Could it be that having established mastery and dominion over all the other species, we of the human species, decided that since we cannot live without having natural enemies to keep us on our toes, we shall consider other members of our own species to be our enemies?
However, considering that we left the life of
hunter-gatherer to settle down and farm the land, it became obvious that we all
live in the same proverbial boat. This means that we cannot consider everyone to
be our enemy, and must therefore differentiate between who is an enemy and who
is a friend.
Come to think of it, this realization is not something
unique to humans. All kinds of species fear some and tolerate others. For
example, preys fear their predators whereas mutually dependent species tolerate
each other. A good example is that of the crocodiles. After eating a hearty
meal, they keep their jaws open to let birds pick morsels of food stuck between
their teeth.
In fact, when you consider what goes on throughout the
fauna, you’ll find that whereas most species have a few friends and a few foes,
they view everyone else as neither friend nor foe. They live their lives serenely
without fear of others and in return, do not cause others to fear them.
But there appears to be an exception to this rule. It is
that some individuals of the human species do not seem to accept the neutrality
of other individuals. When one of these people sees another who minds his
business, or enjoys being idle, he walks up to him and tries to engage him in a
conversation. The two may become close acquaintances, and the “chemistry”
between them works so well, they become longtime friends. Alternatively, they
can rub each other the wrong way, and become enemies.
Whereas most people view such moment as a signal that
they must put a distance between themselves and the other person, people who
adhere to a certain philosophy of life, view the moment through the prism that
says: If you’re not with us, you’re against us. This is the trait that
differentiates us from the other species. It is why we’re the only ones to have
institutionalized wars.
Looking at how peace and enmity played their roles in
shaping the politics of the Middle East, Paul R. Pillar wrote an interesting
article under the title: “The Middle East Non-Peace Accords and Non-Cooperation
on Russia,” and the subtitle: “Far from
promoting peace, the Abraham Accords reduced the chances of achieving peace or
of lowering tensions in different parts of the Middle East.” The article was published
on March 29, 2022 in The National Interest.
Gripped by the sense of
Justice that is due to the Palestinians but are not getting it, Paul Pillar is
lamenting what he sees as the Arab countries abandoning their brethren, perhaps
pressured by two American administrations: that of Donald Trump and that of Joe
Biden. But the reality is that Pillar is judging the situation as he sees it
through a distorting lens, not as it really is. Pillar is not to blame,
however, because what he sees is what’s put out for the world to see, whereas
the reality of what’s going on is unfolding as a hard-to-detect undercurrent.
The following is a condensed version of what Paul Pillar says he sees unfolding
in the Middle East at this time:
“The
meeting in the Negev was full of smiles and self-congratulatory words about how
wonderful it was that Israelis and Arabs were meeting together. The Arab states
involved were not at war with Israel and already had extensive relationships
with Israel on many matters, even if the relationships had stopped short of a
full exchange of embassies. Far from promoting peace, the move reduced the
chances of achieving peace or of lowering tensions in different parts of the
Middle East. Another part is Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. The
Abraham Accords are about excluding the Palestinians. Peace in Palestine
requires including, rather than end-running, the Palestinians”.
As noted by Pillar, the meeting in the Negev will not
lead to peace in the Middle East. Pillar cited two reasons why. The first is
that America did not aim to forge a peace deal between the Arabs and Israel.
What America wanted was to make new friends in the region while solidifying the
old friendships; all that for the purpose of setting these countries against
Russia whose invasion of Ukraine greatly disturbed the current American
administration.
The second reason why the Negev meeting will not lead to
peace in the Middle East, is that when it comes to the Palestinian issue, the
Israelis are having their cake and eating it too, says Pillar. That is, they
are keeping the stolen lands, even annexing new ones while making peace with
the Arabs.
But then, what’s it with these Arabs? Have they really
abandoned the Palestinians? The answer is “NO,” the Arabs have not abandoned
the Palestinians, and no one knows this more than the Israeli leaders and their
populations. Really? What is it that these people know?
They know that the Arabs do not want to conquer occupied
Palestine by defeating the Israeli army. If they did this, they will be
responsible for the lives and wellbeing of a Jewish population that will face
millions of fighters from everywhere around the globe, who will descend on
Palestine, eager to make the Jews pay for their long history of armed brutality.
To avoid that situation, the Arabs plan to buy occupied
Palestine from the Jews, and give it back to the Palestinians. For the plan to
succeed, there must be a peaceful coexistence between them and the Israelis. And
so, while working on this part of the plan, the Arabs are deploying some of the
hundreds of billions of dollars they earmarked to start the process of buying the
stolen properties of the Palestinian people.