I have no solutions to offer. The issues are complex. But we’re closer to solutions when we move beyond inflammatory rhetoric and consider the human rights of all of the humans affected by the issues.
Last night’s community discussion, with its goal of helping us understand the historic conflicts in the Middle East, was a model in open sharing. Despite intense passions on the subject, civility reigned, and we all learned many things, large and small. I’m grateful to my political scientist friend Daniel and organizer Jim for their leadership.
To be in the room last night at Asheville’s Pack Library was to arrive feeling uncertain but open to dialogue, and to leave with greater understanding of the complex historical struggle that we can share with others. We left without solutions to offer, but with greater respect for the plight of the humanity involved. That’s a start.
It’s not about who’s right. It’s about recognizing the need for a solution that assures human rights, and governments that work toward these goals on both sides of the struggle. The complexity comes when protecting human rights for one group is in direct conflict with protecting human rights for the other. Polarization complicates solution-finding. Politics complicates solution-finding. Meanwhile, humans suffer. Many humans suffer. Many humans on both sides of the struggle suffer, and pray that their children will not.
Quick primer on the 1948 Declaration of Universal Human Rights created by the United Nations’ General Assembly.
Personal security, economic security. Right to life, liberty and personal security. Don’t we all want these?
I have no solutions to offer. The issues are complex. But we’re closer to solutions when we move beyond inflammatory rhetoric and consider the human rights of all of the humans affected by the issues. When we have political representation that does this, and surrounding governments that do this, we will be closer to peace.
One thing Daniel said last night stands out. “We’ll be closer to peace when we realize it’s only people on the other side.”
Overly simplistic, you say? Isn’t it always the going back to basics, the focusing on human needs divorced from the entrenched positions that result over time, that’s a necessary start?