FOR THE CHILDREN
As I listen to
reports from Sudan, as I watch reports from the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and Democratic
Republic of the Congo, I wonder how the opposing peoples’ goals so violently diverge.
If you look to
opposing sides in any conflict, business - tribal - sectarian - religious -
international or military, and ask what they ultimately want, down at the
personal level of daily real life, might we find anything in common?
Would everyone
want security for their children? Would
everyone want enough nutritious food?
Would everyone want health? Would
everyone want peace and security?
If you had
these discussions even with fundamentalists who believe the only way to achieve
their ends is through war and violence (apparently their God being too
enfeebled to construct their pending Kingdom or Paradise without our help)
would even those fundamentalists not still hope for the same ultimate
objectives for their children?
Do our
differences come down only to the means by which to attain the same unknowingly
shared goal?
What if we
focused on that goal, on the longed-for goal, on our dreams and aspirations, on
our highest hopes, might we not find some ground for agreement?
If we first
established that, if we first established the realization among warring parties
that they ultimately all seek the same basic outcome and differ only in the
path to reach it, might such revelation not dramatically improve the odds of discerning
some uncontested, mutually shared objective?
Perhaps parties
who enter the negotiations with the belief that their optimal outcome can be
attained only upon the extermination of their enemies might recognize their
enemies are not so different after all.
If two parties were forced to acknowledge that they share the same
wants, needs, and desires, if they were forced to look into the eyes of each
other’s children, might that at least in some incremental way temper the
stridency and ameliorate some of the hatred?
When we enter
discussions on the basis that “they” want to destroy us, of course we feel we
must first destroy them. But what if
destroying us is not their objective?
What if they simply want to raise their children in safety and security
and in the culture, society, traditions, and religion
of their mothers and fathers?
If in
negotiations we could strive not to win, not to conquer, not to inflict our
beliefs – religion - economic system - political system - ruling monarchy - and
ancient prophecies on those others, but instead enter negotiations with the
avowed goal of securing safety and security and health for our children - and
their children - might we surprisingly find ourselves on the same side?
If we knew our
children could grow up with the religion and beliefs and culture and dress and
mores and leaders of our choosing, would we really feel so compelled to attack
the other side’s children?
Of course, the
fundamentalists and psychopaths and the greedy will always choose war and
killing for the sake of war and killing.
We can only pray there are not enough fundamentalists and psychopaths
and greed driven executives to provide the critical mass necessary to sustain
war.
It is fear, fear
for our children, it is injustice, injustice for our children, that stoke our condoning
of and participation in the wars. Hence
the fundamentalists and psychopaths and greed riddled executives always have to
portray the “others” as threatening.
Then, in the face of perceived threat, we rise to the occasion to defend
our children.
Truth be known,
the north/south Koreans have little interest in destroying the other. They just don’t want to be destroyed
themselves. Most Sunni and Shia could
care less about differences in opinion about inherited power more than a
millennia ago. They just don’t want to
have their children’s school blown up. Even
Israelis (excluding the most rabid Zionists) might give up the quest for
genocidal Zionist expansion between the Nile and Euphrates if they knew their
children could grow and thrive with Jewish identity in safety and security.
I speak of
people, not leaders, for the power of leadership attracts those individuals most
afflicted by neuroses, psychoses, and all too often, outright madness, and the power
drives mad those not already mad.
Imagine
negotiations held by juries, people drafted from the general populace, people
drafted with one requirement, that they be parents of young children, children
they bring to the negotiations. Imagine
negotiations held with one formal agenda item: both sides begin with statements
of what they seek at the most personal level, while excluding mention of
political system, economic system, religious system, or boundaries on a map.
Imagine one
more thing. The negotiations are held
without the usual embarrassing childish silliness of arguing about table shape
and who sits where, but one critical item of décor is uncompromisingly
dictated. The walls and the table of the
conference room will be adorned with pictures of children.
Copyright 2025 Don Ray. Please share.
