The notion that recent events in the waters bordering Israel and Gaza can be understood or ‘solved’ politically is an attempt to apply reason to a conflict that has none. What was once a far simpler political issue, relevant only to geography, boarders and social-political life, in other words, tangible things, has since been, via the supplement of religion, transformed into an inexplicable problem with no foreseeable solution.
A long time ago, some fifty years ago to be more accurate, distributing the land equally in two parts might have solved this conundrum– maybe. But now, alas, that ship has sailed. Now we are entrenched in a fight rich with the insuperable dictates of religion. An argument that, for the spiritual, can only be discussed and solved by rules grounded in the mystical, which inevitably requires bloodshed. So why be surprised when Israeli troops board a vessel containing protesters and humanitarian aid in international waters, killing 9 people? How else is one to approach a conflict supported by a mutual belief that can be confirmed only by faith? It is ineffably convenient that the Messiah both sects believe in is said only to arrive once the other is gone. How does reason compete?
It is heartbreakingly frustrating that supposedly secular countries are dragged into this conflict, and forced to deal in dogma, superstition and unctuous blood lust. It’s frustrating because we are not allowed to propose the obvious solution; split the land up, and, as a sidebar, stop talking about annihilating each other in the name of God.
It is funny, perhaps only if you share a certain dark sense of humour, that a thing that proposes to be both the foundation and firmament of morality end up not just slightly corrupt, but fucking-kids-and-burning-people-alive-corrupt. Under a system that can reasonably (I daresay I’m using the term loosely) justify just about anything in the name of itself, how is one to make the quiet moral suggestions necessary to keep it ethical? In other words, to use this current example, how is the international community (if such a thing truly exists) to recommend a solution void of religious sentiment, one that looks at the problem objectively and attempts to solve it equally so? They cannot. Or, at least, neither side will listen. So we are doomed to be the innocent bystanders to a war of pure wind. And as long as it is a conflict that is structurally about politics, and verbally about religion, there will be no peace, no resolution, and no reason at all.