The Virtues of Shutting Up

The more I talk, write and chip in my two well-worn cents in one forum or another, the more I realize that words are (largely) meaningless. It’s not that words aren’t useful–we still have to communicate–but most of what’s being said, when I really think about it, is just fluff. Space fillers.

Example #1

I try as much as propriety allows to speak honestly, but I also know that sometimes, in my quest to be kind and encouraging, I often use words that don’t really correspond to reality. Something that is pleasing and admirable becomes “great.” A small victory–such as someone winning in an online game or finding their keys or finally getting rid of a pimple–becomes “awesome” or “fantastic.” An impressive work is likened to a famous person’s obra maestra. Etc. Etc.

Mind you, it’s not like I’m lying or faking it. It’s just that in a world that has largely opened itself up to intense communal discussion of even the most trivial issues…where one person has not just one blog, but two or three…where every thought and every move is recorded on Twitter, Facebook or some other online networking site…words are now a dime-a-dozen. Simply saying that something is “okay” is now almost akin to a put-down, even when meant as a compliment.

Example #2

When I open my mouth to talk about the various horrid things going on in the world, a huge part of me feels like such a hypocrite. I know that I’m just spouting air bubbles, living in the ether. It’s easy to have an opinion from the safety and comfort of my couch, when nothing that I could ever say or imagine can ever come close to the reality, to the hell people who are affected by the issue must be going through.

Example #3

Words are often a source of misunderstanding. Milan Kundera, one of my fave authors, explains it well in his novel “The Unbearable Lightness of Being.” Basically, he says that as they age, people slowly build a repertoire of meanings for various words–and everything they think, say or do is filtered through that very personal repertoire.

The same word, therefore, could mean something entirely different from one person to the other. Take “love.” While some people think that sex has nothing to do with love, others would disagree. While some think that to love someone is to let them go, others believe that to love someone is to fight for them to the very end. There are people who think love and violence are incompatible, still others who think laying down one’s life–or the lives of innocents–is sometimes a necessity in defending what one loves. Etc. etc.

Consequently, when someone uses the word “love,” it often carries certain implications and expectations that don’t necessarily correspond to another person’s understanding of the same word. The root cause of most arguments isn’t about what’s being said, but how it’s being said. 

Example #4

I find it wonderful when people who don’t speak the same language arrive at an understanding. One could be speaking in Chinese, the other Russian–and for all purposes they could as well be speaking Alien–yet they still get what the other is trying to say, and vice versa. It seems that there is one underlying language in all humanity, one that cuts across all ages, races, biases and beliefs. It’s what makes two people from opposite sides of the globe laugh, cry or react in exactly the same way over the same thing–even if they’ve never met or heard of each other before. Even if one eats cows, and the other venerates cows. Even if they worship on opposite sides of the Wall. 

On the Flip Side

However. I DO think there’s something to be said for not shutting up. For one, talking generates buzz and energy that helps propel people to action.What’s more–and perhaps this is more urgent, in a personal way–because of how small the world has become, to talk less is to invite isolation. More and more, relationships are being built and nurtured online. It’s a double-edged sword: The same thing that brings us closer to each other–the Internet–is also what brings us further and further apart. When human touch and face-to-face contact is replaced by emoticons and a glowing screen, our need to talk more, to share our lives, to connect with someone else, intensifies. It’s not really easy to just shut up.

 

So there you go. I seem to have said a lot, for someone who finds it admirable to rein in her words. Oh well! Maybe next time.

Why?

 

I’ve been focusing on rocks. Important rocks–rocks that count–but small rocks, nevertheless. Somewhere in my field of vision, there are boulders and mountains crumbling down. I see them, but have been too distraught by the idea to really look. But one has to look at some point. So I’m looking now.

That boulder, right there, that’s Gaza. I admit I only have a vague understanding of why the two sides (Israel vs. Hamas) are bombing/attacking each other. So I decided to do some digging over the Internet. It’s a long, complicated and tangled history, spanning generations and generations. One site, mideastweb.org, tries to put the reasons for the conflict in a nutshell. The following are only excerpts; I highly recommend checking out their site–or a similar source–to get a clearer picture.

Divisive History

Judea, home of the Jews in ancient times, was conquered by the Romans and renamed Palestine. Palestine was later conquered and inhabited by Arabs for over a thousand years. The Zionist movement arose to restore the Jews to Israel, largely ignoring the existing Arab population. Following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Palestine was granted to Britain as a League of Nations mandate to build a national home for the Jewish people. The Arabs resented the Jews coming in to take their land. Led by Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini, they rioted repeatedly and later revolted, creating a history of enmity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Britain stopped Jewish immigration to Palestine. Following the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, pressure on Britain increased to allow Jewish immigration to Palestine. In 1947, the UN partitioned the land into Arab and Jewish states. The Arabs did not accept the partition and war broke out. The Jews won a decisive victory, expanded their state and created several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees. The Arab states refused to recognize Israel or make peace with it. Wars broke out in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, and there were many terror raids and Israeli reprisals. 

Occupation, Land and Settlements

Israel has occupied the West bank and Gaza Strip (about 2,200 square miles) since the 1967 6-day war, and has built settlements with a population of about 220,000, mostly in the West Bank. Palestinians demand withdrawal from all of the land conquered in the 1967 and evacuation of the settlements. Israel continued to expand settlements throughout the peace process that began in 1993 and continues to do so today. In the final status negotiations at Camp David and Taba, Israel offered to turn over 97% of the land in the West Bank and all of Gaza, as well as Arab sections of Jerusalem. This offer was turned down by the Palestinians.

Palestinian State

Originally formed to regain all of Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs, the Palestine Liberation Organization signaled that it would accept a two state solution in 1988. The Oslo accords were supposed to have led to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but continued Israeli settlement and Palestinian violence and incitement degenerated into open conflict in September 2000.

Mainstream Palestinians demand a state in the West Bank and Gaza. Right wing Israelis are opposed to creating a state, because, they claim, it would be a base for terror groups. In final status negotiations, the Israeli government agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state with limited control over its borders and resources – a “state minus.” The Palestinians have won a commitment for a state from the UN, and from US President Bush. The Road Map peace plan is intended to result in a Palestinian state. The Oslo Accords and the Road Map are opposed by Palestinian extremist groups like Hamas and by Zionist extremists.

Refugees

About 726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in 1948 in the war that followed the creation of Israel, and additional Palestinians fled in 1967. There are now about 4 million Palestinian refugees. Many of them live in crowded refugee camps in poor conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Palestinians demand that these refugees should have the right to return to their homes in Israel under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israelis note that an almost equal number of Jews fled Arab lands to Israel in 1948. Israelis oppose return of the refugees because that would create an Arab Palestinian majority and would put an end to Israel as a Jewish state. Most Palestinian groups, including the Fateh, agree, and openly proclaim that resolution of the refugee issue by granting right of return would mean the end of Israel.

Palestinian Terror

Almost all Palestinian groups were founded with the declared aim of destroying Israel by violence, and had a history of terrorist activities. Only the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) has renounced this aim officially. In 1993, the PLO signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles, renouncing violence and agreeing to honor UN SC Resolution 242, which implicitly recognizes the right of Israel to exist. In return, Israel allowed the PLO to enter the West Bank and Gaza strip, and Palestinians gained autonomous control of most of the population of these areas. Extremist Palestinian groups that objected to the agreements began a campaign of ambushes and suicide bombings against Israel. The Palestine National Authority claimed they could not control the dissident groups. Final status negotiations faltered in September 2000. Ariel Sharon visited the Temple mount (Haram as Sharif), which includes the Al-Aqsa mosque on September 28, though he did not enter either of the mosques.. This ignited violent riots, that were met with lethal force by the IDF. The violence became generalized “resistance,” called “the Intifadeh,” and involving large sectors of the population as well as the Palestine National Authority itself, and the Palestinian police force set up by the Oslo agreements. Polls indicate that about half the Palestinians believe that the aim of the Intifadeh is to destroy Israel. Since September 28, 2000, Palestinians have killed over a thousand Israelis in terror and suicide attacks. Israelis have killed over 3,500 Palestinians in “defense” operations and reprisals, including many civilians. The Intifadeh destroyed the belief of many Israelis in the possibility of peace, and destroyed the credibility of Yasser Arafat and the PLO as peace partners. Israeli retaliation and repression further embittered the Palestinians.

Israeli Repression

Israel responded to Palestinian violence at the beginning of the Oslo process by limiting the flow of Palestinian workers to Israel to prevent infiltration of terrorists, and by strict checks at border checkpoints. The border closing drastically reduced the Palestinian standard of living. Palestinians who did come to work were often subjected to humiliating searches and very long waits at checkpoints. Following terror attacks at the checkpoints, nervous IDF (Israel Defense Forces – the Israeli Army) soldiers sometimes were too quick to open fire on suspicious vehicles, killing innocent civilians. Checkpoints around Jerusalem made it difficult for Palestinians to get to work in Jerusalem and to travel between Palestinian towns.

After September 2000, Israeli reprisals for Palestinian terror raids became increasingly severe, including assassinations of wanted terrorists that Palestinians refused to arrest. Following a series of deadly suicide bombings in March of 2002, Israel launched operation Defensive Wall in the West Bank and has since reoccupied most of the territories ceded to to the Palestinians in the West Bank. The IDF set up additional checkpoints and has kept towns under virtual siege with extended periods of curfew, disrupting work, education and daily life. Ditches surround towns, preventing people from leaving. The IDF has killed over 3,500 Palestinians, demolished houses and uprooted olive groves. After a recent IDF study showed that the demolitions do not deter suicide bombings, demolitions of the houses of suicide bombers were discontinued, but houses are still demolished for other reasons.

In addition to measures taken to ensure security, Israeli extremist settlers have harassed Palestinians, destroyed property, uprooted olive trees and killed several Palestinians in doubtful circumstances. The perpetrators are rarely identified and almost never prosecuted.

Israeli Security

The area of Israel within its pre-1967 armistice borders is slightly less than 8,000 square miles. The distance from Tel Aviv to the green line border of Israel (West Bank) is about 11 miles.( see map of distances ), Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other Israeli cities are within artillery range of any Palestinian state. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized. The West Bank has enormous strategic importance to any country wishing to invade Israel. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that the Palestinian state would not allow a foreign army to enter its borders, and has insisted on bases within the West Bank.

The site goes on to mention other factors, including the fight for water sources and Jerusalem (which plays an equally-important role in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Reading all this, I know I still have a lot to learn about what’s going on and what I could do about it. But several questions have been gnawing at me, and I really would love to be enlightened. For example:

Why is it so important for Israel to remain a Jewish state as opposed to just being a state of its citizens? It is, in fact, one of the reasons why they’ve continually refused to let Palestinian refugees back into Israel.

On the other side of the equation: Why is Hamas, as said so in their charter, so hell-bent on replacing the state of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state?

These two are obviously related. So perhaps the main, underlying issue that’s been bugging me is this: Why should religion enter the picture at all, when defining a state? And why must its defense always involve violence?

These may seem like stupid questions, and may reflect my flimsy and awkward grasp of the whole situation. But I really, honestly would love to understand better. Help!