Shift of focus needed on how we respond to conflict
THERE is no such thing as someone or something trying to destroy you. The same applies to war. When one perceives war and destruction, the protagonists are calling upon the inner powers of “victims” to strengthen, stand upright, recreate themselves.
Someone once told me that Mahatma Ghandi was vicious with his wife. What I have gleaned from what is available is that Ghandi was profoundly strategic in his actions towards his wife, with an intent to evolve her being. He might not always have been conscious of this intent, but his soul made a commitment to her evolution.
The mahatma’s actions might not have been perceived as loving, but had he not treated her in the way he did, she would most likely not have found her inner strength. Likewise with war: would Jewish people have accessed their deep creativities in all walks of life, had the Holocaust not happened? Would we have known the depths to which the human mind and soul could sink and the heights to which it could rise had this human tragedy not occurred?
Would the German nation have risen to the technological, innovative, artistic and economic levels they have, had they not experienced a Hitler? Would Japan have given world voice to its awesome culture and economic prowess had it not traversed Hiroshima? Would Cuba have sent out the hundreds of medical personnel to the developing world had the US government not continued to embargo the island in more ways than one?
Why then send an immense amount of energy to the war protagonists in Palestine and fuel fire with fire? This focus feeds the dualistic nature of “them” and “us”, and perpetuates the horror. War in Palestine has been evident for hundreds of years in varying degrees, flaring up into full-scale war from time to time; violent bubbles beneath the land, pushing up through the soles of the occupants. What is the situation trying to teach us?
It seems to be saying, a different approach is necessary when wanting to attain peace with the law of oneness informing human development in all its aspects.
When one shifts the focus to neutral, without letting go of compassion, one turns the situation around: the warmongers release their grip and the victims, for want of a better word, are able to find their inner core – the strong centre where divinity abides. When idling in neutral, one takes a breath, relaxes, awareness enters and you see the sky, the pigeon on the lamp-post.
This is not passivity, this is not support for Israel or whom ever needs light; “nur”, as some say, this is deeply activistic, peacefully activistic, sacredly activistic. One works with consciousness. One takes the focus off what you do not want and places it on what you do want, which is peace for humankind. And the energy moves, it influences through space and time, through war images, blood, sweat and tears.
Hearts open in the middle neutral way. We shift turmoil and angst through the facilitation of active observation. This is an advancement on the Ghandian way of passive resistance. It is more than prayer, which is an appeal. It is the active transference of a higher vibratory force from individual hearts acting together in consciousness with active intent to move the “them” and “us” closer together. This seems to me the most advanced way to go in dealing with the “Palestinian Question”.