Dear Roger and others interested,
I confess being biased against Israel. I'll try to justify that later on in
this posting. I have some ideas on a moral solution of the lack of peace in
Palestine too. Also later on.
Being biased is sin ... according to SOM (being biased is not being
objective), but is it also according to a MoQ?
I don't like the 'testing facts against original -or at least undisputed-
sources contest' that has been going on in the 'Middle East' threads. The
only really original and indisputable source is DQ, the cutting edge of the
experience of the people involved. After the respective Quality Events this
DQ is not accessible any more, not even for those directly involved (Israeli
and Palestinians), let alone for those indirectly involved (like Americans
and Dutch).
We only have static patterns of intellectual values left, conflicting
histories, that were NOT ONLY formed by recent Quality Events BUT ALSO
by years, decades, centuries of collective experience. A lot of Israeli
claim they experience being terrorized by Palestinians, but to what extent
has this claim, this static pattern of values, also been formed by centuries
of pogroms, of exile from their God-given country (according to their myth),
of being forced to protect their social patterns of values by socially
isolating themselves from others inhabiting their countries of exile? A lot
of Palestinians claim they experience being oppressed by Israel, but to what
extent has this claim, this static pattern of values, also been formed by
crusades, by Turkish oppression, by British colonialism? Neither the Jewish
experience of being denied a collective cultural identity (long lacking an
own state to safeguard it, now having a state whose right to exist is being
disputed), nor the Palestinian experience of being denied sovereignty,
'own' social patterns of values to safeguard their peace and prosperity, are
primary 'cutting edge' experiences.
We can only compare static patterns of values, essentially static patterns
of bias. We can try to establish meta-patterns by distinguishing different
types of static patterns of bias, by judging their relative stability and
versatility and by concluding on a 'genealogical tree', on historical
evolution and on a 'teleology' of such patterns. The possibility of
defining 'facts' and 'truth' and eradicating 'bias' is a SOM myth.
The possibility of defining the direction of evolution 'across the greatest
span and depth' is the MoQ myth, that is to be unmasked by the next jump in
intellectual progress, which -be sure- I haven't made yet :-)
I don't need a bias test to know that I am biased. Everyone is. There is no
way to tell who is more and who is less biased. The only absolute judge is
(everyone's own) Dynamic Quality, immediate experience. Everything else that
we use to judge relative bias is static quality and biased itself. We can
strive to attain the highest level of static quality, but DQ, the absence of
bias, is always beyond reach.
That being said, 'establishing facts and testing them against (historical,
static) experience' is no more and no less than a way of comparing static
patterns of bias and defining what constitutes 'progress' in the development
of these patterns (and what 'decline' or 'stagnation') in order to attain
the highest available level of static quality. It is a worthwhile pastime if
we avoid the SOM trap of pursuing 'objective truth' and don't require each
other to spend more time on 'checking facts' and 'looking up
sources' than we have available... It's a fact (!) of life that we usually
don't know what DQ (what cutting-edge experience) created our static
patterns of bias. Even if it was our own experience, we only have
(selective, distorted) memories to check. Most of our static patterns of
bias are secondary (based on other people's experience) and the 'original
sources' are even more inaccessible for us.
I forwarded your 'Bias Test' of 13/4 10:15 -0400 to a fellow Dutch Quaker
who recently lived for 1 or 2 years among Palestinians in the occupied
territories, sharing their frustrations. I asked her for comparable
questions from a Palestinian viewpoint. Part of her reply (translated from
Dutch) was:
'An important question is again and again "what do you think from us" and
"what do you think of Islam". For them the only answer is "we are all
humans". ... That is the origin of all the rest of their questions: Why do
we have to suffer for what was done to the Jews in WWII? Are we the demons
(terrorists) they call us? Is that how you see things? Why are we not
allowed to live, move, eat, think, get children and raise them in health in
the land in which we all live for centuries? What is it in the Jews that
they constantly accuse everyone of all evil in the world as justification
for the evil they do themselves? ... These are the questions everyone will
ask who is treated like they are treated for the last 50 years. To know
that, you don't have to listen to them, but to yourself.
They are not different and their questions are not different. Their
viewpoint is that of a victim of violence of which they are only
incidentally guilty. The incident is being equated with the structure of
violence into which the Jews strayed when the vision grew that they could
realize their dream by creating a Jewish nation. The question I always get
from Jews (not THE Jews!!!) is: "Don't we Jews have a right to an own
nation?" My answer is plain: "No. No-one has a 'right' to a nation." It is
the idea that they have a right to it that has made them into such brutes.
That is tragic.'
Yes, I know, she is biased too.
My bias against Israel is intimately connected with my bias against ...
myself. My 'drama' ('bad drama', Angus?) is that of someone who has been
raised to abhor injustice and who has learned more and more about the many
ways in which his own wealth, peace etc. depend on injustice done to others
in this world. That is what I see in Powaqqatsi. How can you see something
else in it?
The Israeli economy is dependent on cheap Palestinian labor. The 'fact' that
it is becoming less so if the 'ingathering of the exiles' is successful
enough doesn't make things better for the Palestinians who are left with a
bankrupt economy (destroyed infrastructure, lots of maimed people in the
most productive age) and at best a nation that is far less viable than its
nearest neighbor.
Likewise the Dutch economy is dependent on cheap labor of those producing
coffee, bananas, textiles, etc. in the relatively successful countries in
the South. The 'fact' that the interdependence of rich countries is much
greater (increasingly so, but I'm not sure of that; it depends on
multi-interpretable statistics) than that of rich on poor countries (with
resulting decreasing world market prices of Southern exports) doesn't make
things better for them.
The Israeli economy is dependent on getting a disproportionate share of
dwindling water resources. If I am well informed Arab villages in Israel get
far less water per inhabitant than Jewish villages and towns and in the
occupied territories Israeli authorities have an even more firm hand on the
water tap favoring Jewish colonists.
Dutch economy is dependent on getting a disproportionate share of world
resources like oil, natural gas and mining products. We will probably learn
to do without in time (at a cost) before they run out and we will probably
sell this know-how (to do without) dearly to those who get a less than
proportionate share now.
One can say of course that those who know how to utilize a resource deserve
to get more than those who don't. But the 'fact' that a lot of political
and military power is deployed at times to safeguard these disproportionate
shares, leads one to the suspicion that there is more going on.
Anyway, in my buying behavior I have a strong preference for ecologically
grown food and Southern products for which the producers got a fair price
(more than the world market price). Even if Israeli producers grow excellent
ecological vegetables, I avoid buying them, not wanting to indirectly steal
water from Palestinians. My buying behavior may be based on wrong or
incomplete information, but I have to act on what I think I know and can't
afford to look up all the 'facts' for everything I buy. I'd welcome more
information from Jonathan on the water distribution issue in Palestine, if
he has any.
I agree with Sam (30/4 0:44 +0100, congratulations with your fatherhood,
Sam!) that nations based on ethnic or religious majorities are not at the
frontier of social progress. I'd say that even nations 'built around a
shared intellectual framework' aren't any more, because the type of
intellectual framework that allows for us (the intellectual elite, deserving
citizenship) versus them (the backward, not deserving citizenship)
distinctions are not at the frontier of intellectual progress any more.
Major advances in social progress are visible in areas, like Western Europe,
where ethnic and cultural differences are becoming less important and where
nations are consequently relinquishing sovereignty in favor of
supra-national entities (the European Union, NATO) that are in turn
gradually including more (also relatively 'backward') nations.
If 'the support for human rights has to be international, not nation
specific', as Sam writes, even the strand of Zionism that (again according
to Sam) wanted Israel 'to be a beacon of human rights in the Middle East' is
not at the frontier of social progress any more.
I for one DON'T 'agree that Israel and the rest of the world need to carve
out an independent Palestinian state' as you summarize 27/4 10:39 -0400 the
views of those involved in the discussion thus far. I don't think a
two-state solution will work precisely because -as you write 27/4
10:39 -0400- 'the only way that these two
cultures can coexist harmoniously is if they have a relationship as peers'.
An existing, entrenched state (Israel) will never relate equally with a new
state which is such a close, even intimate, neighbor, which starts out from
such a disadvantaged position and which has -to be viable- to compete with
it for things like water and infrastructure (roads, harbors, airports,
utilities etc.). It would have worked somewhat better if this Palestinian
state had been created at the same time as Israel, but even then it would
not have had a fair chance to become equivalent, given the backing Jews all
over the world gave to 'their' new state.
To be viable a state needs defendable borders. Given the present
geographical distribution of Palestinians and Jews they can't both have a
state with borders that they can defend against each other no matter how
advanced the weaponry they acquire; no, ESPECIALLY if they BOTH acquire
advanced weaponry no set of borders will ever be mutually defendable.
A strong state and a weak state -the best the can be hoped for if the rest
of the world forces a two-state solution on the Israeli- which are so
intertwined will hold each other in an even more deathly embrace than they
are doing now. The strong state will be best able to defend its interests,
but also has most to lose and is therefore the most vulnerable one. The weak
state has least to lose and will still be tempted to turn that into a
strength and blackmail the stronger state to share its wealth and resources
more evenly. The fact that it is a state will enable it better to blackmail
(by whatever means available ...) than in the present situation in which the
Palestinians only have an 'Authority' that has limited means and powers.
I don't need to spend a lot of words I hope on the immorality of 'ethnic
cleansing' as a solution. It wouldn't work, because the whole Western world
would rally round the Jews if the Palestinians would try to drive them into
the sea with the help of their Arabian brethren and the whole Arab or even
Islamic world would rally round the Palestinians if the Israel would again
occupy all Palestinian territories and expel the Palestinians.
The only moral solution, the only one that can work in the long run, is in
my opinion one nation for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druses (how do you
spell that?) and whoever has historical ties with Palestine. I have a vision
of one Palestine that is at the same time Eretz Israel in which Jews treat
the other groups as they should do according to their own religion (that
reminds them every Easter/Pesach that they were once strangers in Egypt and
have to treat strangers in their God-given country as they would want to
have been treated by the Egyptians themselves). This one nation could still
be founded on the 'ingathering of the exiles' ... but Palestinians as well
as Jews!
The 'fact' that (the now dominant representatives of) neither side would
agree only means that it will take time to convince them of the morality (=
pragmatic value) of this solution. The main way to convince people is act
according to the solution you propose: act as if it already IS one nation.
Therefore I pin my hopes on
- Israeli citizens supporting Palestinian victims of oppression,
- Palestinians supporting Jewish victims of terrorist acts,
- Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the occupied territories,
- massive foreign aid in order to rebuild Palestinian social structures
(health care, education, public utilities, infrastructure) that have been
destroyed under the guise of destroying the infrastructure of terrorism ...
employing both Palestinian and Israeli professionals (stimulating them to
work together),
- measures stimulating the export of Palestinian products in which
Palestinians and Jews have both had a minimum input of labor and ...
- people like Jonathan who (9/4 21:49 +0300) start their history with: 'In
1947, the UN decided that the territory of Palestine then under British
mandate should be split into a new Jewish state (Israel), a new Arab state
and a internationalized area that would include Jerusalem.' Thereby
implicitly accepting supra-national authority to grant or deny the right to
an 'own' state.
In my opinion both Palestinians and Jews should be denied the right to a
separate, 'own' state given their immoral behavior. I am reminded of
Jonathan 13/8/01 14:50 +0300 comparing Palestinians and Jews with squabbling
children... Maybe the international community should first teach them to
behave ... if we knew how ourselves...
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:14 BST