What can we do about Gaza?
It is so simple. Collective punishment is ineffectual and a violation of human rights according to the Geneva Conventions. It is dehumanizing and awful and creates a humanitarian crisis to cut off electricity to the Gaza strip, and the EU and UN have issued statements against Israel’s decision to do so. Temporary “lifting” of these inhumane measures (as reported by Reuters today) are not to be applauded. Collective punishment of this sort has no justification.
Joint Palestinian and Israeli groups are speaking out against it. So what can we do?
MidEast Youth can change the colors of the site to grey and black or add a black banner in solidarity with people in Gaza who have no reliable electricity to say, “as long as Gaza is dark, so are we” until Olmert’s government vows not to use Israel’s provision of electricity to Gaza as a “dangling carrot.” We can express outrage to our own respective governments. And we can work with an organization like Avaaz to hold a virtual “candlelight vigil” and send in pictures of ourselves (identifiable or not) with candles to be aggregated, with a note about where the candle has been lit.
(I apologize for not writing something sooner, but I have just regained internet access after a 4-day absence.)
Join the Conversation
I agree with you, Miriam, that collective punishment is wrong. But do you think that Hamas is also imposing a form of collective punishment on its people and on Israelis by continuing the barrage of missle launches at Israel, and provoking Israeli officials to retaliate with collective punishments of their own? Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know. But is this not a quid pro quo situation? And how do we break this vicious cycle?
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but doesn’t Gaza get 70% of its electricity directly from Israel, and there’s been no interruption in that?
Miriam, although I applaud your desire to alleviate the suffering of the people of Gaza, I completely disagree with this technique for several reasons, not the least of which is because it is merely jumping the same, tired, overly-politicized bandwagon, resulting in no change while satisfying the agendas of other regional powers. Blaming Israel, and making its government 100% responsible for the situation, has never worked and isn’t going to since there are multiple players, each of which holds its own share of influence over the lives of the people of Gaza.
A multi-layered approach is what is needed.
And then there is this:
Obviously there is a lot of political manipulation going on regardless of what anyone may believe. In addition, there have been hundreds of rockets that have landed in Israeli civilian areas … how come Hamas has the money and ability to make weapons but not to feed their people or supply them with medicine? They must be getting the weapons from somewhere. And I’m sure we can agree they don’t come from people who care about Gazans. The time has come to address the root cause of what is going on rather than put bandaids on it.
The people of Gaza have been systemically disenfranchised by regional players specifically for political purposes, whether between Israel and Arabs, or Hamas and Fatah, or the USA and Iran, or whomever. There is a concerted effort to use Gaza, its people, and their suffering, as political tools to forward the agendas of more powerful international players.
Two things are clear: 1) The people of Gaza are in a bad situation and need a clear pathway forward to alleviate their suffering and to bring them hope for their future; and 2) Politicizing the methods in which Gaza gets the assistance they need is not going to work any better than it ever has for … oh … how long now?
I don’t think the Israeli govt. should be let off the hook for what they are doing. However, rather than merely hold only one party responsible, we need integrated strategies that focus on a general sense of inclusiveness; and understand the nuances of what is going on there, and the multiple players involved. Well-meaning people who are looking to “take care” of Gazans aren’t doing them any favors in the long run without providing them with the tools, resources, and diverse partnerships to move forward on their own. So far, nobody has shown any interest in building Palestinian society — not the PLO, not Hamas, not Israel, not the Arab League, not the OIC, not Iran, not the multitude militant groups of all different stripes, and not the international community at large. And they all have their own reasons for it.
But, if we’re really concerned with healing the situation once and for all, Mideast Youth would better focus its efforts fostering community and build society instead of conducting an online candlelit vigil.
I wish I could be on the border of Israel and Gaza, with many many activists, yryint to create a bridge between the two people. It some times might sound surreal because of all the frsh wounds, the wounds that seem will never heal enough because before one is healing the other opens up. I denounce all the violence but when I imagine myself living in negev or sderot, or when I imagine myself living in Gaza I can understand how a civilian would feel toward the other when there are clashes refreshing on a daily basis.
I wish I could come up with a magical resolution, but it is more than a wish to do any thing on my part to reduce any thing that would harm people of the region, specially there, where things are really critical and people are affected. I wish countries from all over the region would come together selflessly to help for a good way to stop the clash. I remember the 8 years war of Iran and Iraq. It seems endless, an endless stroy but suddenly it stopped. I cannot even remember how it started and how it finished. But the good news is it did finish, it happened and it happened through accepting the resolutions of the United Nations.
My best wishes for the good people of our Middle East, People of Israel , People of Gaza, people of West bank, People of Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Omman, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, all, all the countries of our beautiful region.
when the kill ratio is compared.. it is heavily on the Israeli side… they kill like everyday.. while Hamas thinks tht somehow its going gr8 favor by terrorizing the Settlers.. which results of more killings
Of course missiles in Sderot are also a violation of human rights, because they are targeting civilians. Any human rights group will tell you this. But there are times when saying “both sides are suffering” obscures the power dynamic. And we are talking about civilians. Often when faced with trying to sort through the morality of a situation I think about the average 8 year old on each side. Clearly, both actions are wrong and neither justifies the other.
Yes, Two Cents, Gaza gets a majority of its electricity from Israel. Because why? That is what happens when you become an occupier, you become an integral and inseparable part of the infrastructure of the occupied territory and population. One of many reasons Israel’s decision to unilaterally withdraw and seal off Gaza could have been predicted to lead to political instability, increased reliance on alternative providers of services (like Hamas, the UN, etc) and an economy steadily declining into chaos.
Let me be clear. I am not making it up that collective punishment is unjust. Israelis are demonstrating and speaking out against the actions of their own government. Are they getting media coverage? Of course not. Hopefully our bloggers and friends in the region can help us get the word out by telling their stories, if not through a candlelight vigil (which, I admit, is a bit maudlin).
Lastly, on the women shot at by Egyptian police for trying to break through the border: I haven’t had a chance to research the story fully enough to have an opinion, but at a cursory glance the women of Gaza seem very willing to try and use their gender in nonviolent action, even putting themselves at risk, and this is something laudable we’ve seen on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I think that Peaceful Vanguard has a point when he says that the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, are begin used for political reasons by the powers in the region. God forbid that anyone should think of the welfare of the people themselves. Let’s just use the people to make a point.
If you really want to help people in Gaza, you would do something like this:
1. Negotiate a 50 year hudna, or truce, with Hamas. That’s about all they’ll agree to at this point. They’ll probably build up their armaments, but that may be a risk worth taking.
2. Start investing big time in Gaza. Create jobs wherever you can.
3. Make sure that all the deals involve Israelis to the extent possible. By tying the two economies together, people will have no choice but to get along if they want to continue raking in the profits.
4. As profits increase, start investing in infractructure: roads, utilities, sanitation facilities, schools, housing, etc.
5. Create a resort area on the Gaza coast. Build some fancy hotels their to attract business people and tourists. The Gaza coast has as much potential as the Israeli coast.
6. As economic activity picks up, talk to people with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Do whatever you can to break the ideological strangle hold that Hamas has on the people.
7. Do what you can to inspire people with a sense of hope for the future.
8. Sustain the hope with some heavy duty public diplomacy: empower women by investing in them and promoting their rights, sponsor student and cultural exchanges, post peace corp volunteers, etc.
If you do this, gradually Hamas will have no choice but to buy in. The extremists will not be able to capture the public imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. We have to start creating facts on the ground which speak louder than words.
Okay, so Israel has not “cut off electricity to the Gaza strip.” Does blockading an enemy nation during wartime count as collective punishment?
UN had been supposed to work as the Common Sense of World and UN (resolutions) were to be the ultimate source of action. but unfortunately US undermined this international institution in many ways, one of them (ab)using its veto power in favor of one side of Mideast conflict, and the other one udermining the reputation of once-our-last-hope UN in Iraq invasion.
As long as US takes a selective approach to implementing UN resolutions, the UN’s existence might be more dangerous than its non-existence, not only for this situation kills the hope of a better world ruled by a Global Common Sense in wronged people, but also for it will intensify the conflicts all around the world.
Implementing all the decisions of UN could make a difference. For example, if world powers had pressured Israel to evacuate Lebanon following several UNSC Resolutions, Lebanese Hizbollah might never have come into existence and such disasterous follow-ups like 33-days-war would never happen. more follow-ups coming, just wait and see.
UN resolutions should be: Trusted, Respected, Implemented and Enforced; not only just in the case of Iran. and any action in conflict with decisions of this international institution (Iraq war and else) MUST be prevented.
Would that include the UN’s 1948 decisions concerning the borders of Israel? It seems to me that several nations took “action in conflict with decisions of this international institution” on that issue.
MyTwoCents:
The very essence of UN is somehow based on deploying Global Power to limit the stronger party of a conflict and protect the weaker party of the same conflict in order to reach an agreement. this fundamental function could be fulfilled if and only if UN keeps a neutral position/trend (though, I think, ‘neutrality’ is somehow vague here and needs to be clarified).
But, UN is proved vulnerable in the presence of superpowers’ meddlings. The covert and overt pressures of powers, most importantly US, might result (and indeed have resulted) in biased decisions and lead the world from bad to worse. such a trend might be called exploitation of UN.
In the case of mideast conflict, this bias in UN decisions has followed a pattern which might be generally characterized as being in favor of Israel. MOreover, direct interventions of US in addition to its continuous support helped Israel get stronger step by step.
as Israel grows stronger, it obviously gathers/claims more scores in the conflict.
and that leads to a more biased decision, doing a greater favor to Israel.
Here, UN fails to settle down the problem, because though its fundamental function was to limit the stronger, in this case it helps the stronger due to the biased decisions superpowers require it to take.
what happend in 1948 and afterwards followed a simple trend: UN decisions supports the stronger, the weaker outbursts, the weaker gets cracked down, the weaker loses more power, and again.
what makes the situation even worse is the fact that Israel, due to the fact of holding the upper hand in the region, is not eager to give up on any potential benefit. it, I think, pretends to be the peace-lover one, but at the very last moment, asks for more. if the more is given, it asks for just a little more, and so on.
This loop should be stopped somewhere. dont you agree?
Miriam,
Gaza is Egyptian territory. Egyptian control of the Gaza Strip was confirmed by the 1949 Armistice Agreements. So why doesn’t Egypt deal with Gaza? Of course, it is always easier to blame someone else.
Israel is really stupid to provide them gasoline and electricity.
Sophist,
Do you think each rocket that is being fired from within the borders of Gaza into Sedrot or Negev is planned and financed by 1 and a half million civilians? Do you think people there wish that to happen? We imagine no one is in peace with Israel there in Gaza, do you think the rockeing from Gaza is wanted by people there? with all the consequences? I think no one can talk on bahalf of the people of Gaza, unless he or she is living there and under the same people as authorities. I am sure if there is a tendency for flexibility and a wish to live a nromal life by people, it is well dismissed by the events and the rocketing and the rataliations. If Israel is providing for Gaza, she does so for the civilians not the militants.
Elinor,
you are right. They are not doing it for the militants but for the normal people. It is just so contrary to western thought – to provide electricity and gasoline to an enemy territory. The American way would be to carpet bomb the whole mess and make a peace treaty with those still standing afterwards.
Sophist,
America could do that some 50 years back with a countryy on the other side of the oceans, Middle East is very small, we cannot deal with our problems even if we tried to implement methods as those of America’s in this little region with its overflowing population. Measures of such would affect the region for a very long while. The problems of Israel and Palestinians is always in the spotlight, but durung the war of Iran and Iraq, I guess our war was a full-scale war and perhaps a million or more were killed from the both countries, you cannot even compare the scope of affeted people and the ranged of casualities to that of Israel- Palestine conflict.
What I hope it is all finish, as our meaningless war finished. We have too much to share in the region, instead of pushing one another to the extreme dear.
Pingback: The Suffocation of Gaza : The Sudanese Thinker
So, Israel is condemned when the blockade reduces Gaza’s electricty by 30%, but not commended for directly providing 70% ?
So, Israel is condemned for violating UN resolutions, but violations by her neighboring nations are ignored?
Mohammad, one the one hand you say UN resolutions should be “Trusted, Respected, Implemented and Enforced,” but on the other hand you say they make “biased decisions and lead the world from bad to worse.”
Or, one could just dynamite the border fence with Egypt and go shopping! Now there’s a potential for a regular celebration and a great spot for a mall! “Al-Quds Shoparama! Located a safe but convienent distance from the regularly detonated border! Drop in daycare facilities with Fieval the Mouse for the kiddies! All currency and promisory aid notes accepted! (no UN resolutions or personal cheques) And remember, if it’s weapons your buying, the secret tunnels you should be trying!”
Two cents,
I am not very much by who is condemned in the region and who is not and for what, it is such a chaos all over the place that is is just good enough to survive for all the parties, for now I am happy that Gazans got to get out of the stip and do some shopping, I am happy no violence was involved, and I see that Israel is not having a bad reaction and neighter egyptians. This is so nice. See how things could be different if people lived their lives and visited both countries and had normal interactions people have. The onyl thing that could make all of these good things ugly is continuation of rockets and then continuation of punishing the one who did that, then a third person being harmed and the same story that we hear over and over. Things could be so different. People in the region could be so positively affecting one another’s lives. I really demand an end to the conflict, Now !
The conflict could be ended, Elinor, and all nations in the region could prosper from a peace and the resulting economic prosperity. The trouble is that there are those in leadership positions who see it as in their best interest to keep the conflict going. These are people who place their ideological points of view above the needs of their people. When people place more importance on what they want to believe, than on what should be done to help people, then the result is the devastation we see in places like Gaza. It is time to put poeple first.
This is all because of Israel, some group who came to middle east and occupied Palestine and started to kill and take lands from poor peoples. Its so funny when hearing some dudes trying to explain the conflict as a simple one and like they know exactly whats going on. Lets see what USA or other country will do if some one occupied their lands and started to open fire on Childrens and old peoples and building a wall. A wall which violates all kind of human rights http://www.vtjp.org/background/Separation_Wall_Report.htm
As usual, they always find excuses for what they do as some will do in response to this comment. To those who will do, I will say maybe you are looking only at one channel so you need to look at other as well so you can see the bigger picture.
One more thing, the idea to open the ways between Isreal and arab countries will never be accepted. I wish to see the downfall of this goverment…i wish….i wish
Sigh…
Well, flippant comments aside, Ahmed’s post is telling in it’s last statement. There is suffering and a desire for peace by people on both sides, but, really, is it what motivates them? Although the Palestinians probably do want peace, Hamas is their elected government, chosen by a majority through transparent and well attended elections. Although there were factors such as integrity and social stability involved, the implication is that their message of endless war with Israel was also attractive. On the Israeli side, the continuing weakness of more moderate parties in the coalition government is allowing the more extremist espressions of settlement, continued land grabs as the Wall snakes it’s way across the countryside, and a hardening attitude towards their neighbors. The thing is, is that the messages for peace by those who could bring it about is suspect, labeled as irrelevant or compromised, but the messages of hate and confrontation are rock solid and strong. It is those broadcasts by BOTH sides that have to be reformed on the former and eliminated on the latter.
Let’s be quite clear here:
Israel has a nuclear armed military. That military has some of the most extreme political ideologies of that nation in its ranks. Israel is quite aware that the bulk of its population will be slaughtered, and the survivors made to flee should its government fall to the militant forces that threaten it. So, unless the final war with Israel achieves biblical (or Quranical) levels of improbability, Israels fall will be a nuclear holocaust for Palestine, south Lebanon, Syria and a good part of Iran, with the fallout poisoning the entire Arabian peninsula, the Mediterranean, and parts of North Africa for generations.
I wish that peaceful reform takes place.
I ardently hope that Israel NEVER falls militarily.
Ahmed, as you can imagine, I take issue with most of what you have to say. And in fact, what you have to say is at the heart of why there is no peace.
You refer to Israel as “some group who came to the Middle East and occupied Palestine and started to kill and take lands from poor people.” Not quite. Jews had a presence in that area for about 3000 years. True, many were kicked out for some 2000 years, but there were always Jews there, in body and spirit. Also, before the state of Israel was founded, a great deal of the land was purchased from absentee Arab land owners. Also, Jews did not come in to kill. They came in to live, in the wake of the Holocaust, where they saw enough death perpetrated against them.
The wall is not a pretty sight, but was constructed to minimize acts of terror, which it has done.
But most telling is your last statement that peace is not possible between Israel and her Arab neighbors, and that the only solution you see is the destruction of Israel. Therein lies the problem. It is precisely that wish, which is harbored by a good number of Palestinians, which is at the root of extremism on both sides. If you want to destroy Israel, as Eric points out, Israel will do whatever it can to survive, because Jews have already had a good taste of the alternative.
How about using a little more imagination and see if destruction is really the only way out of this. How about getting over ourselves, and beyond out differences, and finding a way to come together, if for nothing else, than for the sake of our children.
As proof that Jews are not killers, just look at the 20% of Israel that is Arab, who enjoy a higher standard of living than most Arabs living in the Arab world. Why were they not killed, if Jews were out to kill Arabs?
Ahmed,
Migrations have always made a significant change in the lands and states and the way coutnries are run and ruled and the oens who stay and the ones who leave and the ones who remain to live afterwards. Empires fall and the the country that remains is disintergrated and then redefined as new litte countries, the case of our region is not excluded from all other examples, and now after all these years we need to recognize all the people who are there, in the region, their wants and their needs, their settlement, their countries and their entity. We cannot deny the turn of history and we have to compensate for those who had been affected in a negative way, but Ahmed, Palestinians and Israelis continue living on the same land, and they will find a way to live in peace and harmony. That will apply to the rest of region, we cannot afford to live in a chaos for long, we need peace, more than any where else in the world and we deserve it.
Nissim,
I really think the time for ruling through implementing beliefs, this is the end of the era, it is not going to last for long, because the people who use religions as a tool to play ugly games, they reflect a very distorted image of religions that will gradually anger the believers.
Elinor, I agree with you that religious beliefs are being used to perpetrate acts which are very much against the teachings of the religion. The religion says “Don’t committ suicide.” The extremist says “It is not suicide if it is martyrdom.” The religion says “Don’t kill the innocent.” The extremist says “There are no innocent among the infidels or non-believers.”
At every turn, the extremists manipulates religion for his own political purposes.
So what is the answer, Elinor? We have no choice but to look at our beliefs, and to start believing in what makes sense. It is not enought to believe what you want to believe. If you want to bring order to this world, you have to begin making sense of your beliefs. That has been the case since the beginning of time. But now things are coming to a head. We either make sense of our beliefs, or we’re going down.
I hope you are right that false belief is coming to an end. But I’m afraid that it will not happen by itself. We will have to do what it takes to make it so.
In the case of Hamas, my impression was that their followers were more motivated by politics than religion (with the exception of suicide bombers, who have to be pretty fanatic).
What do you think? Of the Gazans who really do support Hamas, how many do it for religious reasons and how many just to fight Israel?
Two Cents, in the case of Hamas, I’m not sure you can separate religion from politics. That’s precisely the point. They have elevated the hatred of Israel into the religious sphere. And by mixing religion with politics in this way, they are able to consolidate even more support. Gazans who were not particularly religious before, can now find religious belief in their opposition to Israel. And those that were religious to begin with, are able to channel their religious fervor toward the political.
In short, mixing religion and politics, as Hamas does, brings a measure of intensity to both. If my politics is bestowed God’s grace, why should I doubt what I aim to accomplish? And if my relious belief is backed up by the power of the state, how easy then to continue believing in what I want to believe.
The trouble, however, is that the concoction of politics and religion has a tendency to taint both. Religion, which aspires to the ethereal, should not be corrupted by the mundane. And politics, which seeks to broker the sharing of power, should not pretend that it also controls the power of God. The separation of church and state is right on point in this regard.
Nissim,
That is why some people fall from the categoryof religion into that of spiritual movements extracted from the essence of the religions. http://www.asknoah.com is where noahides share a vision, and a very general outline of practice.
Mytwocents,
We cannot talk on behalf of Gazans, they had two choices in electing a party to voite for in the year they voted for hamas, one was fatah and the other was Hamas. So if people of Gaza would vote for a party wich was more affiliated to gaza than the west bank, they would vote for them. I cannot call the results of a democratic ellections, democraticly significant in a non-democratic environment. That is what happens in Iran too. The rulers claim they had been selected via very democratic methods, and outside world tells us : You voted for this guy, for that guy, did I ? did we? who did? what were the choices? democracy in a non-democratic environment is like a catwalk in a dog society, almost non-existant.
Parties change their attitude any way, Hamas might change as well, and adopt a bit more lenient disposition, considering the welfare and future of the people it claims to be consened with. Change is inevitable.
Hello, Elinor,
I’m not assuming Hamas enjoys majority support of the people, both for the reasons you mention and because they seized at gunpoint for more official power than they were elected to.
How much change could we expect from Hamas? The answer is probably “not enough.” For them to change enough to be willing to live in peace with Israel they’d have to abandon their original reason for existing: can anyone see them changing that much?
They would change, Two Cents, if they came to conclusion that it was in their best interest to change. For example, if their own people grabbed them by the neck and said, “We want change or else,” then they would change.
The question becomes, therefore, what would make their own people do that? And the answer is not all that complicated. If people on the street could somehow become empowered with a vision of hope for the future, with a job waiting for them, and with an ideological framework that made more sense, then they would do whatever it took to make sure that their “elected” leadership does nothing to hold them back from a better life.
Elinor, I think I understand what you mean by a “spiritual movement” as opposed to religion. You seek a sense of universality with respect to your beliefs.
I checked the website out and read the 7 commandments. They do make sense, but they are not really complete, are they. For example, you are not supposed to murder someone, but you are not supposed to injure him as well. Right?
It is true to say that for the most part, all religions share a similar set of rules with respect to ethical conduct. Why is that? Because these rules make sense. That’s why. In other words, these rules logically enable people to live with one another so as to promote the general welfare of the community. You don’t kill me, and I don’t kill you, and we both live on, thank you very much.
Instead of focusing on 7 specific commandments, I focus of 3 principles, which I think cover the entire gamut with respect to how we should deal with one another: The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good. Treat each other well by investing in one another. Think straight by using common sense as your ideology. And maximize justice by organizing yourselves around a Vision of Hope.
For me, Elinor, that is the way to universalize our beliefs, by using a framework for rational thought that knows no boundaries. This approach will transcend the boundaries that keep people divided from one another, and will do as you say, “Distill the essence of religion and make it accessible to the whole of mankind.”
Nissim,
About not killing, I had many questions which I asked about, if you are a civilan of a country and the country is protecting your rights and your security is all what the country has taken charge of, so if you are required to go to army for some yeas of service, or take part in the war as a compulsary program of a country, then you are bound to do that, because the country is taking care of you and your rights, but a noahide is encouraged not to put his /her life or the life of others into danger and it is best to avoid that if there is a possiblility.
Your three golden rules do not contradict my 7 laws
By the way, common sense differs from one like-minded society to the other. Then each community will have diffeent views. Yes Nissim, as you mentioned, through the movement/religion of the followers of Noah, one is not required to abandon the traditions of his .her locality and community as long as it does not contradict the 7 laws.
I would like to know more about the greatest good as a principle. How you define the greatest good Nissim?
I think I see where we differ, Nissim. I think the people on the street are already aware that their leadership does “hold them back from a better life.”
I do not think the problem is that the people need to be empowered with a vision of hope before they grab Hamas “by the neck and say, “We want change or else,” ”
I think the problem is that the people don’t get to give “do it or else” threats to the authorities.
Two Cents, maybe the people are “aware,” but they are certainly not “empowered.”
As you well know, Hamas was elected by the people. It is possible that they were elected because they were the lesser of two evils. But they were elected nonetheless. And now, many people are becoming aware, as you suggest, that they are being held back from a better life by their leaders.
However, knowing something, and being empowered to do something about it, are two different things.
My contention is that the West is well advised to do what it can to begin creating realities on the ground which make it clear to the people that taking the risk for change is worth it. If people become empowered with a vision of hope, they will be in the best position to force needed change, even against the worst extremists.
When the West fights the extremists head on, then their power grows because they become martyrs in the eyes of the people. Martyrdom sells well when there is nothing else on the table. But when the people decide to take on the extremists because they don’t want to be held back from a better life, then that’s a different story, and my impression is that even the extremists will have no choice but to yield to that kind of pressure.
The extremists need the people to buy into their ideological point of view. But the extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. The extremists will then feel the loneliness of being out of step with the will of the people. In the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred.
Elinor, it may seem that different communities have different versions of common sense. But actually, when it come to the big issues, there is surprisingly a lot we share in common.
Common sense principles like The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good, are to be found in almost every religion and every society on earth, in one form or another. Why is that? For the same reason that two plus two equals four. We don’t question mathematical truths because we use out logic, and they make sense to us. In the same way, there are priciples which are so self-evident that they make sense to almost all people around the world. A mother, for example, gives love and sustenance to her baby. This is universal, and is not subject to a lot of interpretation.
If we focus on the principles we share in common, instead of the trivialities which divide us, we will come up with a common language, a common frame of reference, which will help us work together to make for ourselves a better life, to keep the peace, and to solve some of the big ticket global problems which lie at our doorstep.
To answer your question, Jeremy Bentham is known for having come up with the theory of Utilitarianism. The basic idea, which again is plain old common sense, is that as a society, we should make decisions which bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. I call this The Greatest Good.
So in a world of limited resources, and where the population is growing, and where people are coming to depend on one another economically more and more, we have no choice but to reconfigure some of our priorities, and to make it possible for everyone on earth to have a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Only then will we be able to neutralize extremism and keep the peace. And only then will we give people the incentive to work together to solve the problems which threaten us all.
Nissim,
With respect, I must disagree on some points.
I disagree with your assumption that the people of Gaza could grab Khaled Mashaal “by the neck” and tell him to stop impeding their progress to a better life. You speak as though Hamas is responsive to the will of the people, and I doubt that is the case.
I disagree with your assumption that the people of Gaza need to be motivated by the possibility of prosperity in order to pursue change. I suspect that the death and misery of the present situation already provides plenty of motivation. If the real and legitimate fear that their children won’t live to grow up doesn’t motivate someone, do you really think a good job and a low interest car loan will tip the scales?
“In the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred.” If you mean that all tyrants will eventually be overthrown then I agree, or at least I certainly hope you’re right. Of course, there have been cases where it took decades, even centuries for that to happen, and quite often the people found they’d simply traded one tyrant for another.
My two cents,
There is a will for life, see when Gazans were free to get out, I mean all of them, what they did? they went shopping. We need to live, before any thing else. Some one should show Gazans that there will definitely be a stablelife when they think of peace. At the same time I agree that it is not them choosing the ones who rule over them. they are one and a half million people, what about us, iranians 70 million people and we are not ableto choose the right person who would rule or take the power and act in accorance to our interests.
Nissim,
I am reading about Jeremy Bentham, an interesting person, and it is interesting to read about the rest of his views.
Nissim, I agree with the very common common sense , right, when it comes to the very basic issues, we have the same common sense. Now in the process of tending toward the greatest good,whom should be trusted to execute the activity on behalf of the ones who might be interested? Does the same common sense of people lead to trusting a signle person, or a single organization that they would invest in it and see the results? I am not sure if I have made my point…
As to the original question, “What can we do about Gaza?” here’s a crazy thought: give it to Egypt. I could even say give it back to Egypt.
Advantages: It gets Hamas out of power. It removes the issue of Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. It is a return of land captured in war. Egypt and Israel are at peace.
Drawbacks: Egypt would need to keep Hamas from continuing attacks on Israel, or the ’79 peace could be destroyed.
Two Cents, yes, a “low interest car loan” will bring world peace.
Well, maybe not quite. But it will certainly take more than “death and misery.” When all you have is violence and hopelessness then most people are unable to imagine anything else. They easily succumb to an ideological explanation that takes their dire situation and makes sense of it. “Yes, our lives are miserable, but we are in the middle of an existential struggle with the Zionist enemy. It’s all Israel’s fault.”
As I have said before, if a poor Arab looks at the table and only sees an ideology of hate, along with some charitable handouts, then that’s what he’s going to buy into, becuase that’s all there is. But if he looks at the table and sees a job, and an ideology which makes more sense, then now there’s a choice, and most Arabs will choose a life, and would fight those who would take that life away. The West is well advised to put that alternative on the table.
But look at what the West is doing, Two Cents. It talks obout freedom. But talk is cheap. And it fights to protect its strategic interests. But after a while people lose sight of what the fighting is for. It’s not enough to talk. And it’s not enought to fight. We need a vision that inspires the man on the street with a vision of hope, so that he would willingly carry the mantle of hope, and be willing to fight for its realization.
Let me give you a real example. Remember Al Zarqawi? He was
Al Qaeda’s main man in Iraq. He was quite a character, cutting people’s heads off and video taping the action. All of a sudden, he gets the bright idea to blow up Muslim weddings in Jordan, by blowing up 3 hotels there. Several weeks thereafter, his location is discosed to the Americans, who proceed to take him out with a missle.
Now I ask you, is there any relation between his decision to blow up Muslim weddings, and his being killed. I think there is. I think he stepped out of the pale of decency, and his own people turned against him. That’s what we have to do to the extremists in the Middle East. We have to position them as outside the pale, as outside the will of the people. And the only way to do that, to my mind, is to sell their people on a vision of hope, and thereby empower them for the fight that lies ahead.
So to answer your question, yes, maybe a good job and a low interest car loan, would be just enough to tip the balance in favor of peace, by giving people something worth fighting for, and through that fight, sercuring the peace.
Will it take several generations? Yes. But we have to start somewhere.
Best of luck to you, Nissim, and to anyone else who thinks people who throw political opponents off of rooftops can be grabbed by the neck and ordered around.
For the record, though, Al Zarqawi is proof of my argument, not yours. People didn’t turn on him because his death would mean more prosperity: they turned on him because his death would mean less violence and bloodshed. His betrayal was motivated not by the desire to gain something positive, but by the desire to end something negative.
Everyone who’s lost friends or family in the “collateral damage” of an Israeli response to a rocket attack ought to be motivated to stop the attacks. Everyone whose sick child is without medicine due to the embargo ought to be motivated to stop the attacks.
“…most Arabs will choose a life, and would fight those who would take that life away.” That doesn’t seem to be happening. Palestinians are dieing as a result of rocket attacks against Israel, but apparently stopping that and saving lives isn’t “something worth fighting for.”
Serious, what do you think of the Egypt idea?
Two Cents, the Egypt idea is a bit weak, almost as weak as my ideas. First of all, Israel is not in a position to give Gaza to anyone, because Israel does not own Gaza. It occupied it for a while, but that’s about it. Secondly, even if Gaza were part of Egypt, that doesn’t mean that Hamas would lose its influence, or its ability to wreak havoc. Also, the Jerusalem issue would not be solved because there is still the West Bank to worry about. And my guess is that Egypt would not be able to control Gaza in any humanitarian way, so as you suggest, the problem could carry over into a conflict between Israel and Egypt.
Now as to your disagreement with Selling a Vision of Hope, that’s why I use the word “selling.” You see, you have to “sell” the vision, not just talk about it. And as you can see with your own resonse, it’s not an easy sell.
I used the Zarqawi example to show what happens when a leader is out of step with the will of his own people. I know it’s not an exact fit here. What I meant to suggest is that the West could use a vision of Hope to win hearts and minds, and then Hamas could be portrayed as holding their people back from a better life. They will be out of step with the will of the people, just as Zarqawi was, and the people would then take action to assert their will, forcefully if necessary, in an effort to hold on to the better life that is on the table.
You are right to suggest that strong arm tactics are very effective in keeping people down. I agree. But there are examples in history when people are so inspired, that they are willing to take the risk of bringing about change. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. is one example. Ghandi’s move toward independence is another. The establishment of the state of Israel is another. The Cedar Revolution is another. I know that all these are very different from one another, and from the Palestinian issue. But the idea that you can inspire people with new ideological perspectives and new economic opportunities, is an idea that has withstood the test of time, and has worked under the right circumstances.
Frankly, Two Cents, I don’t think there’s an alternative, and considering what we stand to lose, I don’t see why we wouldn’t at least try to sell a vision of hope. It may work, and it may not, but considerting the alternative, what choice do we have but to try?
Elinor, you’re asking me how a Vision of Hope could be implemented. I’m not at that stage yet. My idea was to get the idea out there first, and then to implement. But you are right to suggest that we better think about implementation, because without that, we have nothing.
My best guess on implementation would go something like this:
1. We talk to one another about the idea.
2. Sooner or later we get the attention of people who have either the wealth or power to actually make something along these lines. A business man, for example, could decide to start an industrial zone, etc.
3. The project on the ground is used to generate widespread publicity and PR for the idea of Selling a Vision of Hope. A hotel, for example, is no longer just a hotel, but is a project that resonates with hope, and which says to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people choose to make it so.
4. If the project works well, it attract more wealthy businessmen in search of a legacy worth leaving. More projects get funded. More jobs get created. More of the environment gets projetected. People begin to imagine the possibility of hope.
5. The grass roots movement on the ground gets the attention of the politicos, and gets translated into foreign policy. An International Fund for Economic Development in the Middle East gets launched. More pojects get funded. Western and Middle Eastern eocnomies begin to get intertwined.
6. As economic realities on the ground begin to improve, people begin to imagine the possibility of peace, if for nothing else, because they want the profits to keep rolling in.
7. Excess profits are invested in infrastructure: roads, schools, hospitals, sewage factilites, utilities, etc.
8. Only after people begin to buy into a Vision of Hope do we even think about sitting at the peace table and cutting a deal for Palestine, and then for the entire Middle East, and the Muslim world.
Elinor, I’m not saying it necessarily has to go this way. But this is one scenario, to give you an idea. As you can see, many different people, with many different specialities would have to be involved, but that’s the beauty of it, that it would force us to work together toward a common goal. So business people, economists, builders, politicians, media people, diplomats, etc. would all play a part, but we would be bringing our resources together under one vision, and we would share a common vision for the future. Right now everyone is pulling in a different direction, and most of us are too tired to pull in any direction whatsoever. But with the right vision, everyone would begin pulling in the same direction, because people the world over yearn to embrace the possiblity of hope. And with hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.
Nissim,
It all sounds beautiful. Still my vision is lurred , but what I can visualize is a pretty combination of merging colors. I mean I like the vision. I like it when it is independent of the path the governments and regimes would like to draw and ask you to follow. It would be perfect if you and me could collaborate regardless of what your country and mine would demand, and the outcome would be realised as well, as much as to draw more to invest and trust as you mentioned. peace is inevitable any way…
I go for the vision of hope, with the hope that it finds its representatives in all the communities, even the one in a conflict, who would collaborate and make it come true. The howness of the idea is still blurred, but I think it is possible. Who will govern the whole process?
Hi to all
I read all what u wrote, and I really got sick of a lot of talking that will not ending this circle of haterate.
Lets read the following words and hope every one will come back with what he understood of THEM.
a man took his wife to the medic claiming that she is diff.
The medic asked him to make a test to her and discover if she is a diff or not. The test was to call her from 40 meters and ask her what she prepared for lunch. if she answered then no problem, if not then he has to get closer to 30 m then to 20m then to 10 m then very close to her.
The man went to home and did what the medic asked him to do , from 40m to 0 m. when he was too close to his wife she answered quietly: oh man for the 5th time I say i prepared chicken.
WHAT CAN U UNDERSTAND FROM THIS STORY?
Mowaffag
That was funny
I am the husband or the wife? you tell me
Something about a deaf guy and a chicken.
It’s a good story Mowaffaq. The husband thought his wife was deaf, but really it was he who was deaf.
I think you’re trying to say that sometimes, when we blame others, it is really we who are at fault. And it’s easy to blame others, but difficult to see what’s wrong with us.
I can agree with you on this. In fact, the first part of Selling a Vision of Hope is to come up with a new ideology, which I call An Ideology of Common Sense, which will allow us to talk with one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
Instead of talking at one another, we should be talking with one another. We should build bridges across the ideological divide. And to do that, we have to feel each other’s pain, not only our own.
So I can agree with your point of view. The question is: What do we do about it? My answer is like the 5 fingers of the Hamsa:
1. Speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
2. Invest in one another with projects that resonate with hope, that create jobs, and that protect the environment.
3. Use ideology and investment to sell people on a Vision of Hope.
4. Sustain the hope with public diplomacy.
5. And when necessary fight, and fight hard, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose.
That’s my story. What can you understand from this story?
Elinor, Selling a Vision of Hope will be governed by all who are inspired to act. That is the nature of a movement for change. Different people will inspire us in different way. But ultimately, it’s up to all of us to take back this world, and to set it in the right direction. And especially young people like yourself, owe it to themselves, and to their children, to see that certain things are not going well, and that there is a better path for us to follow.
How exactly will it all play out? I don’t really know. This is not a one man show. And I don’t have the ability to make it happen on my own. But I do see that things must go in this direction if we are to bring order to the world. That is the big experiment that we find ourselves in. That is probably the reason we were put on this good earth. Can we find a way to bring goodness to our lives, or do we continue to go down the path of death, destruction, and despair? The choice is ours. It always has been. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
Nissim,
I have hope because I have faith in G-d. He will make the difference at the right time Nissim.
Nasim,
TY for ur words.
Really I admire ur way of thinking.
Yes it is what u wrote, it is what u thought.
when I wrote the story, it wasnt for fun, it was really to discover how much we are thinking of others instead of making us the greatest.
History taught us clearly that no on, no people, no nation is lasting for ever, only thoughts and right beliefs last.
What am trying to say exactly what u said but I add,
we dont need words we need works.
u put the foundation to how we should all work, and we need really to work on it harder to get started.
regards to all
Thanks, Mowaffaq. I think we think alike. I like when you say, “We don’t need words, we need works.” You’re right. We’re nowhere unless we can make something happen on the ground. I am talking to some wealthy businessmen to see if we could start some business projects on the ground, with Jews, with Muslims, and with Christains; projects which create jobs, which resonate with hope, and which protect the environment. Imagine creating jobs by protecting the environment. What a concept.
Business speaks louder than “words.” Business has a way of creating its own ideological imperative. If we can make money together, and if we can speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, and if we can inspire each other with a sense of hope for the future, then together we can turn this thing around.
And then, even the extremists will have to buy in, because in the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred. The extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
And Elinor, I am a big fan of God. But as you know, God helps those who help themselves. I think He will help us, but He is counting on us to do most of the work. If we are good, and if we prove that by doing good works, then He can point to us as proof that His creation is indeed good.
Thanks Nasim
I really appreciate your thoghts and wording
We should make the voice of love louder than the voice of haterate.
We have to make people living here in palestine that they can live together and make lives and in fact we as humans all know that good relations could be established between friends.
WE have to work on how to make the both people living here friends not enemies.
The history taught us much about situations like this in which leaders and wellknown people used to develop relations with other nations by business, marriage,…etc
We need to change the mentality of people by let them feel that there is a future for which they have to care
and I agree that Allah only helps those who really can help themselves.
regards
by the way nissim
I am working in the field of microfiance, very close to the poor people who really care and looking for a better life.
We should work on this part of people.
What u think?
Mowaffaq, I think that microfinance could play a very important part in what has to happen in the Middle East.
Mohammad Yunus, for example, who won the Nobel Prize last year for Peace, is involved in microfinance for women, helping female entrepreneurs open up businesses. This is a vital effort. Empower women in ways that they deem appropriate, and you will have changed the face of the Middle East.
Your thinking is right on target, and so is the work that you do. I would like to work with people like yourself, and maybe we can make some projects happen, which tell the world that a Vision of Hope can be made real if people choose to make it so.
If you like, you are welcome to visit my website at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org and you can register and e-mail me on the contact page, and post on the forum page. Maybe we could get a dialogue going, and work together to make the contacts who could actually make something happen along these lines. There are wealthy people out there who want to leave a legacy, and what better legacy is there than peace?