This was the read I needed this morning—thank you, friend. In the current confusing state of…everything…I am going to join you in believing the story of hope and peace into the world.
Such a wise piece. And I found it optimistic. We don't just need to accept the stories we've been told and the mess we're in. We can change the story. Thank you!
I once interviewed a narrative therapist who echoed many of the points you make. He too believes in the power of Story to create meaning, at least for individuals. But when it came to “collaborative meaning-making,” his model seemed to fall apart. Group narratives were beyond his pay grade & job description. So, re: collaborative Stories, he said something that seemed borderline Buddhist: “A good story is better than a bad story, but no story is better than a good story.”
Israel-Palestine is all about group narratives & collaborative meaning-making. The big difference between the Islamist Story & the West Bank extreme right settler Story is the latter has specific limited geographic boundaries, whereas the former has much broader geographic ambitions.
Put another way: Israel’s extreme religious Right talks about settling in Judea & Samaria, but they have no geographic ambitions beyond that region. For them, the boundaries are in the Bible. But Islamists dream about Palestine... and Spain... and the gates of Vienna. It’s a big difference.
I think we're always involved in collaborative meaning-making, for good or ill. I think where efforts have been made in recent decades to do intense reconciliation work on a societal level, like the work done by Beyond Conflict in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and El Salvador, there's been a conscious effort to work together across difference to make it for good. It's very difficult work, and goes against our most primal, tribal tendencies, and it has to be continually renewed, but it is possible.
As for Islam, I'm no Islamic scholar, but none of the Abrahamic religions are devoid of tendencies to think that they have the answer and that the spread of that answer would be of benefit to unbelievers. Christianity being the most prone to that sort of proselytizing and religious imperialism. Islam has always had Jihadists, but they were significantly marginalized philosophically until the displacement of Palestinians and the subsequent choices of the Israeli government. Which isn't an excuse for anything. But when you run people off land that has been in their families for generations and justify it with your religion, you invite religious extremism from the other side.
Various sects of Islam have long histories of peace and intellectualism. I think it's dangerous and false to paint an entire religion with thousands of years of history as only one thing or another.
I agree with much of what you’ve written above. And I wasn’t trying to characterize Islam as a whole; that’s virtually impossible (as it is with any faith or people). My point is simply that at the *extremes*, one faith has global ambitions while the other is now focused on one particular region in the eastern Mediterranean. ... Jews don’t proselytize. Their (self-defined?) mission was to simply be Jews. The historic challenge has been finding an hospitable home to live that life. Yes, there have been some golden ages, but they never seem to last.
Again, mostly agree. But “equally ancient claims” by Jews and Muslims can’t be true because Judaism predates Islam by maybe 1500 to 2000 years. Does that matter? Probably not. What does matter is this: if “modern times” Is your frame, then when exactly in modern times did some equilibrium exists that we’re trying to restore? If Israel crossed some accepted line, what’s the line and when did they cross it? Serious question.
I don't think there's ever been any equilibrium. We've been, as a species and regardless of religion, largely obsessed with othering and killing each other since the dawn of time. Should we therefore not try? Should we just retreat to our ethno-religious enclaves and insist that diverse and multi-ethnic democracies cannot work because they haven't up until this point? Is that the meaning we want to make out of the current moment?
Excellent questions. The Jewish experience in Europe suggests diverse multi-ethnic democracies are structurally unsound. The Jewish experience is the Islamic world indicates that minority groups are tolerated... until they aren’t anymore. Israel is an attempt to no longer be a guest in someone else’s country. I haven’t given up hope re multi-ethnic democracy, of course. That’s why I still live in the United States. But here’s what I struggle with: What’s different here? Have people fundamentally changed? Are the laws fundamentally different? If so, does it matter in a nation where few people know anything about those laws or our Constitution or our system of government?
The other thing I honestly can’t explain: I understand why the world is furious about the bombings in Gaza. I also understand why there were no mass demonstrations after the massacre by Hamas. But why no uproar about the Uyghurs? The Rohinga? What is it about Israel that drives everyone crazy?
I think it’s the U.S. government’s massive monetary support. My tax dollars aren't supporting the repression of the Uyghurs directly. Which doesn’t make it right, but I feel less responsible for it.
Also: You say that using history from 1000 years ago to characterize the behavior of people in modern times is inappropriate. Problem is, faithful Christians, Jews, and Muslims base their entire identity, their entire lives on events -- mythic & historic -- that transpired long ago. Which I’d say is a good thing: each tradition holds within it the narrative seed of something redemptive. For instance: Isaac & Ishmael come together to bury their father, Abraham. Beautiful moment you could build on. But if we strip all that family history away, then all you have is a real estate dispute, which offers nothing redemptive at all.
P.S. re “Islam has always had Jihadists, but they were significantly marginalized philosophically until the displacement of Palestinians and the subsequent choices of the Israeli government."
I’m afraid that’s not historically accurate. Read about the Umayyad Caliphate. How did it become so large? 4.3 million square miles! Jewish history is filled with errors and false starts. Our Book is filled with such mistakes & we read about them all the time! But never in history did Jews aspire to control 4.3 million square miles. The geographic appetites -- and what you might call each religion’s Theory of Change -- are profoundly different.
When I am talking about the marginalization of jihadists I'm talking about modern times. The Umayyad Caliphate was well over 1000 years ago. I don't think that using history from over 1000 years ago to characterize the imperialist notions of Islam in modern times is entirely fair. If so then the same could be said of Christianity, and that history is more recent. You are right that Jews don't generally proselytize, but they do have in embedded in their ideology the notion that they are the Chosen people. Which is what fuels the righteousness and violence of West Bank settlers. I don't think it matters if over 1000 years ago there was a large Islamic empire. I think what matters is what is being done now, and the choices being made by the current Israeli government, and the violence by West Bank settlers that they enable and condone is wrong. As is the wiping out of Jews that is being preached by Hamas.
What matters is that Jews and Muslims have equally ancient claims to the land of the Middle East. As do Christians. If we can't all figure out how to make peace with that reality and each other, then we are lost. Extremism on both sides will simply increase until we wipe each other out.
Just a note that being “the Chosen people” in Judaism has to do with being chosen to take on the commandments and to worship God singularly (as in You shall have no other Gods before Me). It is said that God approached other peoples for this and the Jews were the ones who agreed. It doesn’t mean that, canonically speaking, Jews believe they are better than any other group.
This was the read I needed this morning—thank you, friend. In the current confusing state of…everything…I am going to join you in believing the story of hope and peace into the world.
Such a wise piece. And I found it optimistic. We don't just need to accept the stories we've been told and the mess we're in. We can change the story. Thank you!
I once interviewed a narrative therapist who echoed many of the points you make. He too believes in the power of Story to create meaning, at least for individuals. But when it came to “collaborative meaning-making,” his model seemed to fall apart. Group narratives were beyond his pay grade & job description. So, re: collaborative Stories, he said something that seemed borderline Buddhist: “A good story is better than a bad story, but no story is better than a good story.”
Israel-Palestine is all about group narratives & collaborative meaning-making. The big difference between the Islamist Story & the West Bank extreme right settler Story is the latter has specific limited geographic boundaries, whereas the former has much broader geographic ambitions.
Put another way: Israel’s extreme religious Right talks about settling in Judea & Samaria, but they have no geographic ambitions beyond that region. For them, the boundaries are in the Bible. But Islamists dream about Palestine... and Spain... and the gates of Vienna. It’s a big difference.
https://towers.substack.com/p/interview-harry-rieckelman
I think we're always involved in collaborative meaning-making, for good or ill. I think where efforts have been made in recent decades to do intense reconciliation work on a societal level, like the work done by Beyond Conflict in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and El Salvador, there's been a conscious effort to work together across difference to make it for good. It's very difficult work, and goes against our most primal, tribal tendencies, and it has to be continually renewed, but it is possible.
As for Islam, I'm no Islamic scholar, but none of the Abrahamic religions are devoid of tendencies to think that they have the answer and that the spread of that answer would be of benefit to unbelievers. Christianity being the most prone to that sort of proselytizing and religious imperialism. Islam has always had Jihadists, but they were significantly marginalized philosophically until the displacement of Palestinians and the subsequent choices of the Israeli government. Which isn't an excuse for anything. But when you run people off land that has been in their families for generations and justify it with your religion, you invite religious extremism from the other side.
Various sects of Islam have long histories of peace and intellectualism. I think it's dangerous and false to paint an entire religion with thousands of years of history as only one thing or another.
I agree with much of what you’ve written above. And I wasn’t trying to characterize Islam as a whole; that’s virtually impossible (as it is with any faith or people). My point is simply that at the *extremes*, one faith has global ambitions while the other is now focused on one particular region in the eastern Mediterranean. ... Jews don’t proselytize. Their (self-defined?) mission was to simply be Jews. The historic challenge has been finding an hospitable home to live that life. Yes, there have been some golden ages, but they never seem to last.
Again, mostly agree. But “equally ancient claims” by Jews and Muslims can’t be true because Judaism predates Islam by maybe 1500 to 2000 years. Does that matter? Probably not. What does matter is this: if “modern times” Is your frame, then when exactly in modern times did some equilibrium exists that we’re trying to restore? If Israel crossed some accepted line, what’s the line and when did they cross it? Serious question.
I don't think there's ever been any equilibrium. We've been, as a species and regardless of religion, largely obsessed with othering and killing each other since the dawn of time. Should we therefore not try? Should we just retreat to our ethno-religious enclaves and insist that diverse and multi-ethnic democracies cannot work because they haven't up until this point? Is that the meaning we want to make out of the current moment?
Excellent questions. The Jewish experience in Europe suggests diverse multi-ethnic democracies are structurally unsound. The Jewish experience is the Islamic world indicates that minority groups are tolerated... until they aren’t anymore. Israel is an attempt to no longer be a guest in someone else’s country. I haven’t given up hope re multi-ethnic democracy, of course. That’s why I still live in the United States. But here’s what I struggle with: What’s different here? Have people fundamentally changed? Are the laws fundamentally different? If so, does it matter in a nation where few people know anything about those laws or our Constitution or our system of government?
The other thing I honestly can’t explain: I understand why the world is furious about the bombings in Gaza. I also understand why there were no mass demonstrations after the massacre by Hamas. But why no uproar about the Uyghurs? The Rohinga? What is it about Israel that drives everyone crazy?
I think it’s the U.S. government’s massive monetary support. My tax dollars aren't supporting the repression of the Uyghurs directly. Which doesn’t make it right, but I feel less responsible for it.
Also: You say that using history from 1000 years ago to characterize the behavior of people in modern times is inappropriate. Problem is, faithful Christians, Jews, and Muslims base their entire identity, their entire lives on events -- mythic & historic -- that transpired long ago. Which I’d say is a good thing: each tradition holds within it the narrative seed of something redemptive. For instance: Isaac & Ishmael come together to bury their father, Abraham. Beautiful moment you could build on. But if we strip all that family history away, then all you have is a real estate dispute, which offers nothing redemptive at all.
P.S. re “Islam has always had Jihadists, but they were significantly marginalized philosophically until the displacement of Palestinians and the subsequent choices of the Israeli government."
I’m afraid that’s not historically accurate. Read about the Umayyad Caliphate. How did it become so large? 4.3 million square miles! Jewish history is filled with errors and false starts. Our Book is filled with such mistakes & we read about them all the time! But never in history did Jews aspire to control 4.3 million square miles. The geographic appetites -- and what you might call each religion’s Theory of Change -- are profoundly different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
When I am talking about the marginalization of jihadists I'm talking about modern times. The Umayyad Caliphate was well over 1000 years ago. I don't think that using history from over 1000 years ago to characterize the imperialist notions of Islam in modern times is entirely fair. If so then the same could be said of Christianity, and that history is more recent. You are right that Jews don't generally proselytize, but they do have in embedded in their ideology the notion that they are the Chosen people. Which is what fuels the righteousness and violence of West Bank settlers. I don't think it matters if over 1000 years ago there was a large Islamic empire. I think what matters is what is being done now, and the choices being made by the current Israeli government, and the violence by West Bank settlers that they enable and condone is wrong. As is the wiping out of Jews that is being preached by Hamas.
What matters is that Jews and Muslims have equally ancient claims to the land of the Middle East. As do Christians. If we can't all figure out how to make peace with that reality and each other, then we are lost. Extremism on both sides will simply increase until we wipe each other out.
Just a note that being “the Chosen people” in Judaism has to do with being chosen to take on the commandments and to worship God singularly (as in You shall have no other Gods before Me). It is said that God approached other peoples for this and the Jews were the ones who agreed. It doesn’t mean that, canonically speaking, Jews believe they are better than any other group.