Mr. Gibson's Mistake - and the Middle East War

Mr. Gibson’s Mistake – and the Middle East War

William Leiss

02 August 2006

Priests often say that God works in mysterious ways. Was it just a coincidence that the creator of that ardent profession of faith, The Passion of the Christ, delivered himself of a vicious anti-Semitic rant just as the Middle East was erupting in a new spasm of violence? Or was Mr. Gibson’s drunken tirade in Malibu sent to us as a sign from above, suggesting that we consider more carefully what is happening in the region justly known as the cradle of religion?

The world is full of nations and parts of nations that were stolen from somebody else at some time or another (North Americans especially should appreciate this fact). So what is it about the state of Israel, then, that seems to provoke a persistent and especially inflammatory response to its very existence? The U. S. Secretary of State delays the drafting of a cease-fire agreement because she wants a “sustainable” solution, which seems reasonable. But is there any chance at all that we are likely to see such a thing?

I fear not, because the community of nations is faced not with a political problem, which is hard enough to fix at the best of times, but an essentially different type of dilemma, one that is rooted in endemic religious intolerance. Once such a disorder has become endemic, as it has, it cannot be cured by purely political initiatives, such as introducing new armies and buffer zones. It might have been suppressed if Israel’s strongest ally, the United States, had insisted, decades ago, that a fair two-state solution, as well as adequate compensation for the Palestinian refugees displaced at Israel’s founding, must be achieved as the price of its continued support.

But it’s too late for that type of “rational” solution now, for a simple reason: As of now, there are too many other actors in the region who have a real and immediate interest in making sure that no such political solution is ever achieved. Rather, their political interests are now served by fueling a religiously-inspired intolerance until it reaches its own sustainable level – a level of permanent, murderous frenzy.

This is the new reality of the Middle East: Israel is the indispensable symbol for the maintenance of an unlimited, fratricidal conflict for which there is no end in sight. We need to remember that, although the Holocaust was the product of a modern secular state, the idea of holocaust – the extermination of a faith-based collectivity, down to the last remnant of its being – is originally a program of competing religious faiths. And the Middle East is where it all started.

There are no innocents in this present horror. This includes the U. S. evangelical Christians who tour the Holy Land looking for signs of the impending apocalypse; Shia and Sunni Muslims, who pause in the act of slaughtering each other to pray for the extinction of their common enemy, the Jew; and even at least some of the conservative Jewish sects in Israel, who regard Muslims as Untermenschen.

It would be unwise to expect very much good to emerge from the negotiations that will seek a short-term political solution. The prognosis is grim: Even some Israeli military analysts have concluded that their country was sucker-punched by Hezbollah. What Hezbollah feared was that the movement toward a secular democracy in Lebanon would pick up steam; their attack, and Israel’s careless response, has finished off that option for the foreseeable future. Whatever else happens, Hezbollah will emerge from this present crisis stronger than ever in terms of popular support, in excellent shape for preparing the next round.

What else is to be done? I suggest that it is time for leaders of all the major sects among the Western religions, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish, to recognize their own responsibilities in the matter. These leaders should convene in a neutral location somewhere in the Middle East (if one can be found!), and begin their own negotiations, pledging not to suspend them until a mode of religious reconciliation has been found. Then they need to persuade their flocks to follow them rather than the prophets of hatred.

The alternative is grim. The bombs now being exchanged across the Lebanese border contain high explosives. But remember, this is not a political conflict where compromise is inevitable; it is one which has the thrill of “final solution” as its underlying motivation. Shall we wait until the high explosives have been replaced with nuclear materials or engineered biological pathogens?