Open Integral

The reason the Israel/Arab conflict interests me from an integral perspective is because it is so difficult and complex. As I was thinking about it today I thought one way to begin to discuss this is to look at how integral theory can be applied to the idea of justice. Clearly an ethnocentric idea of justice is different to a worldcentric idea of justice, which is in turn different again to egocentric ideas of justice.

What do we do in difficult cases where finding in favour of one side necessarily leads to an injustice to the other side and vice versa? Is it always possible to achieve a win/win outcome or do some ‘judgments’ unavoidably lead to a win/lose outcome?

In such cases, knowing that someone will loose (and no doubt cry foul) surely one has to balance out the competing claims? Who has the greater claim? Who will suffer the greatest hardship? What do we do when the loser rejects the decision and decides to fight it outside the law?

The difficulty with the Israel/Arab conflict is that there is no accepted ‘neutral’ authority which is trusted to make a judgment, and no authority which can effectively police the judgment. Both sides (although, there are actually more than ‘two’ sides, this is not a simplistic dualistic conflict) recognize two quite separate systems of justice. Israel appeals to Western notions of justice but Hamas and Hezbollah appeal to Islamic notions of justice. There is no ‘higher’ arbitrating authority.

One might hope it is the UN but both sides have chosen to ignore the UN when it suits them. Nor can the UN effectively police the conflict. After the UN made the decision that created the state of Israel Arab armies immediately defied the ruling and attacked Israel. The world stood by and watched, thinking Israel would be wiped out. Everyone was surprised it survived (at the time Israel was armed by Russia). The UN has never been particularly effective at protecting either Israel or the Palestinians, or effective in enforcing its declarations. One can hardly blame either Israel or Arab interests in choosing to ignore the UN because of its ineffectiveness.

For me any integral solution requires listening to all the competing narratives and comparing them AQAL style to the ‘independent’ facts. Another part of this conflict is the use of propaganda by both sides and the rewriting of history. Attempts at an independent history and narrative have been attacked for being biased in favour of one or other side. This is where sorting through mythic, rational and ‘integral’ narratives becomes essential. Who’s version is closer to the ‘truth’?

I must confess that as I sort through the various narratives I’m finding the Arab narratives to be more prone to propaganda and historical revisionism, more prone to mythic thinking. I find that there is more of a rational and self-critical approach in Israeli narratives. Much of this is cultural and has to do with how each cultural complex approaches ideas of truth, particularly of historical truth. The mythic view tends to rewrite history to support the current myth whereas the rational tries to honour evidence (as any history student can attest). To give you an example from a recent issue of ‘Biblical Archaeology’ – the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem came at the hands of a minor officer called Khalid ibn Thabit, however, as Jerusalem grew in importance as a Muslim religious centre, the story was changed and the honour of conquering Jerusalem was given to Caliph Umar (the second or third most important figure after Mohammed – according to which sect you adhere to).

Sorting through these competing narratives is difficult – but you would only do so to try and come to some sort of judgment, if only for yourself.

I’m currently sorting through these narratives. Where am I now (it could change as I find out more)? I think the Jews have the more compelling case. Israel has certainly made mistakes (the illegal settlers issue for one) but it has had to exist under incredible pressure from Arabs opposed to its existance. I believe that if all Arabs and Palestinians accepted the existance of Israel then the Israelis would begin to feel secure. Then, not feeling threatened by militants they would relax their policies towards the Palestinians.

But this is naive. We are a long way away from most Arabs accepting Israel – and so the conflict will continue.

Reading Michel Bauwen’s ‘censorial’ criticism of my views on the Israel/Hezbollah conflict gives me further reason to make the following comments.

There has been much said about the ‘Jewish lobby’, particularly its influence on US policy. There is a Jewish lobby, but there is nothing sinister about this. There are all sorts of lobby groups. What we have to be careful of is ’subtle’ anti-Semitism. Jews, like anyone else, have a right to lobby. There is also an Arab lobby that works closely with the Oil lobby. The Bin Laden family has links to the Carlysle group. Why is the Jewish lobby so successful? Perhaps because they have presented a compelling argument?

Julie Szego, a columnist with the Melbourne Age wrote a piece yesterday on how the pro-Palestinian pressure groups have convinced Europeans to ban Israeli films in protest at Israeli policy toward Palestine. A justified cultural embargo or just plain old censorship? The crazy thing is that these bans exclude all Israeli films but strangely do not ban Iranian films. Are all Israeli films right wing and anti-Palestinian? No, not at all. Israel actually has a very open and critical film culture and Israelis do make films that support the Palestinian cause. But these are banned too. But it gets even messier. Hany Abu-Assad, who directed the much praised Palestinian film ‘Paradise Now’, about two suicide bombers, supports the boycott. But guess what? His film was an Israeli co-production and had an Israeli producer – and guess what else? It was partly funded by the Israeli government. Now that’s an inconvenient truth don’t ya think? Under the proposed boycott Abu-Assad would not be able to show his own film!

Under the current climate in Europe Yoav Shamir, a ‘trenchant’ critic of his own government, was advised not to attend the Edinburgh film festival “for his own sake”. His previous film ‘Checkpoint’ was decidedly ‘pro’ Palestinian. So, he cannot attend why? Simply because he is a Jew?

What has all this got to do with integral theory? Do I need to explain this? We cannot afford to ‘exclude’ any view. We are meant to include ‘all’ views. PC censorship has NO place on this blog.

If you disagree with my analysis then please explain why it fails the integral test.

An interesting set of articles and letters in The Age concerning the issue of whether or not Israel fought a ‘just war’. On Thursday Professor Tony Coady argued that Israel breached several principles of the concept of just war. Three letters on Friday challenged him and today Professor Gregory Rose refutes him.

I believe Coady revealed a typical anti-Western bias. He focused mainly on Israel and ignored Hezbollah. Even though he did say that Hezbollah were equally guilty he actually went on to gloss over its actions. Rose’s refutation is based on what Coady chose to pointedly ignore – that a just war can only be fought if both sides fight justly.

The principles of a just war are a Western idea, given particular prominence in the Geneva convention. Hezbollah refutes all Western ideas and bases its ideology only on Islamic law.

Rose argues that under the Western idea of a just war using civilians as cover is considered a particular evil and is called a ‘perfidy’. Under Islamic law there is no real distinction between combatants and civilians. Hezbollah is not a conventional Western army. It is both a social movement, political party and army. Many of its combatants are civilians. There was the story today of 17 year-old Zahra Fadallah who died with her mother in an Israeli bombing. An innocent civilian death? It would have been recorded as such. But in reality she was a collaborator. Her two brothers were Hezbollah fighters and she knew this. She chose to stay and feed the fighters by baking bread. So she was part of the Hezbollah military and political infrastructure.

We will never know how many Lebanese were truly innocent civilians and how many were active members of Hezbollah.

Did Israel win? I believe so. The Lebanese army, with UN support, has now been forced to enter Hezbollah territory. Hezbollah can no longer operate with impunity. The combined Lebanese/UN peacekeeping force must act to disarm Hezbollah, as it was meant to do in the first place. I believe that this is what Israel wanted to do (as well as destroy as much of Hezbollah as it could). There is a larger, nastier game in which this is just an initial chess move, and that is Iran. Iran must never be allowed to build a bomb for the simple reason that I it will use it against Israel.

I understand the hypocrisy argument. The West has nuclear weapons so why can’t Iran? Well, the West has only used nuclear weapons on two occasions and I believe with full justification. I believe their use on Japan actually saved lives. Japan had put into place a suicidal plan to resist a US invasion. This is all a matter of history. Even after the first bomb had been dropped (and the fire bombing of Tokyo) the fanatical leadership resisted surrender. It took a internal coup to shift the balance of power. The West has always understood that nuclear weapons are a terrible option and have shown considerable restraint in using them. There have been several wars in which they could have been used as a knock-out blow but they weren’t. I don’t believe Iran will show a similar restraint.

I would rather there were no nuclear weapons and I believe they should all be decommissioned. But I fear Iran getting a weapon. Hezbollah was an instrument of Iran, same ideology, same aims.

So how do we fight an enemy whose combatants are civilians? How do we fight an enemy that believes martyrdom is a virtue? The Japanese plan involved training school children to carry bombs in their knapsacks and to roll under approaching tanks. One US soldier told of an elderly Japanese woman pulling a hand grenade from beneath her kimono and blowing up a US soldier. How do you fight a just war when the civilians, old women and children, are also a potential threat? We may call such actions perfidy but so what?

The principles of a just war only apply when both sides honour those principles.

Rose goes on to point out that Israel did show constraint. Hezbollah had been provoking Israel for months prior to the war and Israel also dropped leaflets warning civilians. The West has developed precision munitions precisely to try and avoid collateral damage. Hezbollah gave no warnings and fired missiles indiscriminantly. Whilst I think Israel could have been more constrained I also think Hezbollah deliberately put them in a difficult position. The blame I believe, lies squarely on Hezbollah’s shoulders.

Now let’s see how this ceasefire works and who will be the first to defy it. Is Hezbollah being disarmed?

I would define myself as a pro-Western progressive. I am more and more dismayed at progressives who are anti-Western and who naively align themselves with any anti-Western cause.

This does not mean that I am not highly critical of conservative Western forces, particularly of Corporatism and right-wing Christianity.

The reason I am pro-Western is because, despite ‘all’ its many faults the Western system affords the best possibility for people to achieve their highest potential. Despite all the moral conservatism of the US, gays, lesbians, naturists, pagans, and a whole range of sub-cultures are able to find some expression and tolerance. How many naturist groups are there in Islamic countries?

This is why I make no apology in supporting Israel in its conflict with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a fanatical, intolerant, fundamentalist movement. I hope it is destroyed as all fascism ought to be destroyed. This does not mean that I am not critical of Israel and its militaristic culture. But it must be remembered that Israeli society is politically diverse. There are Israeli naturists and an openly gay mayor. Israeli gay Arabs can find a freedom they could never dream of under Hamas.

I do not believe cultures or ideologies have rights. I do not believe in social holons. Societies are complexes of individuals and the prime directive only applies to individuals. I therefore judge each society/ideology/culture on how well it allows its members to reach their highest potential.

I am therefore extremely wary of undermining Western culture because I fear its collapse and what might replace it. It could be improved, but it is the best we’ve got.

There’s a line in an Koori hip hop song that says “this land was meant to be forever.” It’s a romantic sentiment all too common in the debate. In what reality would Australia have remained undiscovered? We were almost French. There’s a suburb in Sydney called La Perouse, named after the captain of the French ship that arrived in Botany Bay around a month after the British had set up the first colony in nearby Jackson’s Bay (which became Sydney). The first Europeans to discover Australia were the Dutch – Tasmania used to be called Van Dieman’s Land.

The fact is that the increasing technological developments in the rest of the world meant that one or other empire would have expanded and conquered Australia. It was inevitable that Aboriginal Australia would encounter more advanced cultures. It was never going to be forever.

There has been an argument put forward that ‘justice’ demands a treaty. Who’s justice and a treaty with whom? There are around 500 Aboriginal language groups and a variety of local customs. There was no unified Aboriginal polity and no representative who spoke for all. In fact there was and is inter-tribal conflict. One of the solutions to the remote community problem is to centralize services in regional towns. Kooris from out stations move to these regional centres. But customary law can be quite strict about who can relate to who and there are tribal and clan rivalries. In one town there is a problem with two gangs fighting each other. This conflict has its origins in a conflict between competing clans. There are also complex rules regarding outside tribes/clans being on another tribe’s land and the ‘traditional’ owners can be in conflict with ‘immigrant’ tribes. A treaty? The fact is that one tribe might allow whites onto their land, but another might not. In the first colony the Jackson Bay clans seemed to accept the settlers but the Botany Bay clans did not and began to attack the settlers (the French had been harsh to the Botany Bay clans). In fact, as white settlement progressed some Aborigines helped whites find and kill other Aborigines because they felt no particular loyalty to these other tribes.

An injustice has been done to Aborigines, but this ‘injustice’ has been defined under the Western concept of justice and human rights, not under customary concepts of justice, which remain vague. There is evidence that there were three waves of Aboriginal immigration into Australia, with the first and second waves being pushed further south. In other words, tribal groups did move into other tribes’ territories and effectively conquer them. In the film Ten Canoes one of a man’s wives goes missing and it is assumed she was kidnapped by another, rival tribe. Several plans to retrieve her are proposed, one is to surprise them, kill the men and steal the women. What principle of justice is being applied here?

The reason I don’t think land rights will ultimately work for most is that once a tribal group has been given back land they face the fundamental problem of making the land economically viable. They may choose to maintain it for ritual purposes but how do they then pay for the western goods they want and now need? Some of the lands are in arid and desolate areas that are not economically viable. Land rights will only succeed in areas that are rich and offer a number of economic potentials, tourism, natural resources (like crocodile farming, fishing or money from mineral rights). Some tribes might be given land rights only to find that this does not solve any of their problems.

Boredom is a real issue for remote areas. These groups no longer have to search the bush for food. The struggle to survive was their main occupation and now that trucks import Western food from the big smoke, hunting and gathering has stopped, even when it could continue. There are some areas where ‘bush tucker’ is still gathered, particularly in Arnhem land but the practice has stopped in many other areas. So the traditional lifestyle has ceased. However, in the remote areas there are no jobs to replace traditional occupations, so boredom sets in. Alcohol abuse then steps in. Many non-Australians might then be shocked to know that domestic violence is quite common in some communities, with quite horrendous injuries. A friend of mine has seen a drunken man beat his wife unconscious with a metal chair. It is assumed that this violence is solely due to the collapse of traditional ways but there is evidence that wife bashing was tolerated in traditional culture and that relationships between men and women were not always harmonious. Women were kidnapped by rival tribes and a man had a right to punish a ‘difficult’ wife. This domestic violence is certainly exacerbated by alcohol, but it may have also always been a part of traditional culture, just as pre-pubertal sex was accepted.

A culture clash was inevitable and the consequences were always going to be tragic. The reaction of the first white settlers is now being judged with the benefit of hindsight and often with ‘postmodern’ principles not accessable to the culture of the time. There was culture shock on both sides. How might a white protestant male view the custom of multiple wives with some of them very young? How might he react to his friend being speared in retribution (which may have satisfied Aboriginal justice but violated western justice)?

There were definitely injustices and cruelties done to Aboriginal people. Just as in the US with Native Americans, as settlers sought more land they often disobeyed western ideas of justice and simply killed the local aborigines. They were seen as vermin infesting potential productive land. These injustices need to be fully acknowledged, redressed and even compensated.

But I don’t know how you preserve traditional customs and stop young Koori kids aspiring to be rap artists.

If I have a consistent belief it is that people should be allowed to reach their highest potential. If a culture denies them that potential then that culture is at fault. Traditional Aboriginal culture does not offer much opportunity and little choice. In my previous post I mentioned the talent of soprano Deborah Cheetham. She could not have realised either her talent or expressed her sexuality in traditional Aboriginal society.

There has been a recent controversy in Australia over reports of child sexual abuse amongst Aborigines (Kooris). Alongside this debate is the continuing plight of indigenous Australians. Let’s not be shy here – there are many Aborigines who live in third world conditions in a first world country, their living conditions are very bad. And there is no doubt white Australia has treated them very poorly and I accept all the historical accounts of genocide, virtual slavery, racism and maltreatment.

But it does pose an interesting developmental problem that is neither served by conservative attitudes or by progressive (liberal) romanticism.

For those of you not familiar with the history and geography of Australia let me first say that most of Australia’s population hugs the coast, particularly the east coast. There are vast areas of Australia that are undeveloped desert, ‘vast’ areas – and in the middle of these vast areas lie ‘remote’ Aboriginal settlements. Naturally the eastern Aborigines were the first to be ‘civilized’ and are now into several generations of ‘integration’ (if that is an appropriate word). However, and this may surprise some, western and central tribes have been ‘civilized’ relatively recently. The last clan to encounter whites was in 1963. There’s remarkable footage shot on 16mm colour film of naked Aboriginal children trying to hide from an approaching Jeep. Those children are now only in their 40’s and 50’s and they have been interviewed on their experiences. What this tells us is that in these remote areas there are still many Aborigines who lived and remember the old ways. Many do not speak English – in fact some children are failing to learn English.

So we have a situation where the Aboriginal population is spread across a very wide developmental spectrum, from highly Westernized ‘cultured’ Kooris such as the Soprano (and lesbian) Deborah Cheetham, to a wide variety of skilled people, popular actors, TV presenters, sportspeople, artists, dancers, singers, lawyers and academics, etc – to people who cannot speak English and are illiterate.

Remoteness is an issue. Some settlements are miles from anywhere and some simply get cut off in the wet season. I’m not exaggerating when I say there is nothing there. Whatever amenities there are have to be totally imported and in many cases there is simply no local economy to support a settlement. The reason these settlements exist is simply because that is where the Aborigines live.

There is a tendancy amongst ‘liberals’ in the city to romanticize Aboriginal culture and lifestyle. In a letter to a paper a student teacher described Aboriginal culture as ’successful’, but successful in what terms? In some areas Aborigines barely survived, does dogged survival mean success? The fact is that Aborigines prospered according to their environment. In abundant areas they did well, in the desert they barely survived. Infant mortality was high and people died young. One of the current complaints about the conditions of modern Aborigines is the high infant mortality rate and lower age of death. What I’d be interested in seeing is a comparison between traditional and modern times. Has the infant mortality rate gone up or down? Today even remote communities have access to doctors. In the first year of white settlement in Sydney there was a particularly severe winter which saw the collapse of fish stocks as they sought warmer water. The early colonists reported that the local Aborigines faced a famine and many starved. I’m not sure if eeking out an existance constitutes ’success’.

The issue of child sexual abuse reveals the dilemma. There is a report of one older man abusing a 15 year-old petrol sniffer (a huge problem). If he is old then he will have been bought up under traditional law and under traditional custom older men could marry ‘promised’ wives at a very young age and begin sexual relations from as young as 8/9 (depending on region – older in the central desert because od delayed maturity due to malnutrition). In his eyes 15 would have been quite mature. Nonetheless the white media has called him a pedophile. Now there is a debate over when and what traditional law should apply. According to the rhetoric of some Aboriginal society would be regarded as a pedophile culture!

So there is now a battle between those who want white law to apply without exception and those who want to compromise with customary law. This is where we face another difficulty – where is the line? What custom should apply and what should not. Most people would find having sex with pre-pubertal girls wrong, and yet it was normative under customary law. Customary law also allows for violence against wives and quite arbitrary judgments and brutal punishments. In one reported case a woman was taken into the bush and repeatedly raped by all the men as punishment for looking at a taboo man. Her husband complained that she had not transgressed and that she was unjustly accussed by a man who simply lusted after her.

The old ways are gone forever. Many Australians do not know the details of Aboriginal custom and some have created a romanticized image of a noble savage in harmony with their environment. If they knew that young girls were deflowered using fire sticks before being sent to their husband as his second or third wife they might reasonably object. It is clear that some customary law in unacceptable – but who decides?

Many Aborigines have made a choice. In their interview the two older girls from the last desert clan said they were glad they were discovered – mission life was better; the food was better and they could escape the searing heat and bitter cold. Yes, there were things they missed, the freedom, but overall they said they would not want to return. And I believe that there is not one Aborigine who would want to return to the old ways even if they could. So Aboriginal culture is now dependent on Western culture but at the same time they are in conflict.

How do you provide first world conditions and services to remote areas that have no local economy, nothing to trade? What essentially happens is that the government provides it all. There is a real problem with ’sit-down’ money, government pensions. The government gives remote Aborigines money but there is virtually no local economy with which they can get jobs and earn their own living. This sit-down money means they don’t have to do much and so boredom is a huge problem. Even if they can still hunt they don’t want to because they have a local store. Th elders may try and maintain culture but the young have TV and DVD’s. In one community there is a gang problem with one gang calling itself Judas Priest after the heavy metal band.

The old ways have gone forever and this leads to a real sense of disconnect. Prejudice has meant that Aborigines have not been fully accepted by white Australia but even if they had been there would still be a struggle to reconcile customary ways with Western ways.

In Sydney there is a an active Aboriginal gay community. But here’s the problem. Under customary law homosexuality was punishable by death, you were either speared or clubbed. It is white society that has allowed gay Kooris a voice (and allowed Deborah Cheetham to sing opera and live as a lesbian). The simple fact is, despite all the very real negatives, many Aborigines are able to achieve their fullest potential in white society. There is now a thriving Aboriginal music industry (last year’s Australian Idol was a Koori) but traditional Aboriginal music is mainly ritual – so Kooris turn to western forms; country and western, rock, hip-hop, soul, rock, etc. The Aboriginal music industry could not exist without Western music and Western technology.

So there is a huge gap between a remote desert Aborigine who can’t speak English and the urban Koori who drinks cafe lattes with their gay friends who are in the theatre. The boredom of the outback communities has led to massive social breakdown, alcoholism, drug abuse (petrol sniffing), violence and child sexual abuse (with a consequent increase in VD amongst children) and a loss of a sense of purpose and identity. But how could this be avoided? How could traditional culture have integrated with western culture? How can a stone-age, archaic/magical society survive alongside a rational, technological society?

My view now is that the collapse of Aboriginal society is inevitable and unavoidable. The question now is how that collapse can be managed to lessen the negative consequences. I don’t think land rights will solve the problem in all cases and it is unviable to simply prop up remote communities. There has to be a local economy to provide purpose and jobs. And there are aspects of customary law that are frankly, repulsive and intolerable (I forgot to mention the ritual buggering of boys in some initiation rites).

Despite this there is a new Aboriginal identity being formed that is a strange mixture. Part of it involves Aborigines romanticizing their own culture, leaving out the awkward bits (such as nudity – there is no traditional costume, but one has been created because most Aborigines would now be ’shamed’ to be naked like their ancestors) and glossing over the ‘westernized’ aspects.

Btw, I highly recommend the film Ten Canoes. It’s beautiful film that tells the story of pre-white Aboriginal culture. It’s a must see.