A few weeks ago, I asked Professor Eran Feitelson, chair of the Department of Geography at Hebrew University who works extensively on sustainable development and water issues, to share his thoughts with the Great Transition Initiative’s international network on the recent events in Gaza and the cycle of violence in the Middle East. He agreed to let me share his thoughts in this blog as well — his response is below.
To provide some context, Barbarization is one of 3 categories of scenarios devised by the Global Scenario Group, the other two being Conventional Worlds and Great Transitions. Barbarization scenarios “envision the grim possibility that the social, economic and moral underpinnings of civilization deteriorate, as emerging problems overwhelm the coping capacity of both markets and policy reforms.”
Now from Eran:
Dear Orion
Indeed a lot is happening in the Middle East, and recent events in Gaza are just one more twist to the plot. The whole Middle East is embroiled in a multi-level confrontation between modernity and tradition, between fundamentalism, authoritarianism and democracy, between regional powers, local strongmen, states and international forces. Thus, it is almost impossible to sum it all up in a meaningful paragraph that will stimulate a meaningful discussion, beyond the all too familiar blame game.
As a meaningful discussion of the Middle East requires quite substantial understanding of its intricacy, history, power structures and myths I gave quite a bit of thought whether and how such a discussion can take place within the GTI setting. It seems to me that one of the strengths of the GTI frame has been its avoidance of very specific debates on complex issues which require much localized knowledge.
If there is indeed an interest in discussing the unfolding events here within the GTI frame I think it has to be framed within the GTI context and discussed as such. From this perspective what we see today is essentially the unfolding of the Barbarization scenario. On one hand Israel has tried since the collapse of the Oslo process in 2000 to implement a fortress policy, first in the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and later in Gaza; both failed. At the same time we can see a breakdown in several societies in the region. While such breakdowns have been facilitated by outside forces they are currently driven largely by the conflict between fundamentalist intolerant forces, which have wide popular support, and more moderate but often corrupt and authoritarian forces. It is against this background that we have to ask how should people who would like to advance a transition react. As someone who has long been involved in attempts to reconcile Israelis and Palestinians, I am afraid we have run out of simple answers. In my mind it is necessary to embark on long term societal shifts within the various, highly fragmented, societies in the Middle East. At present, regrettably, it seems that the fundamentalist forces are on the rise, making any attempt to advance issues such as gender equality (seen by many as a key for transformation in the Middle East) that much more difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that such societal transitions can only come about if they are truly endogenous. That is, they have to come from within societies and so the ability of outsiders to facilitate the empowerment of women, or similar intra-societal shifts is limited at best, especially in the Middle East.
I do not know whether this helps in fostering the discussion you are looking for. In any case, it is somewhat removed from the events of the last few days in Gaza. But I think that in the GTI frame we have to look for the larger picture and not get caught up in the immediate events, which unfold in this part of the world at a rapid pace indeed.
best
Eran
This is a very disturbing response by Professor Feitelson but not a surprising one. I don’t know what the outcome will be in the Middle East. One must hold onto hope that eventually a peaceful resolution will prevail. So, if the Middle East goes the way of the Barbarization scenario ane Europe would go with the Great Transition scenario, how would the two interact and how would this effect the rest of the world?
One would hope that the Barbarization scenario is very unlikely and will not happen, but I think in the end the society should work itself out and get to a point of stability, hopefully with bloodshed at a minimum.
Orion, in the middle east and elsewhere, isn’t the Barbarization scenario already unfolding in minor ways? I’m speaking specifically of the idea of a “fortress world,” which I understand is one possible manifestation of that scenario. In the U.S., for examle, when I was young, there were no gated communities. Perhaps gated communities in the U.S. are not an actual example of the Barbarization scenario in action. But it would certainly point to a mind-set of “I will be safe inside my gated community while relative chaos reigns outside.”
What would it take - in the Middle East or elsewhere - to definitively state that this scenario was beginning to unfold?
Deborah
Gretchie, Deborah, and Sglasson,
An important thing to remember when talking about scenarios of the global future is that the scenarios are archetypes, and thus none of them will ever truly “unfold”. At the present time we can see the forces of Fortress World at work in the form of gated communities in the US (a growing trend) and we can see it in the policies of the Bush Administration, or as Eran mentions, the wall being built by Israel.
Simultaneously the forces of Market Forces scenarios are striving to further develop the World Trade Organization, and safe-guard their vision of a globally integrated free-markets. The forces of Great Transition as active too, at this moment in history, as countless citizen-led initiatives for a better world, many of which gather in forums like the recent US Social Forum in Atlanta or the World Social Forum.
At any given moment during this period of rapid planetary transition, different scenarios ascend and others recede as events take shape. Creating an indicator — even a highly subjective one — of progress toward one scenario or another is a difficult challenge. At the Tellus Institute, we are working on this.
In the meanwhile, whether or not a particular scenario is gaining momentum depends on what factors you view as key. Obviously Eran believes the situation in the Middle East is bleak these days, but he is not without hope that we can take action to change the course of events. This is the key thing — the power of human choice to shape the future.
Peace in the Middle east will not occur as long as the muslim is there. If they are not at war with Israel or the west, they will fight each other. It is their religion which means it is their culture and their law. The only possibility of stopping the fighting is to take over the region by force and destroy entire areas when trouble happens. When the folks are more afraid of their conquerors than Allah, they will settle down. Several generations of folks raised never hearing of Allah and the Koran might make some inroads. Other than that, these folks will go on doing what they have for centuries.
Putting Israel back there was a recipe for disaster.
By the way: Democracy is simply mob rule. That is why our forefather’s did their best to see that it never reared its ugly head here. We were to have constitutional republic. Simply put, a rule of law.