No, I won’t talk about it.
Groups of obsessed people around want to push anyone to participate in their obsessions, and therefore there are always stimuli, provocations, to participate in the useless confrontation between pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis. My answer is: I said everything I think about that "war" when I wrote a science fiction book called "Averno". You do not like? It's not my business.
The problem is that no one holds debates or discussions on the problem. What I see happening on TV, and also in Germany, are neither confrontations nor debates. They are conflicts.
In my life, for professional reasons and to manage teams, I have taken three Conflict Management courses. And I can tell you that it is possible to enclose the conflict between a person (or a group) and the outside with a law, a theorem that is ALWAYS valid, in EVERY conflict.
The conflict between a person and an external entity always reflects a psychological conflict that occurs within the person himself. If we talk about groups, a group's conflict with the outside always reflects internal wars.
This is why “provocation” works. Have you ever wondered how it is possible to push someone into a conflict they didn't want, without being a sorcerer? Simple: if you awaken a strong enough internal conflict INSIDE the person, then he will start to fight. This is called “provocation”.
During one of these courses, I pointed out that it seemed to me to be a slightly newage explanation, the usual "the solution is inside you" thing. She replied: I understand why you think that, after all, I know very well that I am a stupid old slut. (“blöde alte Schlampe”). Obviously, in a very professional environment, the thing had frozen me and I hastened to specify that it had never been my intention to say such a thing (if I said such a thing to a colleague I would be fired immediately), and that I would never use such language about her, and that my objection was to something else, until she asked me why I was struggling to justify myself for something SHE had said.
The point is that he had touched an internal conflict, the fear of being punished for having insulted a woman in that way, and wow, I had started to fight like a boxer punching the air, since I didn't even have an opponent: she had said it to herself.
Moral: once I understood this, it took me a short time to trace the origins of my conflicts. And so I know why you are so ready to get into these controversies. Because it's so easy to provoke you.
But at the same time, once I understand the problem of introjection well, I'm no longer interested in the little game.
I could apply the same principle to groups. Why is Israel in constant conflict with the Arabs? Because the Israelis are in perpetual conflict within themselves. They are divided into more or less religious groups that fight over their respective rabbinical parishes, and there is no doubt that external conflict is an inexorable consequence. A people full of internal conflicts cannot live in peace, with anyone they come into contact with.
The same goes for the Arab world. It is divided into nations, currents, tribes, you name it, in constant conflict for dominion, so it will inevitably come into conflict with anything that is different. It's exactly the same thing I said about the Israelis. Not even the Arab and Islamic world can really live without conflicts with the outside, because it has too many internally.
Whoever has conflict inside has conflict outside.
Clearly, if you bring two cultures full of internal conflicts into contact, you will only get war.
But why does this conflict appear so important in the West? Why am I not like any mbingo who slaughters mbongos in Africa, for example? The answer is always the same. Even in the West there is no shortage of internal conflicts.
Pro-Palestinians are almost always on the far left, with surprising pools of pro-Palestinians on the far right. But if you look at these two political areas, you immediately discover that these are extremely conflicting groups within themselves: they are almost always in conflict in the field of some ideological "purity", so in the end it is "Trotskyists against Leninists against Stalinists", which then when you talk about Palestine they clearly compete to see who agrees with them better and more. The pro-Palestinians are a divided and contentious faction.
Even on the other side, the pro-Israelis, there is something to laugh about. First of all because the Jewish question in Europe is not closed at all, it is only suspended because there are not enough Jews. The number, after the Second World War, dropped drastically. But even taking away the demographic problem, the fact that the pro-Israeli faction (which I couldn't give a name to, honestly) is made up of people who are in conflict with each other in the remaining time.
It is not surprising if as soon as the issue is mentioned "they feel provoked". And they immediately enter the arena.
Now, the problem with that conflict in the Middle East is that it mirrors conflicts that happen in the Jewish world, in the Islamic world, in the world of Christianity, and even in the secular European world.
Now I wonder: which of MY internal conflicts are stimulated by that war. The answer is: “nobody”.
Every internal conflict is a fear. So I might be afraid that this blog will be branded as anti-Semitic. Either as a xenophobe, or as an Islamophobe. Or as misogynist. Or all of it.
Well, it's already happened. In the 21 years of this blog, I think I have collected a suitcase of anti-Semitic certificates, I don't know how many for racism and/or xenophobia, I now bring the Islamophobic certificates to Italy and use them as fuel for the stoves, the misogyny licenses I've now given them as gifts to the neighbors, and my house plants also have a dozen each.
And nothing happens. I'm not really afraid of it.
But if you are not afraid of these things, there is no way to provoke you, and therefore there is no way to push you to participate in any of these dialectical conflicts.
So, no.
Israel? Palestine? Hey, can we write it down?