To quote one of the few worldwide known personalities with no connection nor an ambiguous view of what is (not) happening in Palestine and Israel; "life is really simple but we insists on complicating it".
If I would have ever had been a resident of Israel I too would have probably felt like grasping any object suitable as a weapon and get into Gaza to slaughter and demolish anything at sight and equally grab onto any word or image that would support my mission and convince as many people as possible to do the same.
Then again, if I would have ever lived in Israel, especially as a visitor, I would have gotten busy a long time ago to do whatever I could to promote harmony irrespective of the race or (religious) beliefs in my surroundings. Should I sense that for whichever reason I would generally be better off than the people around me I would probably double up my efforts, possibly out of selfish motives.
In a crisis created by human nature, the fact that on one hand the human race appears to need 2 days to mobilise 300 000 + military reserves, set in counter attacks on multiple fronts and host several heads of state visits, but more than 12 days are necessary to organise some form of human aid to a million people in the same place, says everything about where priorities are vested.
Wherever substantial differences amongst people arise, tension sets in. It's our nature. I do not really believe in religious causes or motives a the prime driver and sense that in most of the world those differences tend to be economic. When the economics appear to discriminate and commence grouping types of education, race, religion, gender, etc the emphasis will shift towards collective envy or hate, a very fertile ground for violence, which if ignored and allowed to persist, becomes organised, planned and dangerously equipped.
In a civilised community, basic awareness, willingness and dialogue - all none particularly extraordinary accessible human means - will envisage potential conflicts and safeguard progress for a common good.
Pretty simple. Not complicated, unless we want it to be.
For a long time, Palestine and Israel are in a blame "game" (for lack of a better word) over whom literally threw the first rock. No one is indifferent, everyone is guilty. The formation of the state of Israel in 1948 was not the beginning, but just another step - albeit significant - in the well organised zionist intentions that commenced in the 19th century, including actions that were recorded as terrorist activity at the time by the way.
Unlike a 100 years ago, there is no equality. None. Israel is better organised and equipped by all measures and that would only be a reason to claim being civilised if it would be putting this to use for a common good and not only for what it considers its own.
Israel authorises, permits, allows, tolerates, grants, but always under the condition that it can be taken away just as easily.
On one side of a wall people irrigate their crops on a daily basis and their state constructs a Gaza like scenario training ground for military, while on the other side the most fortunate people await a water truck to fill a rooftop deposit and the completion of a desalination plant, of which certain components indeed appear to serve other usages;
While most of the inhabitants of Gaza were pushed and contained to the only life of refuge they have always known, Israel intentionally incentivises people from around the world to come and live in their state.
It's embarrassing for all nations how Israeli spokespeople still seek to narrate double standards of UN resolutions violations.
But, the world has changed since the first zionist actions, even since the last bloodsheds between Palestine and Israel. The widespread use of social media, especially during wartime has become a new normal. An isolated televised speech or a published press picture which ends up in history books for future generations does not suffice anymore.
Smartphones and internet connection speed have become as important as food and water and an integrant part of military strategies. This is not a gamification of ordinary people's lives in ordinary days, but a last resort of human beings feared or fed by anger that they are not being represented otherwise and an outcry for hope of being heard and seen by the real world, wherever or whomever that may be.
As a consequence, in a "if you cannot beat them, join them kind of manner" it becomes equally visible how (elected) leaders of nations appear a bunch of eager teenagers jumping to who is right or did what first. This makes me wonder if politicians always behaved like this.
Apparently, it was in the age of enlightenment that the fingerpointing of terrorism was first mentioned, on all sides of conflicts, whether dictated by rulers or spread by the revolting populations. We know who won then and in the civilised world most of us are now grateful for that victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment