Moderately Bellicosely Belligerent
Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? I suppose on the face of it, it might just possibly be acceptable. If, for example, you compare extremes and discover one of the extremes to be somwhat less so than the other you might stretch language to the extent of claiming the lesser of the two approaches moderacy. If you cannot even speak to one who is so brimming with hatred and deadly intent that reasonable dialoge is impossible, then the one who is merely suspicious and wishes you ill, but is willing nonetheless to discuss ways of mitigating this enmity, this person is seen to be, in comparison, reasonable, and a moderate.Now let's take someone who takes it upon himself to defy the historical record complemented by real presentable proofs of a historical event of great consequence, because his societal culture sees fit to contest it, and then cements his distrust of reality by actually writing a university thesis based on this revisionism, successfully defends his thesis and is granted his certification, you would a) suspect the legitimacy of the educational institute, and/or b) wonder at the cerebral functioning of the author.
And would one under any circumstances consider such a person to be a moderate? A moderate, say, in his views of history, and do moderates seek to mount challenges to the intellectually, historically, realistically unchallengable? Well, people do change after all, and where would we be if we weren't prepared to offer ourselves open to the proposition that as people mature they become more astutely intelligent, more open to reason, more rational.
So it is that Mahmoud Abbas, the current leader of Fatah, the President of the Palestinian Authority is the moderate, the Arab leader of the Palestinian people who is willing to speak reasonably for his people at the bargaining table with his counterpart in Israel. For the purpose of bringing the two governments, (one a government-in-waiting of an autonomous Palestinian State) to an agreement which will eliminate violence and institute proceedings for statehood for the Palestinians.
Perhaps he does now believe that the Holocaust did indeed take place; it's possible he does not and perhaps cannot believe the figure of six million exterminated, the rough equivalence to the "enemy", the "occupying force" he sees next door to the Palestinian Authority. His argument with secular Fatah's arch enemy, fanatically extremist Hamas, to accept the practicality of admitting that the State of Israel is a legally recognizable entity has caused the dialogue for peace to come to an abrupt standstill.
The result of which has been fratricidal warfare between Fatah and Hamas militias, along with the bystander-deaths of innocent Palestinians, not to mention those others who have been wounded as the militias seek to outdo one another in vicious assaults. Both Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh and Mr. Abbas exhort their followers to refrain from murdering one another in public statements, yet it's clear that they're either powerless to control their followers, or that they're surrepticiously spurring their militias on to further mayhem.
There is no love lost on the part of the "moderate", "reasonable" Fatah for Israelis or Jews, but at the present time their internecine squabbling appears to be taking centre stage. While the average Palestinian wishes nothing more than to be able to get on with their lives, to be able to live in a normal way without uncontrolled militias rampaging freely in the streets, without the worries associated with a bankrupt economy, a non-existent job market, the young hormone-rampaging Palestinian men brought up in a culture imbued with ripe memories of tribal revenge and bloodlust find their lust for adventure and danger within the ranks of the militias.
This kind of bloodsport seems to be as natural to young, unemployed and angry Arabs as is extreme sports activities to the young, testosterone-driven adventurers in Western society who scorn life and limb to outdo one another in risking misadventure, crippling accidents and death. The difference being that the bloodsport of young disaffected Arabs takes the lives of other human beings, while that of the extreme-sports-addicted westerners threaten only their own lives. The former is a gruesome insult against humanity, the latter an unfortunate and sad fallout of identity values.
Still, it was a surprise to hear Mahmoud Abbas lecture the Palestinians that they need to stop killing one another. That wasn't the surprise, it was what came after, for who could find fault with an injunction to halt murder? It was his further statement, that it was entirely legitimate to target and kill the oppressors of the Palestinian people, and that was what their disaffected militias should be focusing on, not one another.
Isn't it the sacred duty of one who would lead, to lead toward a higher purpose than killing? When the militias fire off Kassams, threatening the lives and livelihood of neighbours, innocent civilians, isn't it the just duty of the leader who ostensibly is striving to conduct serious and sober peace talks with the neighbours to instruct these militias to cease and desist? Why then, urge them to continue lobbing missiles?
Why for that matter continue to name Israel as "the occupying force"? That occupying force is doing what any nation would under the circumstances, attempting to secure the safety of its population under siege by jihadists. If the two sides are ever to reach a working arrangement of co-operation and general agreement to live side by side as two separate and sovereign entity-states, this is a rather poor way of demonstrating to Palestinians the manner in which their governing body regards their bargaining-for-peace partner.
Great good heavens - are there any moderate moderates around?
Labels: Viewpoint
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, January 14, 2007
<< Home