Dear Jonathan,
You wrote 4/5 23:00 +0300:
'Wim, despite your declared bias, I identify with many of your sentiments I
am reminding you that I am the last person you should trust to be
objective.'
I also have the impression that we share a lot of values. My bias is not
against you personally of course.
You wrote:
'Here I strongly disagree.'
after having quoted my:
'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?'
I don't understand what you disagree with.
My understanding that the Israeli experience of being terrorized is formed
by BOTH actual DQ AND (memories of and histories describing) historic
experience does NOT imply that I deny the reality of that experience of
being terrorized nor the legitimacy of expressing that experience and acting
to diminish that awful experience. I only argued that disputing 'truth' and
'objectivity' are not going to help a lot in the confrontation between this
reality and the equally awful reality of Palestinians.
I agree that (as you wrote) my 'solution of some sort of binational state is
an idealists dream - great on paper, but extremely difficult to realize.'
The fact that it is extremely difficult to realize, doesn't rule out the
possibility that trying to do so may still be the only way or the best way
forward out of the conflict. Alternatives may be even more difficult to
realize or may have more undesirable side effects. Idealist dreams have an
important role in breaking down fear...
I think that the (too) obvious solution of two states in this area (and in
general of creating more ethnically/culturally/religiously homogenous states
in any area) is essentially a reactionary dream (which doesn't mean that
sharing it makes one into a reactionary). Once, when states were founded
primarily on elites (nobilities) and elitist ideologies, nationalism (the
creation of a collective identity, the emancipation of a 'people', the
founding of a nation on the like-mindedness of such a 'people') was
progressive/Dynamic. Now, when collective identities have proliferated and
everyone is part of several overlapping ones (e.g. I'm Quaker, Dutch,
European, Christian, liberal/progressive/biased towards social and
ecological causes etc.) the founding of nations on (only) one collective
identity (and on repression of other collective identities to make that one
into the dominant one) is regressive. Nations are not only a static pattern
of values, but a static pattern of values that has been overtaken by other
static patterns of values in its migration towards Dynamic Quality (e.g. by
federalism, economic and political integration of larger areas and
supranational organizations with a limited mandate).
Forced unification, as in the case of Yugoslavia, may have been a
(temporarily) sensible way of 'people's' with weak collective identities to
defend themselves against other, stronger, nations (especially during the
Cold War). It had however -indeed- the undesirable side-effect of
strengthening reactionary forces that could come to the fore once that
unifying force broke down (at the end of the Cold War).
I don't know what you mean with 'look at what became of the post-WW1
planning'.
What happened after World War II, preventing a World War III, is a case in
point of the success of federalism, economic and political integration of
larger areas and supranational organizations with a limited mandate, don't
you think?
I don't see that you disagree with my:
'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.). ...
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'
I agree that 'setting up' a binational state now, let alone imposing one
upon Jews and Palestinians, doesn't solve that problem. But the feasibility
and viability of a binational state will increase when more people start to
live from the dream of one, whereas the feasibility and viability of two
separate states will decrease when more people start to live that dream...
Europeans and Americans can help mainly by sharing their dreams of European
integration and of the American melting pot.
Here's a fuller quote from what you said 13/8/01 14:50 +0300 about
squabbling children...:
'Dan, it wasn't for nothing that I mentioned both Israel and my 4
children. My kids, like all children, often squabble. As a parent, I
know it is not always necessary or useful to identify the guilty child
who initiated the fight. Apportioning blame is not the way to end a
fight. Answering the fears and concerns of the adversaries is much more
productive.
Now that I have said that, you can probably guess my take on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'
The 'first bricks' should be trust and selfless acts, according to me. As I
wrote 9/4 23:04 +0200:
'our trust and our selflessness are building our future' whereas 'our fear
and our greed are destroying our future'. Both trust and selflessness are
built by co-operation, on a small-scale, of individuals. A Jewish state and
a Palestinian state will never be able to co-operate and build trust,
because the fact that they are separate states keeps their citizens apart
and prevents them from co-operating and building trust. The power of the
politicians will depend on their expressing the fear and the greed of their
citizens.
My two kids (of 8 and 10) often squabble, too. At this age I usually direct
them to play or quietly read a book separately when they do so, especially
when they are (at the end of the day) too tired play together harmoniously.
They have separate rooms, but not separate homes...
I am telling them more and more often to mind their own problem when they
are complaining to me that 'he/she started to scold/hit/kick' (as long as
they are not causing each other serious damage). I've told them often enough
that neither of them should do such things as it doesn't solve anything. If
I go on telling them what they shouldn't do, the one that is listening best
is usually the one that I am not currently reproaching ... in order to
repeat my reproach to his sister resp. her brother as a supposedly more
legitimate way of scolding her/him. If I solve their conflicts for them,
they will never learn to find other ways of solving them than scolding,
hitting and kicking. But they must live together in the same home to be able
to find better ways of playing together and of solving conflicts that will
keep erupting...
The 'fears and concerns' they express as legitimization for
scolding/hitting/kicking each other are usually too trivial for an adult to
seriously answer them. Neither apportioning blame, nor talking about the
trivialities they are squabbling about are really productive. The main
lesson to teach them is to -consciously- de-escalate and that someone should
start to take an insult or a beating without returning the favor with
interest in order to end a conflict ...
You ask:
'What do you think would happen if some international body were to decide
that The Netherlands should no longer exist?'
Given the body of international law that is developing and the respect most
Dutch have for that international legal order, I and a lot of other Dutch
would probably agree with the reasons for that decision ... and would have
acted against their own state long before to prevent the necessity of such a
decision.
Nationhood indeed rests on the value of collective self determination and
epitomized the emerging dominance of intellectual patterns of values at the
end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The migration of
intellectual patterns of values towards Dynamic Quality didn't end there
however... The multiplication and the growing overlap between collective
identities in the second half of the 20th century necessitated federalism,
international economic and political co-operation and integration and
supra-national institutions resting on the value of our common humanity.
People nowadays are becoming aware of multiple 'selves' and 'mainsprings of
selves' and need to realize their connectedness and unity to keep a
consistent identity.
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 - 16:02:18 BST