I am very nervous about the escalated conflicts going on in Israel this week (writing this blog on Nov. 18, 2012). Will the turmoils in the world never cease? I suppose not. And a huge dilemma is at what point does outside involvement become more of a hindrance than a help? In addition, is the help given the help that is needed?
I am wondering what would happen if all contributing countries stopped their contributions? Providing the items and money that help strengthen one fighting participant's position combined with other entities providing the same to the opposition ends up, in my opinion, more prolonged and destructive fighting. Countries sending troops in results in gratitude or resentment, depending on how relationships progress. And, of course, further animosity increases between both the fighting countries as well as between their supporters.
What a dilemma. To do nothing causes great angst and guilt on those who stand by and simply "watch." Getting involved might help diffuse the situation but likely will not resolve it. Or, getting involved might escalate the situation even further. In my own little utopia, I reduce the very complex down to the very simple by relating serious conflicts in the world to family conflicts. What seems to be the best way for a family to deal with children who want -- not need -- two different things in regards to one issue? The effective parents will be moderators while the kids discuss the situation and formulate a resolution both will accept and honor. Why not let the kids do this on their own and then come back with their plan? Because in secrecy, one child may have badgered or somehow influenced/overpowered the other -- resulting in an unfair compromise.
Weapons and methods of destruction are so sophisticated, and easier and easier to maneuver and aim. Sadly, so many innocent people and neighborhoods get destroyed...and for what -- Pride? Power? Maybe I'm a product of the "equal housing opportunity" and "equal employment opportunity" mindset so that I'm not concerned about borders but rather am concerned about the type of government combined with religious freedom (that freedom being extended to everyone) so long as they "cause no harm."
So for me, this is all very hard to understand, but I do realize and appreciate that it has a deep and far-reaching historical foundation. But when -- despite its ups and downs at times -- the American "melting pot" is living proof that there is much unity when everyone is like-minded in terms of standards, manners, and meeting basic needs for everyone, I cannot absorb that it is not an example others would want to emulate and see if the urge to fight and destroy dissipates.
If it's a matter of "thug"-type activity, it would seem to me people in all countries involved in the fight would want to stand united against the thugs, and I can understand outside countries coming in then to help subdue and, if necessary, remove the thugs. But that, too, has to be dealt with wisely. It is then that reduction of fear as well as intelligence has to come into play to discern who truly are the thugs versus the people the thugs have bullied in order to get them to submit and surrender. My personal instinct is that it is mostly thug activity with many people being threatened and forced into cooperating and supporting them. What a tragedy.
Maeke Ermarth ©November 18, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment