Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.
I remember, from when I was studying biology at the University of Illinois in the early 1980s, a genetics professor talking to our class about Jews and Palestinians. I recall him sharing his view with us that the conflict between these two groups of people—each violently fighting for their perceived religious, cultural, and biological identities—was illogical, because, biologically speaking, they are identical people.
This professor was apparently referring specifically to those Jews with a purely Middle Eastern genetic heritage, as opposed to those with substantial European genetics. His expressed view was obviously an oversimplification of the complex genetic and historic backgrounds of both groups of people. Nevertheless, it is true that scientific analyses have identified strong genetic similarities between modern-day Jewish people and modern-day Palestinians, as well as certain other Middle Eastern people.
So, in a sense, the seemingly endless and worsening Israeli-Palestinian conflict really amounts to brother fighting and killing brother.
Of course, the same kind of genetic similarities exist between many groups of people that have been in conflict in the past or that are in conflict today. Ukrainians and Russians. English, Irish, and Scotts. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. North and South in the American Civil War. Needless to say, all people are ultimately related to one another, and we all have our genetic roots in Africa. We are all ultimately brothers and sisters.
That sounds all nice, warm, fuzzy, and groovy. But so what. Being related to some guy doesn’t mean you can’t hate him—or even want to kill him. Plenty of real brothers and sisters and other family members can’t stand each other. So, what the hell is my point in even bringing up all this genetic stuff?
War is a waste
My point is to suggest that people might benefit from some deeper reflection—besides just picking a side to support—regarding the situations in Gaza and Ukraine and all the other horrible wars and ugly hatreds that are dominating world events these days, threatening to throw us all into World War III. For example, I support the Russians and the Palestinians in the current raging conflicts. But that support exists at only one level of my consciousness and intellectual reasoning—at a level where I choose sides among warring parties based on my understanding of the recent geopolitical events that have led up to particular conflicts, including my perception of what factors constitute the ethically “right” or “just” side of the argument.
However, at a deeper level of my consciousness and intellectual reasoning, I am aware of the dishonesty and stupidity of choosing any side in any war, and I am aware that all wars are immoral exercises in folly and absurdity. The only real beneficiaries are politicians and weapons makers. The great masses of regular people on both sides of any conflict always have to pay the price. The unlucky individuals who get killed or come home from the pointless war with mangled bodies and fucked-up minds pay the biggest price. Furthermore, whatever outcomes result from a war, no matter which side “wins,” serve mainly to lay the groundwork for future conflicts and more wars.
Eventually—with any war—no one will remember, and many lies will be told about, how or why the fighting started, what was actually accomplished through the fighting, and who actually won or lost. While I have been closely following the events in Ukraine and Gaza, I also decided to reread one of my favorite books—Gwynne Dyer’s War, originally published in 1985.
A couple paragraphs from Dyer’s book that I think really stand out and that should be kept in mind by any enthusiastic supporter of any side in any war are the following. Dyer placed these paragraphs after a description of the ancient Egyptian-Canaanite-Syrian battle of Megiddo (Armageddon):
Yet all the effort and sacrifice entailed in fighting wars—each of which seems so important at the time—doesn’t actually lead anywhere. In the end, it is virtually canceled out. The only thing that makes the battle of Megiddo important to us is the fact that we know about it. It is hard to feel any real sense of regret about the men who lost their lives on that day, because they would have been dead for over 3,400 years now anyway. It is impossible to care much about who won the battle, because both sides lived long ago and far away, and most of what they cared for—their family and friends, their language, their religion, their personal and political hopes and fears—has vanished utterly. This is not at all the way we feel about the Normandy invasion of 1944, but if history goes on long enough, the day will come when Megiddo and Normandy will seem on a par: equally futile and equally meaningless.
Naturally, we resist and resent that conclusion with all our strength. That war of 3,400 years ago was obviously a mere power struggle with no moral justification, whereas any war our nation becomes involved in today will be just and necessary. The soldiers who were killed on the battlefield of Megiddo died in vain, but if today’s generation of young men have to die on the Central Front in Europe, it will decide the moral fate of mankind forever. The man in the ranks of Thutmose III’s army of Armageddon was deluded about the importance of his death, but the man in a Chieftain tank (or a T-62) in Germany today is not. And I am the Queen of Sheba.
Crazy about war
Within the past few years, it seems like the entire world has gone crazy about war. Gaza and Ukraine have recently received the overwhelming share of media attention, but as explained by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), violent conflict is raging all over the place. The following text is from the organization’s January 2024 update:
Conflict [meaning war or other violent conflict] is now widespread and pervasive: 12% more conflict occurred in 2023 compared to 2022, and ACLED records an increase of over 40% compared to 2020. One in six people live in an actively conflicted area. In 234 countries and territories covered by ACLED, the majority—168—saw at least one incident of conflict in 2023. Over 147,000 conflict events are recorded, and at least 167,800 fatalities. . . .
Conflict rates exist on a spectrum, and some level of conflict occurs in almost every country. The highest levels are found in the 50 countries highlighted in the Index list. These countries are categorized as ‘extreme,’ ‘high,’ or ‘turbulent.’ These top 50 ranked countries account for 97% of all conflict events recorded for the past 12 months. The extremely violent countries account for 40% of all conflict. . . .
Of those countries with extreme violence, two are in Africa (Nigeria and Sudan), and Sudan continues to get worse as mass killings are a key feature of that conflict. Three countries are in the Middle East (Palestine, Yemen, and Syria), underscoring the depth of problems that persist in the region across decades. Myanmar is the sole Asian country with extreme violence, but it remains the most difficult conflict case in the world. Finally, four of the 10 extremely violent places are in Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Haiti); barring Haiti, all are also considered relatively stable democracies and market economies despite being riddled with gangs, contested authorities, corruption, and violence against civilians. There are no large, traditional wars in these countries, but multiple, deadly, pervasive small conflicts.
These small conflicts and their characteristics continue to be the most persistent feature of instability across developing and more-developed countries. A key feature of these conflicts is the number of armed groups, and their agendas: several thousand militias and gangs operate across these conflicts, and their goals are often local authority and control. They do not seek to govern, speak for maligned or excluded groups, or transform the political system to be more democratic, fair, or representative. They are locked into a contest for power, where violence is the most effective tool available to them. . . .
The world is getting far more violent in recent years: conflict event rates have increased by over 40% from 2020 through 2023; and increased 12% in 2023 from 2022 rates. But 2020 was a relatively less violent year compared to 2018-2019, when wars in both Afghanistan and Syria raged. Compared to those years, the increase in 2023 is still significant at an average of 20%.
Normalization of insanity
War and other political-religious violence is always horrible, inhumane, and evil—regardless of whatever justifications are proclaimed by any side. The primary insane and immoral feature that characterizes all wars is this: Human beings are killing and maiming other human beings because some powerful or influential political or religious leaders told them to do so. In wars, men are not typically compelled to go fight and kill other men because they were personally wronged in any way. The individual Russian soldier was most likely not personally harmed by the particular Ukrainian soldiers that he is killing. And if that Russian had met those particular Ukrainians under normal, peaceful conditions, he might have struck up friendships with them and went out together to drink beers or pick up chicks.
But the soldiers on a battlefield have been whipped into hysterical frenzies by being fed propaganda by their governments. They have been psychologically manipulated into such irrational, abnormal, pathological mental conditions that they will proudly and “bravely” slaughter their brothers on the battlefield—brothers that their governments or other authorities have convinced them to view as enemies. The soldiers, if they possessed their normal peacetime levels of sanity, would recoil in horror at the idea of killing other men, especially strangers that they never even met before. But in wartime, they willingly let go of that sanity and turn into murderous insane savages, because they have been ordered to do so by authority figures, who tell them that it is their patriotic duty to kill.
War is the normalization of insanity. Temporary insanity. Then when the soldiers return to their normal civilian lives, if they are fortunate enough to survive the brutal horror of war, they suddenly have to act sane again and go back to remembering that murder is bad. No wonder so many veterans have permanent psychological damage.
War as a sport
I have always been strongly anti-war, though, like most everyone else, whenever a conflict breaks out somewhere in the world, I find myself rooting for one side or the other if the conflict, for some reason, interests me. So, I root for the Russians in Ukraine. I root for the Palestinians in Gaza. I convince myself that the side I pick is the “right” side.
Deep in the recesses of my brain, however, I intellectually know that both sides are wrong. I know that, morally and ethically speaking, killing is always wrong—unless it’s an individual-to-individual case of personal self-defense. If a scary armed guy breaks into my house to rob or kill me, I have an ethical right to shoot him to defend my life and property. That would be a logical action in such a dangerous personal confrontation.
But I pick a side in a distant war, far from my home, like it’s the fucking World Series or Super Bowl, though, truth be told, the results of those distant wars are totally irrelevant and meaningless to my life in a small town in the Midwestern United States. Totally meaningless, other than the fact that my tax money is being wasted on the wars. It’s almost a sick form of entertainment for me and other Americans, who have not known war on our own lands in 160 years. It’s like war porn. Check the latest news headlines and listen to my preferred commentators to see how my side is doing on the battlefield. So exciting! I should feel ashamed about it, if I’m honest with myself.
When Carter reinstituted registration for the draft (or Selective Service) in 1980, I was 20 years old and I registered under protest, by writing “under protest” on the registration form. Like anyone in the Selective Service System gave a shit what I thought about it. Fortunately, I never had to go fight in a war. If I had been born earlier and been forced to deal with the Vietnam-era draft, I’m sure I would have become a draft resister. Perhaps one of those guys who had to flee to Canada. No way would I have gone to Vietnam.
I reject the military at every level. I do not support American wars or politicians who push wars. Historically speaking, the only wars that this country fought that were arguably ethically justified were the Revolutionary War and World War II. All the others were unjustified imperialist adventures or other forms of waste or unnecessary nonsense. Furthermore, I do not honor veterans or consider them “heroes.” Other than the WWII vets, none of them fought for “freedom” or “democracy.” Rather, they fought for big greedy corporate interests. At best, vets might be considered hapless victims and unfortunate pawns in the evil, selfish games of the military-industrial-political complex.
I feel terribly sorry for the guys who got sucked into the military, especially those guys with the crippled bodies and missing limbs that I see in the TV commercials for Wounded Warrior and other veterans-help organizations. Those commercials make me intensely hate the politicians that sent those poor guys off to fight in the pointless wars. Somebody should make those goddamn politicians suffer the same fate.
The only American war that I might support is one in which the country was directly invaded by a hostile, malevolent foreign power. It would have to be a matter of genuine national self-defense. But, considering the seemingly hopeless cultural and societal rot in which the U.S. is mired these days, I would probably be tempted to support the foreign invader.
Indigenous is irrelevant
Returning to the Palestinian-Israeli matter, that cycle of war seems to be endless. As long as both sides cling to their firm beliefs that they are the true indigenous people of the land, based on their understandings of religion and history, the conflict will continue generation after generation. I was recently a guest on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad podcast, discussing a wide range of issues. One of the issues that came up was the matter of who are the real indigenous people of Palestine. Kevin asserted that there is no question that the Palestinians are the real indigenous people of the land. I did not disagree, but I raised the point that the Jews will never agree to that interpretation of history no matter how much evidence might be presented, because they will point to the Bible and claim that God gave the land to people of their religion thousands of years ago.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn who the indigenous or original people of Palestine were. In scientific reality, they constituted a culture of people that is long gone and long dead. There weren’t Palestinians or Israelis. They weren’t Jews or Muslims. According to archaeologists, the first people who lived in the land that is now Palestine/Israel, more than 11,500 years ago, belonged to a now-extinct hunter-gatherer culture called the Natufian.
But at the point in history where humanity is today, indigenousness is irrelevant anyway. If indigenousness is so important, all the white people—and all other non-aboriginal people—should get the hell out of North and South America and Australia immediately. But I don’t hear any serious argument calling for that. There are realities on the ground today that simply have to be taken into consideration in any proposed solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Any “solution” that calls for wiping out either Jews or Palestinians from the land is not realistic.
The most frequently heard proposed “solution” for decades has been the “two-state” solution, which would mean establishing an independent Muslim/Arab-dominated state for Palestinians alongside the Jewish-dominated state of Israel. I don’t think that will ever work, because each side views the other too suspiciously and hatefully, and each side would continue to be obsessed with security concerns about their neighbor.
It’ s like the old joke about women. Can’t live with them (can’t have two states). Can’t live without them (can’t wipe out the other group). The problem seems impossible to solve. There seems to be no solution in this crazy world that we have created—a world in which people insist on dividing themselves into groups based on religious, cultural, and national identities.
Imagine a different world
It’s a sad, depressing reality, but we can still use our imagination to think “outside the box” of that self-imposed reality. It’s a reality that we created. If it’s not working right, maybe it’s time we created a new reality. What if we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, imagine no religion, imagine no countries . . . Nothing to kill or die for . . . Imagine all the people living life in peace.
I have often thought that the most logical solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dilemma would be the elimination of the current Jewish state of Israel, the abandonment of the idea of a separate Palestinian state, and the establishment of a brand new state with absolutely no religious ties and no religious/cultural preferences/references at all. It would be a completely secular state in which all human beings have the exact same rights, with fully equal distribution of resources, opportunities, and power.
People would be free to practice any religion or cultural habits of their preference, but there would be zero government involvement in religion or other traditional cultural matters. The government would simply take care of the usual necessary government administrative business and totally avoid making any reference or having any connection to any religion. Whoever wants to live in the land could live there, with genuine equality protected for all. And anyone who started stirring up religious or cultural division—whether on the Jewish or Palestinian side— would be prosecuted for a crime. This land would not be called by the inflammatory names of Israel or Palestine. Need to come up with a new, neutral name. Peaceland?
It would be a system designed to allow Palestinians, Jews, and anybody else to live on the shared land in peace, as the brothers and sister that they really are. Stop all the fighting, all the divisiveness, and all the God bullshit already, and just be human beings.
That would be logical, rational, and humanistic, at least in my analysis. Unfortunately, people are often more emotional than logical. And that emotion keeps them clinging to old tribal ideas regardless of how many people get killed or live in misery as a consequence of that outdated tribalism. Needless to say, there are also strong financial motivations among certain stakeholders in keeping the mindless tribalism and divisiveness going.
Nevertheless, if you want a true, permanent solution to the problem, I think that’s the only one. No matter how realistic it might seem, it’s still the only logical, lasting solution. But making it real would require lots of people to give up some of their longtime cherished notions about both themselves and their “enemies.”
Disgusted by warmongering
The same type of reasoning could be applied to most of the other conflicts raging around the world. For example, Russians and Ukrainians are brothers with deep historical connections, and they should not be fighting and killing each other, goddamn it! The main reason they are fighting is because of the outside pushing of the American Empire, the profit motive of the American military-industrial complex, the power motive of corrupt Ukrainian politicians, and the propaganda and brainwashing on both sides of the conflict. In addition, I suspect that Russia, like the United States, has its own military-industrial complex that is profiting from the prolonging of this stupid war.
War is the dumbest, most irrational of all human endeavors. Religion is probably the second dumbest and second most irrational endeavor. I have absolutely no use for either. I would prefer that humans throw both in the trash bin of history and work together to build new societies based on logic, humanism, brotherliness, cooperation, and peace.
You may say that I’m a dreamer. But I am extremely disgusted with all the wars and warmongering in the news. The leaders of the world have gone insane in their apparent lust for World War III. Perhaps I’m a dreamer, but at least I’m not insane like them.
And I will continue to imagine a world without war.
No comments:
Post a Comment