Rainy Day World: The Wings Of Peace Over The Middle East

“Wait! Damn it!” the woman yelled, beating her umbrella against the side window of the bus. The force she used was not enough to damage the glass but it did break several struts of her umbrella, making it worthless.

I watched this from inside of that dry, but over-crowded, bus and was glad to be on board. So were the seventy or so others who had waited in the cold Chicago rain for over fifteen minutes for the bus to arrive.

The woman in question had run up to the bus just as the last person squeezed on and the doors closed. She had obviously felt of herself as being more important that the other half dozen people that had be left out in the rain when the bus could hold no more, because she pushed her way through them like a defensive lineman going after a quarterback. Now she too was left standing in the rain, she was without even the shelter of an umbrella.

So what did she accomplish, other than providing us with momentary amusement at her expense? Not a darned thing, except to become yet another example of how people tend to commit acts that are not, in the long run, in their own best interests.

She is, by no means, alone in this. In fact, most groups of people, and even nations, do exactly the same thing. They take the one action that will cause the most harm, simply because they don’t take the time think through consequences of their actions and come up with the best solution for everyone involved, including themselves.

Surely, you would think that governments would weigh their actions carefully, taking into consideration every possible result.

Well, not always. Take for instance the apparent determination of the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinians to sabotage their own chances for peace. While both sides claim to want to move further along the path to peace, they both keep making decisions and taking actions that take them in the opposite direction.

The Palestinians want civil rights and their own homeland. Most are ready to work towards that in a peaceful manner. But a few militants seem more willing to build bombs than a lasting peace.

The Israelis, as a whole, want exactly the same things, a nation of their own and the right to live in peace. But they have their hard-liners too; people who prefer building more houses on formerly Palestinian land, to working toward finding areas for agreement.
The religion of neither group encourages these behaviors, but both sides claim that they only do it for their faith. Each group even celebrates those who are killed in the process as martyrs, when they are really only victims.

Nobody wants to take responsibility for their part in creating the situation or for finding a permanent solution to it. It’s easier for them to blame history, or their race, or God, or darned near anyone else for their problems.

If it weren’t raining on her, or if the driver had waited just one minute more, she wouldn’t have gotten very wet at all. Of course, it was God with his rain and the driver with his lack of caring that got her drenched. Never mind her temper tantrum and the broken umbrella in her hand.
And what do the governments do? They rattle sabers and they talk tough. They blame each other, protesting that they really want peace, but that they can’t get it because the other guys did something first and they have to respond. Besides it’s raining and the bus is pulling away and it’s easier to hit their umbrella on the side of the bus, even though it will get smashed and they will get even wetter.

The problem is that nothing will ever be solved unless someone makes the first move; until someone takes action to get in out of the rain or to find a way to make peace.

Well, here’s a suggestion to solve one of the biggest sticking points of the whole Middle Eastern tragedy, the question of who gets the city of Jerusalem.

What if, instead of either Israel or the Palestinian State taking Jerusalem as their capital, the city was declared an International Heritage Zone, made into an independent city/state, and governed by committee made up of, and elected by, bonified residents of the city?

This committee could control building permits, immigration of non-residents into the city from either Palestine or Israel, and provide a peaceful haven for all of the religions that have sacred sites there.

In the case of sites that were holy to more that one faith, the committee could work to find a way to allow access by all, without damaging the facilities that are already in place. For instance, they would not allow the destruction of a Moslem shrine for the construction of a Jewish or Christian one.

The people of the city could choose whether to live in a culturally isolated neighborhood or in areas that promoted diversity. Either way, the make up of an area would be decided by how the people of that area wanted to live, not dictated by a occupying nation or a terrorist fringe.

What if joint schools were established within the city walls? These schools could employ teachers from all of the communities in the city and could teach every student about the cultures and beliefs of all of the residents. The students, at even the earliest ages, would learn both the similarities and the differences. They would also learn to work and play with each other in peace, something their parents have had little success at.

What if this shining city was also declared a demilitarized zone, with only the official police to keep order?

There would be no Israeli soldiers and no Palestinian militia. Maybe a few UN advisors, at the start, but eventually a joint city, dedicated to the celebration of the Human Race’s various ways of relating to their creator.

“That won’t work,” the pessimist will shout, “they will never agree to that!”
If that’s the case, what if the other countries, the ones who are not directly involved, also make a decision for peace? What if they all, in unison, encourage both sides to come in out of the rain, by cutting back on aid, especially military aid, until they do?

After all, why would anyone object to this plan?

“Because Jerusalem is our holy city, our historic capital,” both sides shout in unison.

Oddly enough, both sides would be right, historically. But this is not the past. We are writing our children’s history books now. Wouldn’t it be better to have that history show that we preserved that holy city for all people by letting the governments of both countries meet a just few miles away?

Sure, this is a simple solution to a complex problem. But haven’t the people of the world been out in the rain too long. Don’t we see the stupidity of smashing all our hopes of staying dry just because the simplest solution would mean that we would have to work out a compromise?
The fact is, in most situations, the simplest solution is often the one that is easiest to implement and the most likely to work.

For the woman at the bus stop, if she had contained her anger, she could have had at least some shelter for the fifteen or twenty minutes that she had to wait until the next bus arrived.

And for the people of the Middle East, if they would generate ways of working and living together; saving lives and preserving the rich heritage of both their cultures in the process. They could raise their families without fear that the bus they are riding on will explode or that they will be forced out of their home, only to be replaced by strangers.

They would become an example to rest of the world, demonstrating how to find peace and cooperation in what has been the most troubled of regions. They would shine forth the lights provided by the founders of some of the world’s great religions; lights of love and peace and hope.

Wouldn’t it be worth trying a simple new solution? Aren’t we already soaked to the skin?

Michael John Howard, ATMB

www.angelsatplay.com

Published Author and Certified Trainer

Titles Include: Angels On Assignment and The Unquenchable Thirst

Copyright 2005 - Michael Howard