Due to an undeniably large part of the new administration taking office, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza again.
I have been keeping up with the debate and dialogue between the concerned parties to this conflict, and a sense of d’eacute;j’agrave; vu is seriously unavoidable. Coming to mind is the poster hung on the walls of many schools around the nation with its simple clich’eacute;, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.’
Foretelling the future is easier than a lot of people realize, especially when the past is rife with plenty of data for predictions. Hamas will parade around glorying in the killing of the Israeli military and innocents. Israel will denounce the Palestinians and assert their victory. Neither will admit failure, neither will admit fault and the world will argue on.
This war transcends gravely the tenets of faith for Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The only theology it does not transcend is patriotism. Turkey maintains their offensive capability and current actions against the Kurds; Israel against her neighbors; and the U.S. against Iraq and the Axis.
The Arabs and Muslims have economies that are in shambles and governing structures that are weak. The fear and uncertainty, coupled with real and fantastic threats of violence from abroad, bolster the votes for militants willing to offer real or fantastic promises of peace and security as they have been doing for decades.
Every advance to stem or stop terrorism is concluded with the roster of terrorists swelling. With the communities and cultures we see coexist in the U.S. every single day, are we so dim and dark as to think war is the answer?
For too long the economic and special interests have been the formulators of policy in the Middle East, and for too long we have had executives and legislators willing to opine on the morality and decency of war against ideological threats.
It is almost sickening to listen to justifications for killing based on religious texts.
Samuel talks about David’s conflicts with Saul. One day David asks for some hospitality from a village unwilling to give it. He marches to the top of a hill in anger and announces his intention to slaughter the whole of the village. He mobilizes, and a wise woman walks to him, food in hand and requests an audience with him. She relates how the common man sees David, as a hero who uses more than force, and how his esteem will plummet if he slaughters this village. David accepts that the moral standing and political capital he has amassed in his world is due to his civility. If we must use religious texts to justify politics, why not begin with this one?
