Everyone wants peace, naturally. Who doesn't? Allow me to make a bold assertion here: even the warmongers (Hitler, Osama, Bush, or anyone you want to pick) around us would agree to settle all crises if they are guaranteed victory, and their idea of a peaceful world is made a reality. Most often, wars are fought simply because the belligerents disagree on what peace means - although essentially they all want peace.
Recently, while chatting online about the Gaza crisis with a friend, I asked him what kind of solution does anybody in the peace forums and talks he attended offer to end the crisis? I asked because - I admit - I rarely attend those events and I am curious to know how the 'pro-Palestinian' movements (at least in our country) seek to end the crisis. You can say, 'Duh, isn't it obvious?'. Well sorry if I'm a bit slow on this, but, as much I would dream to see the end of the Palestine-Israel conflict, I want to know if those who advocate an end to the crisis actually has a practical way of achieving it.
So what is the practical way to attain peace (in a broader sense)? From peaceful protests to suicide bombings; boycotts to genocide - here is where the disagreements lie. And here the devil finds his work merely a cakewalk.
Let's look into our (Malaysian) history. When Tunku Abdul Rahman led a delegation to London to discuss our independence from the British rule, he (and the people who supported his trip) made a conscious choice. Instead of going to London, they could have (A) conspire to attack to the British troops in Malaya, or (B) live and let live - we must be thankful they did neither 'A' nor 'B'. As what we learn in history class, thanks to the diplomatic skills of our forefathers, our beloved country attained independence without any bloodshed.
But what if the London delegation failed to convince the British that we deserve to be awarded Independence? Here's what I think. If you broke a vase in your house and your mother asks you who broke it, would you (A) admit it was your fault; or (B) pretend you didn't know? If you choose to be honest, you might either get the full blow of the wrath of your mother, or, she'd extol your honesty (I'd bet the first one). But if you lie, you might get away scot-free, or she might find out the truth and you know what'll happen next. My point is this: since you cannot predict (A) how your mother would react if you come clean; or (B) if you assume innocence, whether she would find out that you lied; no matter how the story may unfold (your mother praise your honesty, you get away unharmed, the British award us our Independence) your choice - to be honest, or to lie - must be based upon your values.
Similarly, I believe, it is still possible to end the crises in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrzygstan, Somalia, Thailand, Kashmir (and perhaps anywhere in the world), if the disputing parties can exchange their differing ideas on how to resolve the conflict. It doesn't matter how the story may unfold - peaceful protests ignored, unsuccessful boycotts, suicide bombings, flotilla deaths - our disposition towards these crises -- to be friendly and diplomatic; or to be arrogant and hostile -- must be based upon our values.
No comments:
Post a Comment