Love And Peace, Family And Friends.
A number of family members and friends
recently talk or reference the dilemma of Israel and Palestine. 1 of my initial thoughts to this issue is
that there are numerous humanitarian issues and conflicts within our global
community; this is only 1. It is also only a comparatively recent
conflict in humanity, substantially emerging upon the establishment of the
Jewish state of Israel. But I understand
that this issue involves millennia-old questions, and it morally affects
billions of people in a rather immediate manner. So I recognise the relevance of delving into
this issue.
When I am asked about this question, I
usually begin by stating that this is a family feud; and rather than a conflict over land, it is a
conflict over righteousness. It just so
happens that both sides, Jews/Israelis and Muslims, directly link the position
of “most righteous” with stewardship of the “Holy Land.” The overwhelming paradox (that few seem to
want to recognise) is that the increasingly righteous community is the
community that lets the land go.
I cite the example our far, Avraham. His tribesmen begin quarrelling with the
tribesmen of his nephew, Lot, because both camps become increasingly prosperous
and numerous (thus competing for an increasingly smaller area of land to graze
the respective cattle). Avraham allows
Lot to decide the area of land in which Lot prefers to settle, and Avraham
chooses the other area. That is
righteousness. And that is the highest
and overarching principle governing this land dispute.
However, there are additional principles of
stewardship. Candidly, I side on the
favour of a “1-state solution,” where the entire land of Israel (Eretz Israel) is
governed as an Israeli (Jewish) state. I
may be accused of being bias, given my Israeli heritage, but everyone has a
bias. I may also be accused of being
insane, given my Islamic behaviour, but everyone has idiosyncrasies. I emphasise concentration upon Universal and
Ahimsic principles of stewardship.
I provide another comparison. There is a boy playing on the playground and
he has 2 toy trucks. Another boy is also
on the playground, but he has 0 toy trucks with which to play. The “rule of playground equity” generally
stipulates that the boy with 2 toy trucks provides 1 of his toy trucks to the
boy without any toy trucks. The fact is,
the land of Israel is increasingly important to Israelis than it is to
Muslims. It is the Holiest of Holies to
Israelis. Muslims have another Holy
Land, in another area (Mekkah and Medinah), that is the Holiest of Holies to
Muslims.
Some may argue that the boy has possession
of the 2 toy trucks (or that he has the 2 toy trucks 1st), so it is
the boy’s prerogative what happens with the 2 toy trucks. When it comes to the specific issue of Israel
and Palestine, that argument (as vehemently as people want to make it) is
comparatively shaky. The question
is: at what point does humanity
recognise the “original stewards” of the land of Israel? The land of Israel experiences a series of
numerous occupations before the British transfer the mandate to the current
Israeli government (via the United Nations).
And when that mandate is transferred, there are, indeed, many
Palestinians living on the land. And,
also according to Universal and Ahimsic principles of stewardship, this residency
establishes certain legitimacy of stewardship.
When something (a toy truck or a homeland)
is unduly taken from someone, Universal and Ahimsic principles of righteousness
generally stipulate that this something (a toy truck or a homeland) be restored
to the original steward. 1 of the
challenges is that the collective common memory of many civilisations only
travels for a few centuries. It just so
happens that the collective common memory of Israelis travels for a few
millennia. And within this collective
common memory, before the Palestinians establish residency and stewardship of
the land of Israel, Israelis establish residency and stewardship of the land of
Israel. And it is essentially, and ironically,
through this very residency and stewardship that the land is considered Holy by
Muslims (through the civilisations of Avraham, Israel, David, Solomon, and
additionally). 1 may argue the right of
residency and stewardship on the behalf of the descendants of the Canaanites
whom the Israelites remove from the land, however Muslims seem to abstain from
making that specific argument.
But, even with that communicated, the dilemma
has yet to be resolved. Simply
legitimating the stewardship claim of Israelis for the land of Israel is
insufficient in addressing the comprehensive circumstances. Even as stewards of the land of Israel,
Israelis have the responsibility for providing appropriate, alternative
habitation opportunities for Palestinians.
Whilst some argue inclusion as citizens of the government of Israel,
this may be less preferable. Another,
perhaps far-fetched, option is for Israel to acquire land from neighbouring
nations (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and/or Egypt), establish aqueducts from the
Mediterranean Sea, construct numerous desalination facilities, and cultivate
cities and agriculture that can support thriving and prosperous Palestinian
communities. That may be easier done
than said.
So, in the meanwhile, I regress to my
initial statement. This is a dilemma of
righteousness. Who will allow the other
side to make the choice of where to settle?
Perhaps Muslims will take the high road.
Perhaps Israelis will take the high road. Or perhaps 1 of these 2 sides will select the
less righteous option, and begin developing those cities and agriculture for
the other side to resettle.
Love And Peace,
Peter
