Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Realism or idealism
None of us know exactly where we ought to stand on the question of realism or idealism. Realism means to embrace policies for reasons of state. Idealism means to embrace policies because they increase the good in the world. But what if the two conflict with one another? What if, say, what is conducive to the increase of power and safety of one party in a struggle for dominance is detrimental to another party? For reasons of state you would say, whatever is conducive to the increase of power and security of your own kith and kin is right, even if it is at the expense of the well-being of others. Idealism means you strive to minimize the damage to others that is incurred by striving for the well-being and safety of your own, because, in a final analysis, we both ought to live in safety, security, and dignity. The ultimate division is not between us and them but between humanity and inhumanity. When it comes to Jerusalem, there is a conflict not so much between Jews and Arabs or Muslims but rather between those who would settle the conflict on the basis of equity and security for all and those who insist on the legitimacy of their claim to ownership, even at the expense of others. Where do you stand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you look at Jerusalem as a holy city, then it's neither about realism or idealism but about what God wants. To be sure, that's not always clear.
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking ;-)
ReplyDeleteI emphatically agree with you when you say “there is a conflict not so much between Jews and Arabs or Muslims but rather between those who would settle the conflict on the basis of equity and security for all and those who insist on the legitimacy of their claim to ownership, even at the expense of others.” Your formulation here is so much more to the point than a similar line, popular nowadays in pronouncements that aim for a centrist appeal, to the effect that the conflict is not “between Israelis and Arabs or Muslims” but between “moderates and extremists.” That line proves hollow when one realizes that the identification of the two terms with particular parties to the conflict will depend on which side is doing the pronouncing. On the other hand the desire to come to terms with the other side’s need for dignity and security, the striving to settle the conflict on the basis of equity and security for all, as you phrase it, is so much more definitive of the distinction between those who want peace and those who want to continue the conflict.
But I would point to this striving not as “idealism,” but rather as the very essence of peace making. Differing proportions of realism and idealism it seems to me can all conceivably motivate the resolution of a conflict, with each differing mix of the two yielding a different set of terms for agreement. Where the commitment to accommodate the other side’s needs is lacking, however, the conflict will continue.
-Unholy in Brookline