I had a couple of experiences over the last few days that I'd like to share because they illustrate a concept I've been seeking to develop. My wife is a lover of theater and loves Spanish Language theater. The only real example of Spanish Language theater in the Washington Area is usually at the Gala theater in DC and so we usually attend their opening performances -- also because we usually get a discount for first night performances. Usually she has her students there. Our relationship with the Gala theater is sometimes checkered. They are a little avant Guard, sometimes too much for our taste.
Their acts are good, but sometimes they try to beat people over the head with their message. This performance was no exception: "Caribeana Imperia World Premiere! - An Original Musical Directed by Wendell Manwarren with Hugo Medrano featuring 3canal (Trinidad). The music was stirring, melodic, inspiring, and I was really enjoying the performances, music, dancing and singing. They were singing in Spanish and Carribean English. I was thinking how nice their message was...
-- until the third to the last act when they unfurled a red flag and came out wearing military clothes with Che Guevara images on the front. At that point they lost me.
At any rate, both my wife and I had a reaction. Hers was conditioned by years of living in Argentina where for a long time just being associated with such people was a death sentance, mine was conditioned by my intense loathing for the methods and goals of Communism. I see the fundamental problem of modern life is in the tendancy of moderns to disenfranchise the majority of the people. I don't see Communism as any ideology that can settle that problem. And furthermore I don't see its ideology as constructive. The image of conflict, revolution, leveling, to me is an image of violence, destruction, and ultimately failure. The Red flag, whether waved by Communists or Neo-Cons, is a flag of violence and death.
However, they'd done so well before that. The poetry they'd shared shared a philosophy radically different from that of Che or Castro. It was a poetry of construction, of taking charge of one's own life, of creating your own dreams of non-violence. If they'd been wearing tee shirts from my heros; Nelson Mandela, Mohandis Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, I'd have been able to buy their message fully (okay at least mostly). They had gotten the concept half right, but totally wrong. I figure this is the influence of old Hugo Chavez and his Venezuela Oil Money, but it is still the wrong concept as far as I'm concerned. We survived the night and went home. I guess what pissed me off the most is that they were a bit deceptive. They talk about Gandhi style ideas and then unfurl the red flag. I felt deceived.
I wouldn't have thought of this again, but then the subject came up again in the context of the attack by Hezbollah on Israel and Israel's response. I heard offers from South Africa to mediate and it sounded reasonable. I'm a fan of Nelson Mandela and of non-violent principles.
A central issue on my mind is the escallating tensions with the Arab World in Israel. I'm all for defending one's country. When Hezbollah attacks Israel I figure that Israel is perfectly right to demand that the international community take action to make Hezbollah withdraw from direct attacks. I don't buy the case the Palestinians make at all when that case is carried on the tip of a Katyushka Rocket. Even Gandhi said that if the only choice is violent action, then violent action is better than inaction. If disciples of Mandela could mediate successfully this would be wonderful!
If people really want to achieve a strong capability for transforming society they should look at models that have worked in the past not ones that failed -- no matter how romantic those models may seem. Che Guevara and Castro represent, to me at least, losers who present a narrative of loss and dispossession that claims to be aimed at an ultimate goal of remedying dispossession and "class struggle". If the principle problem of the common folk is dispossession, how is dispossessing everyone going to remedy that problem? As George Orwell pointed out in his allegory Animal Farm, all that leads to is enabling another group of Pigs to take over the "Farm." The common factor in the losing narratives has been lack of consensus and moral authority by the "agents of change." What makes for moral authority?
Building self-rule (swa-raj or independence), using non-violent methods, using moral authority to change "concept" and thus change minds, represents a method, that albeit is imperfect, has a far greater chance of succeeding in ending conflict in the long run. Better to follow the examples I mentioned and work for success than follow the romantic but perilous road of the Ceasars (Castro is just another variant on this path) or the Popes (same). Ends rarely justify the means because ends are based on means and desired ends only come about when the means used are the right means. People are stubborn that way. A warrior might be able to pummel an enemy into submission -- for a time; but unless he does indeed manage to "kill them all" -- they'll be back again for revenge. The path of violence may be necessary for short term survival, but in the long run people have to find another way.
If the Palestinians want any long run peace and truly don't want to exterminate the Jews of Israel (a big if considering their election of Hamas in the South and Hezbollah in the North) then their only sane method would be to follow the advice of Arun Gandhi and follow the teachings of his Grandfather.
But on the other hand, the reality is always a more difficult field for developing consensus and moral authority than it seems. As much as I'd like to see South Africa broker a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis, they are already off to a bad start.
http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/south_africa_relations/ in which he notes: "The Independent on Saturday reported that whilst the South African government is not yet considering cutting ties with Israel or imposing sanctions, it is open to debate on the issue. This was the message expressed by Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad who said:"
"The question of imposing sanctions isn't a matter that can be taken lightly and should be treated with great seriousness. So the government is ready to discuss the issue with any organisation, but (we) support the Palestinians and oppose the escalation of tension in the Gaza as well as in Lebanon."
Like with my friends from the Carribean at the Gala, they are touching all the right principles, but their message is garbled by dishonesty. In the case of the Gala it was just a matter of no fair warning -- but South Africa is actually changing the facts to demonize Israel. When I hear of "truth and reconciliation" to me the emphasis should be on truth. They aren't off to a very good start with statements like this:
http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/2006/isra0713.htm
"The South African Government is greatly concerned at the increasing cross-border violence involving Israel, the Gaza Strip and now also Lebanon. The escalating Israeli military strikes into Gaza after the capture of an Israeli soldier has now reportedly been followed by rocket attacks into Israel from Lebanon as well as Israeli military incursions and air attacks into Lebanon, resulting in the capture of two other Israeli soldiers and the death of seven Israeli soldiers."
— From the South African government’s statement on the Lebanese-Israeli conflict."
Israel didn't "escalate" tensions all by itself. There was this little matter of kidnappings and Katyushka rockets (manned by Iranians by the way). If South Africa wants to play hero and broker a peace deal they aren't going to get anywhere good by substituting a dishonest narrative for the truth. That soldier was kidnapped before Israel decided to do anything with Lebanon. Israel has a determined and bloodthirsty enemy on its border shooting rockets at it from two directions -- and South Africa says it is escalating tensions? Not a good place to start if they are going to play mediator and peace-maker. They remind me of a thing I heard from someone once about peacemakers -- "beware of peacemakers because they'll start wars so they can play the role."
So why do they do it? As the blogger says:
"Why deny that Hezbollah crossed the border to kidnap those Israeli soldiers, when the fact is not in serious dispute?"
Well it turns out that the reason is that, for all the talk about truth and reconciliation, the ties of these people to Gandhi are not as strong as their ties to one another. South Africa finally adopted the methods of Gandhi, but its leadership also fought in tandem with Cubans and Palestinians, with Castro and Che Guevara; and so they feel like "brothers in arms." They too would rather wear an image of Che on their shirt then that "wuz Gandhi" or that old guy Mandela. Worse they see the Jews of Israel as "Whites" and remember when Israel could find its only allies among pariah regimes like that of white South Africa. It looks like the reality of truth and reconciliation is harder than the theory would make it seem. It is easier to wave a red flag and talk about the hypocrisy and greed of others -- than to set aside ones own hypocrisy and ambition not to "seem weak."
More sourcing:
http://commentary.co.za/archives/2006/07/14/dishonest-diplomacy/
Two questions. What do you have against communism? Granted the modern state is eroding personal freedom, but why choose the model of competition over co-operation? I'll grant you that it will be about impossible to bring about, but you say your are against it's goals.
And second how can you claim that Isreal has any right to exist or act as a nation. The land was stolen from the begining, where is the crime in taking it back. WWIII will be a high price to pay but no-one should have supported Isreal from the start. I do hope the Muslim and Arab world can bring about it's end.
clown hidden
If I believed all the propaganda "out there" and never researched anything for myself I would be thoroughly confused by now. On the one hand we have propaganda that paints the Communists and blood sucking monsters. Some of them have been: Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse Dung. Come to think of it all of them do. I'll try to explain my feelings, and more important the logic behind those feelings about Communism in future posts. I assumed that most people are familiar with Orwell's 1984 or with other anti-communist literature from ex-communists. I should never assume.
Next, this issue of Israel "stealing all the land." The fact is that Jews have been in Palestine since they were renamed Jews after the fall of Israel and after the mini-kingdom/principality of Judah in which the remnant lived.
While a good portion of modern Israel may have been acquired in war, an even larger portion was acquired by purchase by individuals from the Turks and other land-owners. Israel as settlers in Palestine originally took land where-ever they could buy it. They bought large tracks in the Negev, in Gallilee, in Judea and Samaria, along the coast, throughout most of what is now called Palestine and Israel. The official rationale for putting Palestine under British guardianship was that the Jews there deserved some independence and protection -- and between World War I and World War II, despite British restrictions on Immigration Jews in Israel bought or acquired even more land. Some of those original purchases were later lost during the 1948 war when Israel barely survived attacks from three fronts. Israel survived because the King of Jordan didn't really believe the demonic characterizations that were Arab propaganda then and now.
The land claims in the area are made murky by the fact that good titles were rarely to be had. The Jewish settlers, because they were coming from Europe mostly, brought with them the habit of buying land with a legal title. These legal titles were acquired by the Corporate State of Israel at independence. This means that much of modern Israel belongs to modern Israel and its people. Israel was a corporate entity within the area known as Palestine pre-1948 that declared its independence in 1948.
I don't have time to go into the entire history, but the notion that Israel stole all its land is a pure lie and "newspeak." Jews had their land stolen from them repeatedly, despite attempts to settle legitimately in Israel. Even so there have been ongoing places where Jews have a continuous presence dating back to the first Kingdom. In Safed there was a Kabballist community from ancient times. In Jerusalem there has been a continuous presence of Jews despite repeated massacres since before the crusades. The "old quarter" of Jerusalem, where the wailing wall is, has been inhabited continuously.
I could go on.
Posted by: chris at July 17, 2006 05:58 PM I don't see owning land or living some place as equivalent to setting up a state thatmakes only Jews firtst class citizens. Can a bunch of rich people buy up a state in the United States call it their own country and have discrimination their national policy? What if it were black people doing it would their history make it justifiable for them to do so? So say some foreign powers arm the blacks to the teeth and they have to take some of the land by force. Should everyone say it's legitimate and they deserve their own homeland? I don'r think so. One thing alone justifies Isreal's continued existance. Military might.
clown hidden
clownhidden,
I don't see repeating propaganda and nasty innuendo like "rich", nor do I like feel hearing talking points as a way to go about having a dialogue either. Israel was originally envisioned as a place where all people living would have full rights. However, most Israelis now realize that they are, in the long run, only going to be able to preserve their "jewishness" by accepting the status of a State within a State, an enclave, in the long run. They agreed to the "Two State Solution" in principle. It is their Moslem brethren who don't. Israel and many Palestinians would love nothing more than to be able to live in peace with their neighbors.
Some of course on both sides are radicals, the difference is the percentage. Hamas won a majority and is rejectionist. Hezbollah competes with Hamas from a Shiite Perspective. The task is not to demonize one side or the other but to convince both sides to accept a settlement.
When Jews moved to Palestine starting at the end of the 19th century they dreamed of reconstituting a Jewish State there, but many of them were quite content to live as members of the broader state they were living in until circumstances forced them to seek independence in the 40's. They also came to the US, to Argentina, to any port that would have them. Those who left left because they were forced to and could. Those who stayed died.
In the twenties those who had come to Palestine had been promised a State in the Balfour declaration. The British envisioned giving Jews their own cantons in federation with the rest of the people of Palestine. The model wasn't much different from that employed in Switzerland or Lebanon. They envisioned keeping Jerusalem as an International City under the protection of the UN (or of the League of Nations).
The Zionist Jews were willing to go along with that concept, but Moslem Palestinians were not. The Mufti of Jerusalem and other radicals even went so far as to travel first to Beirut to seek French help (which was given them) and then to Germany where the Nazis trained them to use bombs and explosives and fight a terror war. This is all documented fact. The 1948 war was ugly on all sides, and has been romanticized by both sides.
Israel is probably indeed a mistake. Religious radicalism was lit up by the oxygen of even the prospect of a prophesized Jewish return their homeland. Orthodox Rabbis mostly opposed the idea because they knew that the land still had many spiritual issues and that those isses and concepts would be rekindled by creating a State there before the figurative "Davidic King" was restored under ideal circumstances. Anything less would rekindle the kind of conflict and hatred that led to the destruction of the first two states. Moslems have their own end-times predictions about Jews. To them a State in Israel isn't a mistake but a unpardonable sin.
The Haskallah Jews of Zionism were looking at ideals and thought that the Arabs would welcome progressive, hard working people who would use science and technology to make the area a breadbasket that could support millions of people. They rejected such figurative arguments, especially since these weren't framed in a way that these hard-headed, myth-rejecting people could understand.
Sure enough The Orthodox Rabbis were right, but once the state was founded most of them found they had no choice but to sign on. Figuratively God had spoken. To this day some Orthodox and many Marxist Jews oppose a State in Israel, for different reasons. Marxists because they oppose any particular state.
follow this URL if you can:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html
Chris