The classic adage, ""It takes two to tango,"" is never more relevant than in the conflicts of the Middle East. The needless name calling and sensitivity of opposing religious groups is childlike, and often leads to unnecessary deaths.
The tit for tat that occasionally escalates into something dire, such as the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah this past summer that left more than 150 Israelis and 1,000 Lebanese dead, needs to end.
For progress towards world peace, people must not remain so sensitive to certain misgivings, and for progress to be made, the atrocities of the past need to be forgotten. Constantly rehashing who did what to whom only propels the cycle of never-ending violence.
According to UW-Madison history professor Jeremi Suri, ""There is a tendency for people to linger on past injustices. It is easier for leaders to stir up anger about the past, rather than to build consensus for the future."" People tend to mobilize around specific events and fail to look at the big picture, mainly the consequences of retaliation.
The recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, in which he quoted a passage from a 14th century Christian emperor, inflamed Muslims as they took it out of context. Six months before that, the Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad invigorated hatred and murder throughout the world. In essence, these groups are still fighting holy wars from centuries ago.
Some extremists from one group do or say something offensive to the other group and extremist members of that group subsequently retaliate. This reoccurring violence forms a circle of ideological hatred.
Extremists are so blinded by their ambition to spread their beliefs that they become fixated on achieving their goal, no matter the means. Never mind that they are deserting the basic principle of religion, the simple thing they swear they are fighting for.
The very essence of a religion is to promote peace and harmony throughout humankind.
The extreme views of the few overshadow the ideals of the many, as suicide bombers and activists drown out the peaceful and rational members of a particular group of people - often times giving the entire religious group a bad name.
World peace is attainable. For it to exist, all forms of society and ethnicities need to learn a balance of give and take. The United Nations, despite all of its shortcomings, is by far the best way to alleviate world tensions.
According to professor Suri, ""It is much more complicated to use force"" with a world body, such as the U.N. in place. Instead of leaders sending legions of troops to the battlefield, world leaders gather in one room and discuss possible solutions to conflicts. Even if no resolution is achieved, war is usually averted.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela voiced their displeasure with the United States at the U.N. summit last week. Likewise, President Bush warned of the danger those men pose. While it would be nice to see all countries agree and work out their differences, the fact that the U.N. provides a place to peacefully speak and reason with other foreign entities of the world without using weapons, shows that the civilized world is working. In an increasingly intellectual world where words and thoughts continue to gain more power than the sword, civilizations are now more knowledgeable and understanding of the atrocities of war.
Yet, as long as people continue to fight and point fingers at other groups, and if avenging the injustices of the past remains part of a group's continual emphasis, peace will never exist.
For peace to exist in all regions of the world, all ethnicities and religions need to forget the prejudices of their fathers and instead need to embrace a lenient, less sensitive approach to the world. Only then will something as trivial as a misquoted speech be known solely as an embarrassment to the speaker, and not as the precursor to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Adam Seston is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
