Sunday, November 18, 2012

This may be offensive to many of my friends. Sorry for that. Freedom of speech is exercised here; bear with it.
Perpetual violence is what the right-wing politicians at both sides need to stay in power and stay popular. The right-wing hawkish politicians, like any other politicians, need to be relevant to be revered. They are most relevant at times of conflict. Then the right-wing, being generally
 militaristic, can show that they matter by bringing out their rockets, showing their prowess, all in the name of 'defense of our people'.
Some might then say, "It's the religion." I have read both the Bible and Quran thoroughly, and well-people pointing out that religion might be at fault is pretty justified; some verses in both books justify violence in the name of God, for the defense of the name of God, sanction holy wars and total hatred towards the enemies. And plus Abrahamic faiths all have some sort of eschatological beliefs (Messiah, Second Coming, Antichrist, Four Horsemen, Final War) and that doesn't help; the Messiah that everyone-Jews, Christians, Muslims-believes, needs a very destructive war in the Middle East as a prerequisite for him to manifest; of course religious Jews would love the Messiah to redeem his people, the religious Christians would be eager to witness the Second Coming of Jesus, and religious Muslims would love the Imam Mahdi to appear; what wouldn't the believers give to witness the human representation of God's Truth, the One True God's ultimate Sign? Armageddon is a highly self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the reason I really wish it isn't true.
But maybe it isn't the religion, it is just the people fighting over the (obviously worldly) residential, economic and political rights over the Holy Land, which is not any different from any other effing land, except that it is the land of the Prophets of God, and both sides say they are equally native to the land, and of course they both would want to keep the Land of the Prophets pure-from the other side's influence, of course.
Or maybe it is that scores have to be settled. The famous 'one eye for an eye' rule, which is both Biblical and Quranic. Jews killed Arabs, Arabs killed Jews; Jews chased out from both Europe and Arabic countries, Arabs chased out of Israeli territories; As long as scores aren't settled, there'd be no peace.
Or maybe it is the nationalist aspiration of both sides; Greater Israel versus pan-Arabic caliphate, and both require the whole Holy Land under its control. And Israel have to be a Jewish state; Palestine have to be a Muslim state; Zionists wouldn't want Jews to be a minority again, as minorities are always at risk of discrimination, and Muslims being the historically dominant one, would not trust the Jews to be the dominant ruler.
It's so pathetic, it's so laughable. And yet it's so sad, no one would laugh. People are killed. Doesn't matter which side suffered more casualties; for every soul killed, the path to peace becomes harder.
Or maybe the politicians, they don't want peace; or they define peace not as two nations living side by side harmoniously, but as one nation covering the whole Holy Land, and another nation can go fly anywhere, for they couldn't care less.
Is there any compromise possible? If one follows either holy scriptures literally, it seems not possible. Bible said that the enemies of sons of David should be wiped out and not be made peace with; Quran said that Jews will be the Muslim's archenemy and should not be trusted. But there are lots of ways to read both the scriptures and perhaps one can pinpoint at the positiveness as a way to peace.
Compromise is made possible only when both sides recognize the fault within their own selves and not just pinpointing the fault totally at the other side. But maybe it is too late; maybe my voice won't matter. Maybe I'll even be chastised for being critical of religion or nationalism.

-In remembrance of Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, and their failed Oslo Accord-

No comments:

Post a Comment