Note- this is a comment I left on A Sofa in the Sky, here-
As usual, I am impressed by the articulation of your writing, something rare to be found in this age of 'sound-bites' and entertainment passing for information. Even though I am not totally in agreement with what you are saying, at least I can see what you are saying without feeling I'm being 'lead somewhere' by it.
What you say regarding red herrings has some truth- in these political battles, even though I personally am morally opposed to the use of violence, the presence of violence shouldn't blind us to underlying facts, by it's shock factor. Of course violence is shocking- but it has been around as long as people. The question is whether the situation justifies it or not, whether it is morally defensible violence, or simply indefensible.
I'll admit, even though I can see that it has grown though factors such as Western neglect/self-centeredness and, conversely, the desire of their clerical class to keep a privileged position in a secularising world, I do feel threatened by Islamic extremism. When I say, 'I', I mean not just myself, but also all those I care for, especially minorities such as the Christians and Baha'is in the middle East, or people who just want a peaceful life.
To an extent this leads me to a sympathetic position with those opposing such people, wherever they are- they are 'me', if you like. I suppose I am in this sense an internationalist, though I can't pretend to sympathise with everyone.
It seems to me that we are all built this way, with our sympathies. What is important is that we are not led to follow someone's personal agenda by this. The fact that some things prick our consciences should not lead us to have the 'wool' pulled over our eyes by those who have more hate of their enemies than a desire to build a stable reconciliation with them.
In this case, the enemies must be those who really don't wish for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but instead wish for the dominating victory of one or the other. I hate to say it, but the so-called 'two-state solution' could even institutionalise the hatred (actually a relatively young one, if you start looking at the events from 1948 onwards instead of from BC 1948 onwards), if there are not enough trade and cultural links.
So let's build a multi-state, secular, Middle-Eastern solution, where people relate without their religion being the dominant factor. They can even embrace one another's religions, it just won't divide them anymore. If people wonder how this could happen, just look at all the Western countries where this has long been the case.
How can we build such a thing? The same way we sustain or influence anything else- by doing our part, however small. We just have to make sure to align ourselves with those who truly care about the future and about precious human rights. To do this we need very clear thinking people, who actually have the courage to care. Then, ultimately we will find that it isn't the violent people who make history. It's the people who know how to wield a pen.
3 comments:
Starfire, your comment made me reflect on what I had written. I think some of what you object to -- though you did not say so -- was how I characterized my own opposition to Israeli occupation. I said, this opposition is no touchy-feely, New Age-y type of thing, no every life is sacred kind of thing, etc etc.
Why did I use those terms? In fact I do feel every life is sacred. In fact I do respect much of what the "New Age" movement (whatever it is) attempts to do.
Here is the reason, I think: I am tired of peace and human rights activists being shoved out off the mainstream by innuendo and cheap labels, particularly ones which "feminize" ideals like peace and justice as expressions of weakness, cowardice, lack of touch with reality.
My aim was correct, I think: to oppose this type of characterization. I see more and more that the goal of peace is far braver and more excruciating than the urge for war. And yet -- why did I perpetuate the coincidence of "the feminine" with "the weak and deluded"? In my frustration with the tactics of the Right, I simply took their innuendos and threw them, symbolically, in their face.
But your comment -- with its veiled critique -- made me pause. I had written the piece, "Screaming Bloody Murder," to critique Likudnik Zionists. But having it read by Starfire made me wonder if I was letting myself be pulled too much into their implicit logic of Male=force=strength=confrontation and Woman=weakness. So -- thanks for that, Starfire! It is important to have things read from different directions, because we position ourselves as writers in different ways depending on who we might think will be reading. Next time I write a polemic against the right, I should be braver to stand up for a totally alternative way of being and thinking. Sure, throwing back the innuendo that smeared one is useful, and needed, it needs to be transformed into something deeper.
As for your other points. Who are Islamist extremists? I am not sure they have a single identity. In every country they fight different political battles, many completely mundane: new sewers, new schools. I can understand you disliking extremist religious discourse, and I can agree with this -- including, of course, the extremist, exclusivist discourse of Buddhists, Christians, Jews, as well. But I think it is more important, not to fear a particular group (one which is only a group in our own nervous mind), but to analyze what has allowed such groups to spread. And, uniformly, the answer -- with differences by country of course -- is lack of democracy, repression, colonial occupation. If some who fight these conditions use the banner of Islam, why ought we to fear them? Can we not oppose both those unjust conditions we oppose and oppose those parts of their discourse we find objectionable? Can we not condemn both the radicals who took over Islamabad's Red Mosque and the brutal tactics that ended in their deaths?
All people deserve equal rights to life and health. As long as this principle is violated -- and it is, freely -- radical religious groups will proliferate. They need to be opposed, but what angers them must also be recognized as real and legitimate grievances.
For example: in India, the Hindutva movement is a radical Hindu movement which feeds on dispossession. I oppose their exclusivist attempt to turn India into a religiously exclusive state. But how can I not ignore that they are growing because normal politics has failed to address the brutal injustices of life in that country?
In short: I am more concerned at the roots of radicalism than at radicalism itself. Anger is the last right of the dispossessed, and if it is often misdirected -- well, the best we can do is oppose their excesses in the best ways we can, peacefully, while recognizing their core of real grievances.
So -- while I decry the hooliganism of some members of Hamas in Gaza, I do not think that they are somehow worse than Fatah simply because they are "Islamist". On the contrary: while Fatah are thugs who had sold out to the US and Israel, Hamas is an independent thug. Which means they are fighting with the common people against the occupation. They are not fighting in the best way, I think. But their right to fight I cannot deny. Ultimately, if I were in that prison camp, would I be acting better than them? I doubt it. And I don't know if anyone can really make such a claim with confidence.
can see your point- to not judge those caught up in this fearful situation and to reflect back a freezing propaganda that tells us not to care. But, like you said, the temptation is to humanise an inhumane approach that comes from the downtrodden. Ghandi and Martin Luther king showed quite clearly just how much can be achieved through peaceful, loving methods and I can’t approve of anything less. As the feminine spirit returns in strength, the ‘real politique’ approach to the world appears increasingly hollow, increasingly confused. The masculine, with its search for clarity and finality, must always be balanced by the comforting, soothing, compassionate feminine. This leads to balanced, harmonious action, in small particulars as much as in the greater spheres.
Probably my sympathy is with the new-age type of perspective, though I maintain that the usual rational standards still have their place and that the return of the feminine is to balance, not to supplant, the masculine. In this we can all find our true natures and be freed from following the patterns others around us are often tragically trapped in.
Speaking from the divine center I am loath to speak about a subject like politics, in which so much can be seen as a mere perspective, but at the same time I can’t just ignore the suffering that vexes this world. The best method I can come up with is to treat people with reason and love and to abstain from any movements that seek a less ‘humane’ approach. We need to understand where people are coming from and help them to understand each other. Establishing peace may take longer than the flurries of war. But it is the only acceptable end result, the only seal on the swaying emotions of history that can last.
Having said all this, ‘blessed are the peacemakers’- you are right to point out the position of moral strength such people can have (so long as they are even-handed, authentic). The various types of Islamic extremists do get fired up by legitimate grievances, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on the idea that by making agreements with other people they are ‘selling out’. I hope we can reach a point at which politicised Islam comes to an end. In my view, it causes more problems than it solves. I do differentiate between this and Islamic Fundamentalism, which can use peaceful methods just to concentrate on their personal religion. So basically, I do, unreservedly condemn religious extremism, of whatever religion (the Islamisist flavour of this seems to be more prevalent right now, though). They may seduce innocents to their ranks, improving conditions may be the best thing, but they are like any extremists in history- part of the problem, not part of the cure.
"By their fruits you shall know them".
All this makes me think that the best solution is that offered after inner-city riots and the like- to present new public works projects and avenues for the young to express their energies creatively. I wonder if this is possible in a place like Pakistan, or whether the situation is so unimaginably different that such efforts just wouldn't be understood.
This is the problem with political solutions and why I gravitate to the spiritual, going through God's grace. For with the spiritual a good intention will always produce good fruits, even if they be merely a comforting feeling. But in politics, they can often be misunderstood and taken as an insult that perpetuates further conflicts.
My hope is for impossible changes coming through prayer, as any possible changes are either insufficient or... impossible!
Post a Comment