Brenden Nemeth-Brown Nemeth-Brown is an
international economics and political science student who urges you
to question the hegemony. He can be reached at bnb@ucla.edu.
Click Here for more articles by Brenden Nemeth-Brown
In 1948, the state of Israel was created with the heavy backing
of the United States and Great Britain. Ever since its
implementation, the state has been in constant conflict and
war.
At the time this article was written, two Israeli soldiers had
just been lynched and tortured and their bodies thrown from a
two-story building. That same day Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak
ordered the bombing of Palestinian authority leader Yassar
Arafat’s headquarters. As I processed this, I saw that the
Dow Jones dropped nearly 400 points due to this turmoil and the
higher oil prices it might cause (LA Times, Oct. 13, 2000).
Ever since the failed peace talks hosted by the United States,
tensions between Israelis and Palestinians have risen to higher
levels than I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. This became more
apparent to me after watching “Nightline in Jerusalem”
last week. Ted Koppel was hoping to facilitate a discussion between
three Palestinians and three Israeli leaders. But, the only thing
he accomplished doing was shouting over whoever was talking to
signal a commercial break.
The discussion made one thing abundantly clear to me:
Palestinian and Israeli leaders are intolerant of one another, and
a peace agreement will never be reached as long as they attempt to
divide Jerusalem.
Many in the press praised the concessions that Barak made to
Arafat, including granting some autonomous control to heavily
populated Palestinian areas. But when talks broke down because
neither side could agree on Jerusalem, people acted surprised that
talks fell through. That would be like breaking up the Chicago
Bulls and being surprised when a resolution cannot be reached when
both sides want Michael Jordan.
How can one come to an agreement if neither side will budge from
the most pressing issue?
 Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin The single biggest
issue that has driven these two sides apart is religion. Israel was
created to be a homeland for Jews, not for Muslims. There are ways
to become a citizen of Israel if you’re not Jewish, but why
is it that Israel must exist as a religiously-driven state?
(http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp)
Maybe it’s just me, but hasn’t the unification of
church and state been a practice rejected by the Western world for
some time now?
I don’t want to delve into who was right and who was wrong
because that would take hours of time to sort through. Truth be
told, I believe any such attempt is an operation in futility. Both
sides blame each other; both sides have plenty of biased
propaganda, so to sort through and determine the morally
“right” side would be a subjective mess on the part of
the judge. I believe a practical resolution can be achieved, if
both sides sit down and think reasonably, not religiously.
Since both the Jews and the Palestinians live there
concurrently, the idea to just get rid of one group is ridiculous.
Both have claims to the land, and whether or not you may believe
one’s claim is more legitimate than the other’s, that
should have no bearing on the outcome; for who is to judge?
In my experience growing up, religion has always been more
divisive than it has been unifying. I knew people who honestly
believed I was going to Hell for not attending Sunday services. I
have always believed one can be spiritual without subscribing to a
certain organized religion.
And this point is at the core of my article. Whether you pray to
Yahweh or Allah, I don’t see the difference. If you believe
in a higher being, why is it that some people criticize you for not
believing in their higher being? Is it really the case that theirs
is better than yours? The irony is that all religions claim to
welcome people of different backgrounds, only to condemn them if
they don’t accept their doctrine.
The creation of Israel as a religious state was a mistake. While
the Jews do have a pressing claim for the land and their migration
there was seemingly fair to the Western judges to be, the creation
of a holy state reeks of intolerance.
How can a country only allow one set of religious people to run
the country? Instead of fighting over every piece of land or
attempting to connect the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the
Israelis should just offer unlimited equal rights to the
Palestinians.
This may sound like a radical idea, but stepping back and
treating this situation objectively makes the most sense. Forcing
the Palestinians and Israelis to assimilate would be the best thing
for both sides. What they have now is a form of religious
segregation, similar to the racial segregation we had in America
with African Americans. Maybe we were even more tolerant in
America, for an African American counted for at least three-fifths
of a citizen.
If we erase boundaries instead of create them, Palestinians and
Israelis would have to start living together. Although there would
still be some residual violence and animosity between both sides,
it would subdue with time. Once people start to realize that the
differences between them are not as great as they’ve been
taught to believe, Israelis and Palestinians will begin to accept
one another more.
Much like my earlier example with African Americans, prejudice
can be subdued through years of desegregation. While I will not
claim that all racism is gone from this country, I believe I am
standing on firm ground when I say America has become more
accepting in these last 50 years.
Maybe the only way to affect the minds of these two peoples is
to somehow show them they have more in common than they think. Do
they both want a healthy economy? Yes. Do they both want peace?
Yes. Do they both believe in God and read from books that espouse
generally good morals? Yes. As I see it, these people have every
reason in the world to get along but are stopped from doing so by
party hardliners on both sides.
Maybe both sides will have to wait until these people pass on
and more accepting individuals come to power. With the recent chain
of events, however, there may be more incentive than ever to be
extreme ““ and that is the most dangerous possibility for
peace in the Middle East and the U.S. economy.
The last time there was war in the Middle East, gas prices
soared. Now that prices are rising and the Dow Jones is falling, a
war in that region could send our economy spiraling. And even if
you don’t care about a word I’ve written, you should
care about that.