I see that PE Obama has indicated a willingness to talk to Hamas and is signaling that things will change in his administration as to how the US approaches the Middle East. My first reaction is, “Well, it’s about time!” And I’m delighted to learn that he intends to treat the region from Gaza to Tehran to Syria as part of a whole. The failure or unwillingness to acknowledge the relationship between anti-American sentiments throughout the region and the imbalance in our approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been a constant source of puzzlement.
I’ve wondered over the years how any contentious relationship — whether a personal one or one between nations — can be improved by the parties refusing to talk to each other. It has always seemed so very childish to me. It will be interesting to watch the ways Israel and Hamas respond to PE Obama’s statement. Will they continue to stonewall? Or, like in any relationship, will a change by one party lead to subsequent changes by the other party?
When someone seeks help for a troubled marriage, it’s rare that the problems are the sole responsibility of one member of the couple. And even if the “offending” party is unwilling to enter counseling, the “aggrieved” party can still change the dynamic by changing their actions, their attitude, or the ways in which they respond to the perceived offenses. By one person making changes, the nature of the struggle changes and the other person must respond. Counselors never suggest the “silent treatment” in which one party refuses to talk to the other.
Why is it that when two countries have what they perceive is an intractable problem, the first action is to recall their diplomats and cease communicating? How can that possibly help solve the problem? It seems so childish. And, in the end, so ineffective, even counterproductive. Well, counterproductive if the end goal is a resolution of the conflict short of war. One wonders if the intent is to gain the attention of the other party. But is that the best way to get attention?
Certainly talking is better than bombing. But talking without listening doesn’t accomplish anything either. People from marriage counselors to Steve Covey (author of 7 Habits for Highly Effective People) to Mohandas Gandhi have laid out the key to effective communication. One must actively listen to the other party in the communication. Because it is in listening that we are able to identify that part of the truth the other party holds, to find the common ground from which to work. Listening allows us to identify our assumptions, our misconceptions and misperceptions. It also forces us to regard the other party as worthy of our attention. Not our agreement, but our attention.
We’ve seen over the past eight years that refusing to talk to Iran hasn’t convinced them to halt their nuclear program. It also hasn’t allowed us to verify whether the Iranian claim that they are pursuing nuclear power generation rather than weapons development is true. So, each side continues to talk at and by the other, demanding concessions first before negotiations can take place. Similarly, would it have been more productive to engage North Korea in 2-party talks rather than insisting on North Korea being a participant in 6-party ones?
It is my hope that come January 20, one of the key changes in the international arena will be that the United States will again be willing to listen first and to talk, whether the party across the table is friend or foe.
I understand that Hamas is the legitimate regime in the Palestinian Authority, but lets be honest here. They are the political equivalent to the KKK.
You don’t hear stories from the rural south about how welcome the KKK is because they clean litter up on the road way and provide money for medical clinics.
Yet when it comes to Hamas, who has expressly stated they want Israel to cease to exist and won’t be happy until that happens, we hear storys about how they provide money for schools, medical clinics, and other public works projects.
Do projects like these diminish what it is that these groups stand for? Of course not. What it is they stand for is so reprehensible that there is very little if anything they could do possitive to erase their public stand toward those they oppose.
I’m not trying to defend Hamas, but rather to understand the desperation that has led the Palestinians to support such groups in the first place.
When I visited Israel some 25 years ago — at a time when the IDF was pulling out of their occupation of parts of southern Lebanon — we drove by refugee camps. The comparison between the conditions there and in the Israeli cities and towns reminded me of what I had witnessed in the US while racial segregation was accepted. Open sewers, ramshackle homes, no basic services, high unemployment, inferior schools, etc. I asked our guide (an American born woman who had emigrated to Israel) about it. Her response was that Israel would provide services if only the Palestinians asked for them! So, in her mind, the Palestinians must have liked living that way. Just like Pres. Reagan opined that homeless people in the US were homeless by choice. To me, both positions were indefensible — and a way to rationalize doing nothing.
Is it really any wonder that when the people of Gaza have been herded into what is in effect a concentration camp — where unemployment (due to the Israeli siege) is over 50%, where 80% of the population is dependent upon handouts from international organizations just to survive — that they are acting out of desperation? Would Americans stand for similar conditions? I’m old enough to remember the urban riots and the results of the Kerner Commission. Its conclusion was that the riots were the result of years of poverty and racism. Is it really a surprise that the Gazans are rebelling against their conditions?
Sure, they could just surrender, but given the history of their treatment by Israel, what would they likely expect in return? Americans don’t realize that prior to 1947 and the creation of the state of Israel, the Palestinians were the best educated and the most prosperous of the Arabs. Is their anger and resentment really that surprising?
As long as we continue to have no dialogue, their will never be a resolution. The way that Americans perceive the world is due to the attitude that we are always on the side of right and the rest of the world is wrong.
We know that Hamas is the enemy, but as long as we continue to perpetuate this hatred we allow Hamas to control the Palestinians in Gaza, virtually handing them victory over us. When people are hungry and scared they will follow the people who are feeding them. Just look at the pre WW ll Germany for a perfect example.
Willpen,
Your comparison to the Weimar Republic is most interesting. In fact Avraham Berg makes the same comparison. He points to a rise in creativity and the arts during that period, while at the same time Hitler was stirring up hatred among a wounded German population facing privation. Berg sees a similar comparison in Israel today and worries that the same dark forces will once again reign supreme.
It seems to me that “Never again,” should apply wherever genocide is threatened or a fact — whether in Israel, in Darfur, or in Gaza. Genocide is heinous, regardless of the victim or perpetrator as we are all fellow travelers on this planet, and if you are a “person of the book” all equal in God’s sight.
I find it a curious paradox that the most fervently religious too often seem the first to deny that view.