Israel & Palestine on my blogs

Updated June 8, 2010: Linked with about Israel and Palestine.

by Heidi Barathieu-Brun

You may have observed that I practically never show texts or personalities about Israel & Palestine on my blogs. Yes, I consider their struggle not as a simple query like any other war on our planet, but for me there is more: they are a symptom of the behaviour of our whole humanity.

What is shown there since decades is the peak of the iceberg of what we all are in reality: we are not a humanity, but an amount of different clans, working and living to increase the own profit, at the costs of others. At the costs of all those who are ‘not same’.

Not only the main Israel and the main Palestine tell us having all rights on their side, every clan in this world does same. Belonging to a recognised and promoted standard: the simplest and crudest social Darwinism is still the main philosophy, not only for individuals, but also for clans, or in these times, for nations (example: colonialism). Best you can observe this in all economic clans: the big worldwide acting international companies.

First I have to claim that I am not Jew, but also not Christian, nor even Atheist, I claim the right to be ‘nothing’, this means, I have not to follow a pre-scripted ideology of any kind, but I have the right to think and feel every new situation out of my reflection, my empathy and my experience.

This makes me not faultless, but I want to be responsible for myself of whatever I claim. And here, in the Israel & Palestine symptom is running more than only ideology. Here is running the fundamental question of what society we want. We want ALL of us.

I claim: we cannot separate the Israel-Palestinian struggle from a sane and deliberately chosen ‘way of living together’ for the whole planet. Again, here we have only the symptom of the behaviour of our whole humanity.

In my eyes, there are two fundamental society-structures, which are NOT compatible, each to the other, and for which we have – one day – to choose. We have to choose as a whole humanity. This choice is NOT made still now, even if we claim sometimes to know what we want.

Really? Do we know it really?

For me, the first item (between others) to be chosen lays in the hierarchic structure of a future humanity:

1): – or we want something like democracy. This means, every human has the right to claim equality in surviving, in economic wealth (how much?), for education, and access to information (how much information? All? Or only almost all?), and his right to act as a recognished responsible citizen of this world, by taking an equal part in all decision processes. This means freedom of encounter with any group we choose, freedom of press, freedom of choosing sexual, religious and any civil behaviour, as long as it is in harmony with some Human Rights (still to be defined, like the economic, social and civil HR, a debate running at the UN as the – aborted – trial to promote the op-icescr). And strictly seen, social Darwinism can no more have its place in this model, as incompatible with fundamental human rights.

2): – or we choose a structure which accepts the division of our humanity into 2 layers: the ones who govern, an elite ‘knowing’ what is good for the people, and this so called people, all those who are NOT the elite. And strictly seen, social Darwinism is always part of this model, as the Elite uses its advantage automatically to serve itself first from the ‘big cake’.

An intermediate model is co-running since the middle age, where ’some’ may consider themselves as ‘Elites’, but in reality they are only elites over the rest of the people, not over those who really ‘have’ the power, whatever makes that this power is working over the rest of us all. Sometimes this ‘power’ works as a religious power (as for our western societies before renaissance), sometimes it works as economic power (as today: ’some’ have the possibility to make really politics with money … ).

So, what model do we want for this our humanity?

Both models have ‘good or bad’ aspects. Good or bad belonging the viewpoint you apply to them.

The good aspect of model 1) is, every one can develop and become a REAL human being, not only some BABY having to follow any ideology. This aspect is cheered by all of us wanting progress, democracy, something giving us a good consciousness, a good feeling. A feeling we have learned since decades being ‘the right one’. The right to become a grown up citizen. Most of us who cherish to defend Human Rights in this world, may claim to chose this model.

The bad side of this model: we really have to make efforts to progress, to think about problems, to decide by taking our responsibility. If you really believe to this model, then remember, if you are a bit older, how overworked could feel all these fine communards in our ‘first world experiences’ of community, hippy-groups or self controlled enterprises of the 1970’s. Remember the endless discussions and not working results when no agreement was reached.

Remember also all these elections during the last decades, when peoples elect some guys becoming quasi dictators, promising protection against threats they consciously created before (for example, the US and their terrorists). I mean, this model asks us much more efforts than only showing a ‘nice attitude’.

Or if you are a Swiss citizen, you know how time taking may be the ‘right’ to choose for the next votation. Just now, mid of May 2007, we are asked to answer for 13 (thirteen) economic, political or social items (on the level of the canton/state of Geneva). Items we have to study, reflect about, take responsibility for, as these decisions become regulations or laws we will have to live with.

In model 2) you may find the good side in the fact that you no more have to think about your responsibility, you just follow the (strong, tough) recommendations of those ‘knowing better than you’. Now you really can live your simple pleasures and tititainments.

And here is also the place of any religious fundamentalism. The place for representants of God or Allah telling you what’s right or wrong. And wanting you follow them, because, if not …

The bad side: if you do not follow their recommendations when this model is running, not only the leaders, but mainly your neighbours, NOT wanting think themselves, will put you straight on the right way. Normally this model is called a dictatorship. Or a religious state, not separating religion and civil government.

OK, I confess, model 1): is my definitive choice. I know why and I assume for me the consequences. So, my choice is made. But: are we aware, if we choose this model, that we can NO MORE accept that parts of Model 2) is running together with model 1)?

Model 2) is still running in our economic behaviour (rich world against poor world, rich social groups against poor social groups). If we accept Model 1), we HAVE to eliminate – by a conscious choice – all economic relents of Model 2).

I do not claim war, I am sure that IF we are conscious what is the real question, we become able to choose, and, if we chose model 1), then the small group insisting now to run model 2) on the economic level, has to accept this choice. As they are a really small group. But a group having possibilities of influence and manoeuvres of all kind. I do not think they ‘give up’ their power, but we have to answer consciously their attempts of destabilisation.

Yes, I exclude here the religious fundamentalism, as I am convinced, if the economic and development justice is reached, religious fundamentalism will no more have the same power it has today. If your neighbour has no more the power to force you in his right way, and if you have access to education, then you can really make a choice.

If we are not able to choose the whole part of one of the models – and that is the actual running struggle worldwide, for me, all wars include this fundamental question – if we are not able to discuss together all aspects of these 2 models, and choose deliberately one of the models, we will have no peace.

Peace can only come with a conscious, wanted decision for a common model of our humanity.

And as long as this choice is not made, by our humanity, I will no more publish texts or personalities out of the Israeli or the Palestine side.

As both models, the 1) and the 2), are firmly woven in the behaviour of both groups, and no one of them, nor Israel, nor Palestine, have made a conscious decision for one of the two described models. Both have their fanatics, and both have a good part of normal, sane people.

Ok, this is also true for most other groups and questions in our society, but here, with Israel & Palestine, this question reaches a definitive peak.

Both groups have first to define what they want, before we can mix up into their battle.

This is the attitude I have chosen for me and my blogs.

Comments are closed.