A Hamas Parable

[Bonam]

There's really only two logically consistent alternatives of dealing with "others": of force, where you do what you can and have to do and logically, have to accept that the same can be done to you, no "moral" objections because they'd be pointless; I do this to you, because I have to, and you to something else to me, for pretty much the same reason; or of peace, where you don't do things to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself. Now, pick one.

Both are absolutist philosophies that would inevitably lead one to ruin if they were strictly followed. One must be pragmatic in what they do, and clearly reason out what would be the best situation for oneself (and in this case, one's people), taking into account both short term and long term consequences. "Peace" at all costs is a flawed philosophy as one must defend themselves when attacked, and, furthermore, must make sure to win any such war as decisively as possible, to reduce the chance of any future attack. "Might is right" is also flawed, as it continuously breeds resentment, and one's might may not last forever, such that if one acts too belligerently they may be putting themselves at risk in the future.

In the case of Israel, it seems obvious that they need to act according to a balance of two priorities: (1) ensuring their own immediate and long term security against both terrorism and organized military attack through and (2) making peace with their neighbors such that in the future they will have an opportunity to not expend as much of their national resources and effort on security. The ability to purse (2) is limited by the willingness of said neighbors to work towards the same goal, which, unfortunately, is sadly lacking among many Palestinians and some of the Arab countries surrounding Israel.

As for the "creation" of Israel in 1948, that is 3 generations ago and honestly already receding into history. The formation of the current state of Israel was no less moral than most other countries through history, and in fact arguably more so than many. Israel is there, now, as are the Israelis that live within it. Grievances of the past must eventually be forgotten and people living in an area must work based on the current conditions to better their own lives. How many millions of lives were lost throughout history to establish the borders we now have in Europe, or in Asia? How many hundreds of millions have been forced from their homes, never to return? Are people that live in these areas and whose ancestors were displaced a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand years entitled to forever seek compensation?

Clearly they are not, and in most cases, these people have moved on and established prosperous lives elsewhere. That the Arabs that were displaced following the events of 1948 failed to do so is unfortunate, but it is something that is for them, and those that support them, to do. Israel, too, consisted to a large extent of displaced persons that had lost their homes, their livelihoods, their family members, and yet were able to rebuild into a relatively prosperous country over the course of a few decades. Why is it now their fault that the Arabs failed to do so? How is it their fault that Egypt and Jordan decided to abandon their populations along the border with Israel (in the Gaza strip and the West Bank)? Why is Israel to blame for the conditions of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan? Is it Israel's fault that these countries have decided not to allow "their brothers" to integrate into their societies? Why have the people living in the West Bank and in Gaza not used what resources they do have to better their own livelihoods, and rather squandered them on pointless struggle against a foe that is obviously militarily superior?

The focus of Arab leaders on harnessing the emotions and energies of their populations into an endless and unproductive rage against Israel, rather than focusing on the improvement of their own societies, is the root cause of their current problems. The solution is not to be found in railing against Israel, or debating the legitimacy of its creation, but in people that find themselves in unfortunate circumstances working to better their own conditions.

[jbg]

Would that make that particular country also eligible to have a part of its territory "given" or "declared" to the persecuted? Why not?

Are you saying that all other movement of peoples is invalid? Should everyone gather in the Great Rift Valley? After all everyone "came" from there?

Oh nevermind, as long as it's Jews being slaughtered it's hunky dory by you.

[myata]

In the case of Israel, it seems obvious that they need to act according to a balance of two priorities: (1) ensuring their own immediate and long term security against both terrorism and organized military attack through and

.....

As for the "creation" of Israel in 1948, that is 3 generations ago and honestly already receding into history.

Most certainly, "ensuring security" is a key element of the "grab and hold" strategy (addressed by the "hold" part). It may appear to have some existential appeal, but in reality remains really plain and simple, old, "hold what you managed to get hold of tight, or somebody else may get it".

Rather than addressing morality, that as I already mentioned has no meaningful application in this approach - from the parties involved that kind of advice sounds more like a ridicule ("too bad I have the thing now, but would it be good for your own good - see how I'm genuinly concerned - to go build your luck somewhere else"), and from a bystander - kind of gratuituous, maybe? I mean if you were kicked out of your house and sent out on all four winds - would you really forget the past, let it go, and build your luck somewhere else? Or come back and fight, tooth and nail? I don't know... do you? And how much would you appreciate that kind of advice?

So rather than advising anybody on anything I'd only like to state a fact. A fact of human nature is that we do not easily let go of our own, and forget past offences and injustices. (Why is it so? I'm not sure science has already solved that puzzle, so I'll venture a hypothesis: maybe a long long time back when tribes of human ancestors came in from the same rift valley, there were among them those who, being kicked out of their pasture, would "forget and rebuild their luck", etc. My theory is that they eventually were kicked out from all life supporting lands by ever multiplying "tooth and nail" folks and went out of existence. Very sad. But would explain most certainly, why here and now, us being their nemeses's remote posterity, we still fight tooth and nail for every little thing).

Anyways, regardless of scientific explanations, that fact exists. Maybe that's why most serious attempts at resolution of long standing conflicts begin with investigation, recongnition and atonement for past injustices that caused and created them. Of course we can ignore that law of human nature. We can close our eyes, not hear, not see and not notice and hope that on a 1,0001 repetition of the mantra the problem would simply go away. BTW there's any number of folks who're still trying this approach with the physical nature, like jump up on the roof of their house in the hope that one lucky time, no matter how and when, they'd fly out into the sky.

Sure we can continue what we've been doing till now and hope that somehow sometime it'll work out, against all odds. On my side though, I'd be reluctant to participate in that kind of ritual.

Edited June 4, 2009 by myata

[Bonam]

Maybe that's why most serious attempts at resolution of long standing conflicts begin with investigation, recongnition and atonement for past injustices that caused and created them. Of course we can ignore that law of human nature.

Really now? Where exactly did this happen? Throughout almost all of human history, disputes and borders have been sorted out by two sides duking it out until one is clearly victorious, and the cost of war is so high that they never wants to try again. Europe's borders weren't established through investigation or atonement, but through World War I and World War II (and the countless wars before them, as well). Are the borders of the USA based on atonement for what was done to the natives? I don't think so, and yet that "conflict" is pretty much "resolved". Wars happen, borders change, and people move on and rebuild and make prosperous lives for themselves wherever they happen to end up. This seems to be the accepted standard throughout human history, including in the twentieth and even the twenty-first centuries, as it is still how things are happening throughout Asia and Africa to this day, with only occasional condemnation and certainly no intervention on the part of world powers.

The Tamils will integrate into Sri Lankan society and one day be prosperous, the Tibetans will (or already have) integrated into China, the Kurds will continue to grow in independence from Turkey and Iraq and one day perhaps establish their own state, the people of Kosovo will (or already have) adapt to their changed borders. All is based on the military and political reality of the situation, not on "atonement" or "recognition".

Why does the world want Israel to atone for its supposed wrongs (which are many times lesser, if they exist at all, than of all of the above examples), and yet seems to hardly care about these other cases? Why the discrimination, the focus on Israel to the exclusion of all else? Why the double standard? Is it because Israel seems weak enough and prone enough to Western influence that people think they can actually affect what Israel does, rather than being hopeless cases like the others? Is it because of a latent discrimination against Jews? Is it because the West sees in Israel a reflection of its prior self, and thus by singling out Israel hopes to atone for all the prior wrongs committed by Western civilization?

Whatever the case may be, it is all nonsense, and in the end, despite international meddling, both malevolent and good-intentioned, Israel and the Arabs will have to work out their own peace based on reality, not on the ignorant and twisted designs of people that have never even been in the region or seen the reality. If that path means centuries of more warfare, then that is what will happen, just as it took thousands of years of war for Europe to come to its current and apparently stable borders. If it means negotiations and the establishment of a separate Palestinian state within a few decades, that's even better. But it will be based on the current reality of the region, not on the machinations or moralistic principles or propaganda of foreigners.

[myata]

Whatever the case may be, it is all nonsense, and in the end, despite international meddling, both malevolent and good-intentioned, Israel and the Arabs will have to work out their own peace based on reality, not on the ignorant and twisted designs of people that have never even been in the region or seen the reality.

I don't think I have much to add to that. Of course they will have to, and failure to recognize the origins of the conflict, as well as legitimate claims of the other side will definitely make the process lengthier and more painful. In e.g. Northern Ireland it took centuries, and generations, and uncounted lost lives to even come to begin settling a conflict on a much smaller, in proportion scale. All things must end one day, and from that perspective indeed sooner or later makes little difference.

BTW by "meddling" do you also mean X-billion dollar aid that keeps Israel's economy stable and allows it to acquire all the modern military gimmicks? If so, then maybe, the "meddling" that created the problem some decades back, has never really stopped? And it's only a matter of vision, whether one can or wants to see it, or not?

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think I have much to add to that. Of course they will have to, and failure to recognize the origins of the conflict, as well as legitimate claims of the other side will definitely make the process lengthier and more painful. In e.g. Northern Ireland it took centuries, and generations, and uncounted lost lives to even come to begin settling a conflict on a much smaller, in proportion scale. All things must end one day, and from that perspective indeed sooner or later makes little difference.

Terrorism stopped. Northern Ireland remains British. They could have skipped the terrorism bit and remained the same.

BTW by "meddling" do you also mean X-billion dollar aid that keeps Israel's economy stable and allows it to acquire all the modern military gimmicks? If so, then maybe, the "meddling" that created the problem some decades back, has never really stopped? And it's only a matter of vision, whether one can or wants to see it, or not?

How about the billions upon billions poured into the region for the latest in top-of-the-line Russian weapons for the Arabs? Or did you think they get theirs from the 'Weapon Fairy'? Since the Soviet Union fell, the poor buggers don't get weapons for free anymore from the Russkies. Gotta BUY them (gasp)! They miss their sugar-daddy. Not that it helped them that much when it was free (see: The Arab Israeli Wars).

Edited June 5, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[myata]

Oh nevermind, as long as it's Jews being slaughtered it's hunky dory by you.

I'll only make the following logical observation:

#1 The argument normally used as a last resort when there's absolutely nothing else rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter.

#2 The argument is used, in statistically disproportionally high incidence, by one particular side in discussions around this issue.

Does it logically implicates, that the aforementioned side has absolutely nothing rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter?

[jbg]

#1 The argument normally used as a last resort when there's absolutely nothing else rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter.

#2 The argument is used, in statistically disproportionally high incidence, by one particular side in discussions around this issue.

Does it logically implicates, that the aforementioned side has absolutely nothing rational or logical to be said on the essence of the matter?

You're not seeing it right. The Jews are 0.2% of the world's population. We do have to be vigilent to avoid persecution and extermination.

We're the ultimate "minority" even if on the surface we're very successful in areas where we do live un-persecuted..

[myata]

Yes I know, there will always be a compelling reason to excuse myself, for whatever I'm doing / have done. The post, on the other hand, dealt with the universal laws of human logic, i.e something that can be proven to, or agreed with the others, based on the same consistent logical principles. "What's good for me, no-no for you" couldn't, very obviously. It can only exist based on and while the force is applied. There you go, "grab and hold". Don't seek law, morality or justice where they cannot exist, in principle.

Edited June 7, 2009 by myata

[jbg]

Don't seek law, morality or justice where they cannot exist, in principle.

I don't seek the law, morality or justice of the grave.

[myata]

Yes and somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas and others likewise would gladly claim the same rationale for their own. Looks like for once in a very rare while you'd be all in a full and complete agreement. No principles, law or justice, only my right against yours. The winner takes all. That's like the way this planet has been since times primordial (i.e. at least 5,000 years). Why waste any further words, where they can't, and won't really add anything, not one single bit of information?