New Times Naturally!

We live in a world created by force – though, maybe we should add, force which in turn has been created by spirit.

I was born and brought up in England. The English are quite a mix! Depending on how far back one wants to go, there were the Druids and the Celts; then there were the Vikings; then the Romans; then the Normans. The language reflects this diversity with its mixture of Anglo Saxon, Latin, Norman French, plus a sprinkling of other languages. Most of the influences that have shaped England have been forceful. Did the Vikings have any “right” to invade? No. They simply had more force at their disposal and better military technology. And the same applies to the rest.

If we look at America, even though modern American history does not go back more than a few centuries, the picture is pretty much the same. Visit St. Augustine, for example, where there is an interesting mix of Spanish, French and British cultures – all the result of periods of occupation. And what happened to the Native American Indians? Force and again force. The cultural divide between black and white Americans is based on the slave trade and the use of force.

Take a look at the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In Biblical times, the Jews invaded Palestine – through the use of force, though the Jews justified it by claiming it as their “promised land.” Look at Jerusalem claimed by the Jews, the Moslems, and the Christians. The Crusades of medieval times are a classic testimony to the brutal use of force in the name of religion.

The world as we know it is the product, not of right or wrong, but quite simply of force.

One can argue that it should not be this way. I was brought up in a family of pacifists who believed that all fighting was wrong. But that, to my way of thinking, is simply saying that the world should not be the way it is.

UnCommon Sense! espouses a common-sense approach to life. To be able to establish a common-sense approach, we have to look first at the world as it is (A) and second at the world as we should like it to be (B). There is no point in pretending that we can start with B.

Probably the most important decisions that a country and its citizens can make are decisions regarding the use of force. Consider the consequences of all the wars of the 20^th century and consider the possible consequences of the wars that are currently going on.

We tend to think that because we have “owned” something in the past – for example, a country subdued by force – that, after a sufficient period of time has passed, we have the “right” to it. This is mixing A and B and, basically, is wishful thinking. The British Empire is a good example. The Roman Empire too.

This does not mean, of course, that because we do not really own something that it “belongs” to someone else, or that someone else has the right to it. The truth is that no one really owns anything. The American Indian concept that we are stewards or guardians of the land is a more accurate view.

Which leads us to the point that, although everything we “own” has somewhere along the line been made possible by the use of force, there is practical ownership. For example, My wife and I have practical ownership of our house and our car.

It’s the same with countries. Who really owns a country? No one. Who in practice “owns” a country are the people who live there and who can muster sufficient force to defend it.

This may not give us an accurate philosophical definition of who a country really belongs to, or should belong to, but it does, at least, give us a practical working one.

At a personal level, we “own” our house: we actually live in it, have a piece of paper that says it is ours, and, if anyone says it isn’t, we can use the legal system (and if necessary force) to defend our “rights.”

Looking at our country, America, we “own” it in the sense that we live here and, if necessary, we are able to defend it (using force) against an aggressor.

This is pretty simple. It gets more complicated when ownership is disputed. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are good examples.

Iraq, as currently defined, is an artificial country established by the British in the 1920s. This is, by Middle Eastern standards, yesterday. The history of the area goes back thousands of years with all sorts of people claiming it as theirs. At one time not so long ago the great Persian Empire controlled not only the area we now call Iran, but Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well. Today there are some 120 tribes in Iraq, all wanting control and most of whom dislike each other! To simplify it, there’s the Shi’ite majority (some 60%), and then the Sunnis and the Kurds.

So who does the area belong to?

It “belongs,” in practice, to whoever is living there who can actually control and defend it. Formerly this was the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, and the Baath party. Now it’s up for grabs – which is no doubt why so many countries are interested. A lot of very valuable oil!! But logically it should be the Shi’ites. Not only are they the majority but they probably can muster sufficient force to defend Iraq against “foreign” aggression and maintain order at home. Of course, America and the UK could override this logic. After all we have the military strength to, at least temporarily, enforce other “solutions.” But unless we want to be stuck there “for ever” with our troops, we have to let the Iraqis have control – which in practice means the Shi’ites, since they are the majority.

This goes against America’s “interests.” We want an American style democracy, and the last thing we want is an Iraqi government which would probably be similar to Iran’s, i.e. controlled by Moslem fundamentalists, which would create a really strong Moslem “block” and make it quite hard to defend our “interests.” The truth, however, from a practical viewpoint, is that we do not have much choice – unless we are prepared to leave troops in the area indefinitely.

We need to take a real hard look at American foreign policy and look at not only what we should like (B) but what is realistic (A).

Should the United Nations get involved?

This looks like a “nice” solution, for us at least. However, the real question is whether or not United Nations’ involvement is likely to help. The United Nations has a strong Christian bias. Just look at the countries that make up the Security Council: America, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. Moslems are poorly represented. (There are over a billion Moslems in the world, i.e. approximately one sixth of the world’s population.) Also the United Nations does not have sufficient military “teeth” to enforce a solution. Look at Somalia or, even worse, Rawanda, where over 800,000 people were killed (genocide) in the early 90s, with the United Nations and the so-called “international community” helpless.

Let’s now take a brief look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

This is in many ways more serious that the situation in Iraq. The Israelis have nuclear capability and there is little doubt that they are prepared to use it if they have to. So, not only are they living there but they have control of sufficient force to defend themselves. The Palestinians may seem to be at a disadvantage since they are only allowed to live in restricted areas and certainly cannot muster an equivalent force to the Israeli’s. However, the Palestinians are backed by Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and probably most Moslem countries, which is a pretty powerful counterweight to Israel’s military might. On the other hand, Israel is backed by America, even though we do not agree with everything the Israeli’s may do. In other words, it’s a real mess! And a dangerous one!

Hamas, the Palestinian “terrorist” organization wants to get rid of the Jewish state completely. This is unrealistic. Whatever their historical claims – and arguments can be made on both sides – the Jews are there to stay. And the same can be said of the Palestinians. It looks as though the “final solution” is going to have to be two separate states.

Should outside force be used to “facilitate” a solution? This is tempting since it does not appear that the Israelis and the Palestinians on their own are capable of reaching one. Of course, one then thinks of the United Nations. But the same arguments against United Nation’s involvement in Iraq apply here. Neither the Arabs nor the Israelis trust the United Nations.

My guess is that the Israelis and Palestinians, left to their own devices, would get along fine – they did for many year prior to the current “intefada.” The problem is that the two “states” are pawns in a larger game. One would need to get the key game players together, such as America, United Kingdom, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, to name some of them at least. Possible? Maybe, somewhere along the line. But to do so means that we have to solve the whole issue of Terrorism.

Terrorism is basically the use of force designed to influence public opinion, usually by killing civilians. There is nothing new about it though mostly terrorism has been resorted to by countries, such as England vs. Germany, and America vs. Japan during the Second World War.

The history of terrorism as we currently think of it (World Trade Center, Bali, Milan train bombing etc.) ties closely into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. America has supported Israel with weapons and loans. The Palestinians, and the countries (groups) supporting them, not having the same military strength, have resorted to the less conventional strategy of terrorism.

One often hears the argument that we cannot negotiate with terrorists. This may be true. To negotiate with them is to give them more power. However, there is nothing to say that we cannot negotiate with countries. Terrorist organizations cannot function without the support or tolerance of the states in which they exist. Take Saudi Arabia for example. Apart from the fact that nearly all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, there has come up more recently plenty of evidence of financial support to Al-qaida, if not directly from the government, at least from prominent groups or individuals. Hamas has been directly supported by the Palestinian authority and, more to the point, by Hezbollah (an Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese sponsored terrorist organization).

The two key demands of the terrorist groups (and indirectly the governments that support them) have been (a) the removal of foreign troops (especially American) from their soil, and (b) the abolition of Israel as a state.

Maybe one could make a deal with the countries involved: remove our troops from their countries in exchange for an acceptance and recognition of the state of Israel and the creation of two separate states, Israel and Palestine. With a peacekeeping force put together by all the countries involved.