Sympathy and Neutrality

This is for all my fellow (U.S.) Americans who feel pressured to “stand with Israel” in this latest incarnation of warfare with Islamic extremists. Your discomfort with absolutes is valid, and you have a right to your personal commitment, or lack thereof. No one has the right to coerce you, or question your ethics. Here is why.

© EuropeanTimes.news

First, there is no shame in withholding allegiance if you do not fully comprehend the history of the Middle East and its associated religions. Grant yourself permission to abstain, but make an effort to learn about such matters. Yes, it is treacherous territory, a minefield of misinformation from sources that have an agenda, be it clear or obfuscated. Hamas and Hezbollah are not the same organization, though both are backed by Iran.

Recognize that you are not an Anti-Semite if you do not declare unconditional support for Israel. Should anyone accuse you of such, that reveals more about their character than yours. Most of us have friends who are Jewish, who we cherish and advocate for. We are not holocaust deniers, and in fact stand up against anti-Semitism. By the same measure, we are intolerant of genocide directed at Islam. Extremist groups tend to ruin thing for everyone, ending innocent lives in pursuit of unattainable supremacy.

Here at home, I am fearful of Christian White Nationalists intent on imposing extreme religious constraints on all of our citizens. Banning books today could mean something far worse down the road. Racism and other forms of intolerance, bigotry and oppression go hand-in-hand with this agenda.

Back to the international topic at hand. Personally, when confronted with centuries-long conflicts, my impulse is to punish both sides. Were it in my power, I would throw everyone out of the disputed territories and declare them an International Peace Park, under the administration of the United Nations, where both sides could interpret their positions and histories for visitors, and where wildlife could flourish in what was once a hostile environment to all species. A Palestinian state might look something like Vatican City in Rome, ensconced withing Jerusalem itself. Where, in any event, is the creativity in conflict resolution?

What encourages me are people who speak up for innocent Muslims, which constitute most of the victims of Israeli military retaliation. They question the imbalance between U.S. foreign aid for Israel versus the paltry sum going toward humanitarian aid for the victims of those very bombs and weapons we have helped pay for. How is this helpful?

I am likewise heartened by coalitions of Jews and Muslims, who are peacefully protesting the extremism of both religions. Let us raise their voices and profiles as an example of true bravery and empathy.

I like to hold onto the possibility of God, and It is the entity for which I feel the most sympathy, by whatever name It goes by, should It exist at all. Religion, after all, is a decidedly human institution, and as such is vulnerable to the corruption we see in business, government, and all other human enterprises. The difference is that religion is the one thing we can choose to participate in, or refrain from joining. It has its social benefits, until it does not, until it starts violating someone else’s right to a different belief system. Choose carefully. Maintain an ethic that transcends that of your chosen allegiance. Stay sane, stay safe, keep loving your fellow humans.

but Syriaously....

I have had it with politics. Were it not for politics I might consider running for office, but alas it is a cruel game now and our government leaders, or what passes for them, do not command the respect they once did. Today I find myself confronted by two political dramas that illustrate how damaging and wasteful the political process has become.

Here in Colorado we are holding a recall election for two state representatives. The recall was initiated by a group that disagreed with the legislature’s support of strong initiatives for firearms regulations in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado theatre massacre. From what I understand, national groups then jumped on the bandwagon and funneled money to solicitors for gathering the signatures necessary to warrant a recall election.

Farther down the road, the proponents of the recall whined that they needed more time to generate alternative candidates to add to the ballot. The court(?) granted them an extension, but that meant that there was no way to qualify this as a mail-in ballot election. Not only that, but normal polling places were not going to be used, either. It was highly confusing unless you paid careful attention to the news and to your mailbox.

Meanwhile, the propaganda generated by both sides was obscene, both in content and sheer quantity. What a waste of trees to print this vitriol. We also had two door-to-door visits from young people reminding us to vote and who to vote for.

Recall elections should be reserved for extreme cases of abuse of power; and not because you don’t agree with one decision by your elected representative. I would like to think that I would vote against this particular recall regardless of which political party affiliation the incumbent had.

But seriously, there is another issue of national and international significance capturing our collective attention right now: should we launch strategic strikes against Syria for their use of chemical weapons on civilians? Public sentiment seems to be very much against this idea, but the opposition comes from two very different perspectives.

I think it can be argued that the United States has, since Vietnam at the least, engaged in war only when there was something at stake for itself. The Middle East has always held two things coveted by America: oil, and strategic locations from which other military actions could be carried out. We failed to intervene fully in Bosnia, and in Rwanda, mostly because there were no resources at stake. While we claim to be proponents of civil rights and freedom from oppression, we don’t back up our words with action. Ending genocide is apparently not enough of a principle to warrant military intervention.

So what about Syria? There doesn’t seem to be enough natural resources there to provide incentive to use military force, so Republicans and right-wingers are not supportive of action. Those left-leaning liberals who at least claim to value human life regardless of its religious affiliation and level of wealth, and who do not support war under any circumstances, certainly don’t endorse any action, either. What an odd couple, both sides opposed to military action in Syria for such divergent reasons!

Clearly, there should be global intolerance for the use of biological weapons, and some kind of collective action needs to be taken against the Syrian government. Acting unilaterally is not the way to go. We have lots of work to do at home, though, to educate ourselves about other nations, and brainstorm ways to help prevent the circumstances that lead to such catastrophic attacks in the first place.

I will happily endorse my tax dollars being spent on global disarmament, building ecologically sustainable communities, and creating renewable energy platforms. You ask me to pay for another boondoggle of a recall election, or support corporate welfare for agribusiness and petroleum companies, then you won’t be getting my vote in the next election.