Bradley Burston is altijd goed voor een verfrissende kijk op de zaak, waarbij hij harde kritiek op beide kanten niet schuwt. In deze column vraagt hij zich af waarom Israëli's en Palestijnen hun conflict maar niet op kunnen lossen:
"What, then, are some of the factors making this particular form of mental illness so resistant to treatment? What, in sum, is the matter with these people? Herewith a few:
* They are profoundly, irreparably childish in a way only adults deprived of a childhood can be.
* They are addicted to blame as a way of life. They cannot look at themselves as anything other than victims. They cannot look at the other as anything other than usurpers.
(...)
* Convinced of its own moral purity, neither side can abide the idea of moral equivalency any more than it can accept the concept of shared responsibility for the problems and their eventual solution."
"What, then, are some of the factors making this particular form of mental illness so resistant to treatment? What, in sum, is the matter with these people? Herewith a few:
* They are profoundly, irreparably childish in a way only adults deprived of a childhood can be.
* They are addicted to blame as a way of life. They cannot look at themselves as anything other than victims. They cannot look at the other as anything other than usurpers.
(...)
* Convinced of its own moral purity, neither side can abide the idea of moral equivalency any more than it can accept the concept of shared responsibility for the problems and their eventual solution."
Bradley Burston neemt de positie in van de neutrale observant, die die twee volkeren daar ziet vechten en hun eigen toekomst vergooien en van alles de ander de schuld geven. Maar wacht even. Burston is geen buitenstaander. Hij is deel van het conflict, en met zijn wekelijkse column in een van Israëls bekendste kranten wordt hij door miljoenen gelezen. Hij is een Israëli. Hij denkt Israëlisch. De Haaretz staat vol met columns zoals de zijne, die de eigen maatschappij een spiegel voorhouden, en columns zoals die van Amira Hass en Gideon Levy, die het voor de Palestijnen opnemen. Ook in andere Israëlische kranten kom je veelvuldig zelfkritiek tegen. Toch zegt Burston over zichzelf, zijn collega journalisten, demonstranten voor vrede met Syrië en studenten die zich inzetten tegen de bezetting, dat ze verslaafd zijn aan het leggen van de schuld bij de andere kant en zichzelf als slachtoffers te zien.
Burstons' behoefte om evenwichtig te zijn, om de Palestijnen niet van iets te beschuldigen zonder ook Israël kritisch te bejegenen is nobel, maar in feite spreekt hij zichzelf tegen. Hoeveel journalisten aan Palestijnse kant doen wat hij doet? Goed, ze zouden hun leven waarschijnlijk niet zeker zijn, maar de vraag is dan natuurlijk, hoe dat komt? Burston gaat verschillen uit de weg in een krampachtige poging niet gekleurd te zijn of zijn eigen kant te bevoordelen, maar dat is niet per se de beste manier om tot een oplossing te komen.
Ratna
______________________________________
Why can't Jews and Palestinians make peace?
By Bradley Burston
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/879879.html
It may come as little surprise that efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bear striking similarities to approaches to the treatment of mental illness.
There are those who advocate talk sessions, in which the same problems may be discussed and analyzed for years on end before a reaching a breakthrough ? which may prove fleeting at best.
There are the proponents, as well as the vociferous, morally outraged critics, of performing radical forms of surgery to cure intractable ills.
There are those who believe that religion, not science or reason, can put the demons to rest.
And, of course, in the Middle East as in psychotherapy, it is at times difficult to tell with certainty which are the doctors and which the patients.
Analysis of the Israel-Palestine impasse is often thoughtful and frequently creative, but has been unable to yield a working solution to the dispute. Whole libraries of journalistic observation, learned commentary and academic research have been devoted to one version or another of the central question - What's wrong with these people? Why in heaven's name are the Israelis and Palestinians unable to make so much as a semblance of peace? The data mount, the pile of prospective solutions towers higher by the year, but the Israel-Palestine war stumbles on.
In general, fresh approaches to the conflict tend to be activist in nature. Which makes all the more revolutionary the thesis of a remarkable new proposal: Let the Middle East alone.
A recent Prospect magazine cover is headed "Why the Middle East doesn't matter," highlighting a remarkable article by historian Edward Luttwak which, with a perverse elan and a clearly intentional political incorrectness, suggests how analysts and well-meaning foreign governments may have gotten the Mideast conflict dead wrong.
"The operational mistake that Middle East experts keep making is the failure to recognize that backward societies must be left alone," Luttwak writes. He attacks what he calls Arab-Israeli catastrophism, or "five minutes to midnight" syndrome, in which the Mideast conflict is continually viewed as the trigger of an imminent apocalypse (just this week, columnist Roger Cohen, writing in The New York Times, alluded to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation as "The mother of all conflicts").
According to Luttwak, both the hardline and "softline" approaches are doomed to failure. Hardliners keep suggesting that with a bit of well-aimed violence ('the Arabs only understand force') compliance will be obtained. But what happens every time is an increase in hostility; defeat is followed not by collaboration, but by sullen non-cooperation and active resistance too."
As for "softliners,' who argue "that if only this or that concession were made, if only their policies were followed through to the end and respect shown, or simulated, hostility would cease and a warm Mediterranean amity would emerge," Luttwak counters that Islam "promises superiority in all things for its believers, so that the scientific and technological and cultural backwardness of the lands of Islam generates a constantly renewed sense of humiliation and of civilisational defeat. That fully explains the ubiquity of Muslim violence, and reveals the futility of the palliatives urged by the softliners."
"With neither invasions nor friendly engagements, the peoples of the Middle East should finally be allowed to have their own history, the one thing that Middle East experts of all stripes seem determined to deny them," Luttwak concludes.
There are signs that Luttwak may already be getting his wish. Last month, at the height of the Hamas-Fatah fighting, Newsweek found it necessary to title a cover piece "Why Gaza matters."
It may also be argued that the world's obsession with the Middle East conflict, the media's wall-to-wall coverage of it - as opposed to Darfur, say, or other conflicts in which many more people are dying in places the media finds less attractive to major viewing markets - all this compounded by the extremism and lack of perspective of many Diaspora supporters of Israel or of Palestine, works to the advantage of militants and makes the conflict that much more difficult to solve.
The impression Luttwak's article makes, is that even if Israelis and Palestinians cannot find a solution, the world will manage somehow. He's probably right. What he doesn't specify, doubtless intentionally, is how Israelis and Palestinians are going to be able to manage.
What, then, are some of the factors making this particular form of mental illness so resistant to treatment? What, in sum, is the matter with these people? Herewith a few:
They are profoundly, irreparably childish in a way only adults deprived of a childhood can be.
They are addicted to blame as a way of life. They cannot look at themselves as anything other than victims. They cannot look at the other as anything other than usurpers.
They desperately need help and advice, but cannot bring themselves to accept it. They tend to be unable to help themselves. They tend to act in ways which defeat their own declare aims. They tend to declare aims which defeat their own ability to reach a solution. They tend to be unable to shed or modify the aims which keep them from providing for the welfare of their own people, aims which keep them from making peace with their neighbors.
Their spiritual advisors, who, it turns out, are also political kingpins, insist that scripture is proof of real estate ownership.
Their hardliners, bolstered by their supporters abroad ? who are often even more extreme in their views, equate compromise with treason, failure of will, selling out, crimes against history.
Convinced of its own moral purity, neither side can abide the idea of moral equivalency any more than it can accept the concept of shared responsibility for the problems and their eventual solution.
Inevitably, perhaps, it may in the end take the darkest cloud on the horizon to supply a silver lining for any of this.
In short, we may have radical Islamism to thank for doing what no government of good will, no Western mediation, could have done.
It took the waking nightmare of Islam to force the Arab league to endorse a Hail Mary deal with Israel. It took the same waking nightmare to force Israel to stop sidestepping the offer it could not afford to refuse.
Will this be of any help? We may find out on Thursday, when the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan are expected to lead an Arab League mission to Israel for talks on the pan-Arab peace initiative. The meeting, if it comes off, will be the first visit to Israel by an official delegation from the 22-member organization.
In the meanwhile - and doubtless afterward - therapy is indicated. That, and prayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontvangen via:
Subscribe - mail to mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten