research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.” Read more on nytimes.com.
Writers of Time magazine tried to piece everything together and understand the new and lethal logic of violence in the Middle East: “So where might this lead? Is anything remotely approaching quiet, if not quite peace, possible in a place where all the actors see gain in continuing to fight?” Read more on time.com.
2 Responses to “Middle East and understanding”
Comments
1 lucie nijenkamp 21 August 2006 @ 8:28 pm
I thought you were an intellectual guy, so i do not understand, why you don’t get it. Israel is the ONLY democracy surrounded by totalitarian Arabic Countries, where no one has any say in politics. Some of the surrounding countries have “voting” but these are just a facade.
Thus the wordly issue.
IF you are some what religious, you would know that this country called Israel was given to the jewish people by “proxy” by Adonai/Elohim (the G0D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). So either way, the Israeli people own their land.
2 Marc 22 August 2006 @ 10:00 am
Unfortunately, the situation is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. The fact that Israel is the only strong democracy in the region is certainly a factor in the issue, but definitely not a deciding factor. And religion is a personal and private affair; it should not be the basis of a claim for land ownership. That would be a very slippery slope.
And intellectual or not, the long history of the region requires more study than what I, and undoubtedly you as well, already know or would be able to learn. Again, I am not claiming neutrality; I am supporting peace, which, as it stands, is neither of the two sides. War is peace doesn’t do the trick for me.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
Leave a Reply