The Open Matt Project

Interest of Conflict

I was recently asked what I would do with "the middle east" situation and in particular Israel/Palestine. I was also asked about why I still spend time talking about Denali. Then, some other time, I was asked about what I mean when I say Conservative and/or Liberal thinking.

When I'm thinking of things that have so many elements or so much scale that it's likely impossible to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion, I rely on a fairly new perspective I'm learning to respect more and more. It's a belief in the powers of conflict. It's bolstered by a second belief that involves the decay of static existence.

I can hear the two people who read this shit saying "what the hell is Matt talking about?" and so for the one of them who's gotten this far (likely due to my mention of Denali and the possibility of additional juicy details) I'll try to explain using the stuff in the first paragraph.

Israel. I looked this one up in my Encyclopedia. It says the Canaanites were there first, then they had problems with the Egyptians, then the Israelites invaded and beat the Canaanites in 1125 BC and so on and so on. I'm sure there was someone there before the Canaanites, and I'm sure in 2125 the land will have all-new challengers (barring it becoming an uninhabitable, radioactive plate of glass, which frankly isn't so different from it's current state.) The whole notion of "this land is your land this land is my land" is just plain intractable. The bloodshed over that dull slice of desert has been going on for over three thousand years now, and as far as I can tell it just seems to be as terrible a spot to take holiday as an abandoned uranium mine.

Both of the current sides will not give up. Some say the Israelis are conquering warmongers. Some say the Palestinians are cowardly terrorists. Some say the leadership of both sides is the problem, and the solution must come from the people. I mostly don't care - if pushed I'll fall squarely into a disgusting practicality stance that espouses maximum benefits going from me to my family, friends, neighborhood, and so on expanding outwards. By the time you get to Israel, it's pretty clear how I feel about it.

That said, when asked what I would do about it, I responded that I would do absolutely nothing more than what is already being done. I think it is the conflict between the two sides that will offer the best possible solution to both sides. The Israelis could technically eradicate the Palestinians within a day, tops. They are held back largely by "the international community" who would punish them for it. The Palestinians can only do limited damage to Israel, and by doing so they emphasize their commitment and desparation.

Perhaps one side will get tired. Perhaps Israel will wall off their lands and leave it at that - or just expand later. Perhaps Palestine will get a dirty bomb and kill millions. Maybe a great leader will step forward and pull a Sadat. Maybe he too will also be assasinated. What I feel is certain is that the conflict between them will result in the best possible end-product - and if that end product never comes, than at least all parties are giving it their best shot. It is the conflict itself that is most important.

Since nobody will have made it this far, I'll feel safe in confessing that I like wearing womens underwear. If you're still with me, you should feel rewarded enough by that admission to continue - in which case you are saying "but wait Matt, what about the possibility of conflict resolution, wherein the conflict is not ended in a winner/loser framework, but instead in a negociated winner/winner frame?"

Good point. I am all for that possibility. If I felt that were an option, I would heartily espouse it. Sadly, I do not think it is. Thousands of years of history, and only a handful of successfully negociated conflict resolutions just make me pessimistic.

So what does this all have to do with Denali? Or with my political views? Well, hopefully you can extrapolate from some of this so I don't have to egregiously ramble here. I believe in arriving at the best possible conclusion through the endless application of conflict. Do I think there should be gay marriages? I think the people who do want them should fight as hard as they can to make it so. What about smoking laws? Well, sadly, apparently not enough smokers voted - so what's all the complaining about? That conflict was lost. What about taxing the rich? By all means, grab as much as you can from the rich, they sure didn't get rich by being generous - just don't complain too much when the Christmas bonus doesn't come. Why do I still talk about Denali? Because I'm shadow-boxing and I'll either grow tired of it and move on, or I'll be in shape when the bell rings. All of these things will never end. They will change, they will become commonplace or fade into obscurity, but they will never end.

And I find that heartening. It's the surest evidence I have for hope being a reasonable proposition.

Posted by Matt at August 12, 2003 01:28 PM