The clash of civilisations is well underway. The problem, writes Tarek Atia, is that Machiavelli is coaching both sides I'm sick of watching bombs explode on the TV screen. Disgusted by the spiteful rhetoric that always comes next -- each side claiming to be fighting a war of good versus evil; threatening to take the destruction to an even more appalling level. It's not the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. In the clash of civilisations, most people think one side will ultimately prevail. But is that necessarily true? The answer is no, and here's why. Since two civilisations can co-exist in one body/person, they can do so on earth as well. It isn't easy, but it's not impossible either. But why is something so clear to me so hard to convince others of? It really is within our power to stop this scourge from getting worse. It's quite simple actually -- just a matter of shifting perspectives. Moving away from a Machiavellian worldview, to one where we judge every event on its own merit, rather than as part of someone else's means to get to an end. On one side you have the so-called Western/ modern/American/secular view, which espouses democracy, free markets, human rights and so many of the principles set out by documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta, far-reaching principles upon which truly great societies have been built. But look at the means being used to spread that doctrine -- occupation, torture, destruction, hatred and death. On the other side there's the so-called Islamist/fundamentalist/jihadist point of view, with its goal of ending occupation, leveling the playing field, bringing down what is certainly, in many ways, an unfair world order. But the means are despicable -- terror, the killing of innocent vacationers, carnage, destruction and death. How many times do we hear people invoke religion, God, etc, but then do things that religion and God clearly forbid? Who started it? Who cares? It's important, for sure, but more crucial is how it might end. And the answer to that is clear: it will end badly, unless both sides quickly grow up. I feel like we're in a proverbial playground, watching two kids fight. "But he pushed/insulted/ grabbed me first," each one is saying. Meanwhile the bystanders -- every one of us -- are gradually being dragged into the fight, forced to take sides in a clash most of us didn't want any part of in the first place. And because we don't look at each event/ blow in and of itself (ie outside the larger political context), we've begun to lose sight of the most essential context of all -- morality. It's as simple as that. Not turn the other cheek. Not get hit and shut up. But be moral in the way you wage war. Morality is not a commodity that's only available to some. In fact, it may be the only commodity that's readily available to all, that is there for the taking, that is practically begging to be tried, borrowed, shared. This is not a naïve or simplistic point of view, nor is it the easy way out. In fact, it's the most difficult challenge man has always, and will always, face. This is the real war, the hard way to play the game. There are no painless formulas for those who choose this route. Idealism is the thorniest path anyone can choose and once it's chosen the challenges will come from everywhere. There will be constant, internal reckoning, the consistent questioning of motives and means. In short, it involves challenging ourselves every waking moment of our lives, and refusing to take anything for granted. Nobody said anything about a simple solution. It is simple, yes, in that it's simply the only way we are going to survive. Let's be more pragmatic about it -- much of this clash has its roots in an intelligence services-fuelled conflict that stems from decades of dirty political manoeuvering, not in any core disagreement over fundamental principles of life. Is that really something we want to be part of, or want our kids to be part of? To be proxies for somebody else's war, or somebody else's propaganda? To be the tools and means by which certain parties acquire yet more money and power? Besides, what if, in the end, the two points of view could actually reach some working compromise and merely need the time and space to talk about it, hash out the details? What if the secular side discovered that many of the Magna Carta's principles actually have their roots in the Qur'an? What if the fundamentalists come to understand that a modern worldview doesn't necessarily have to be steeped in licentiousness and sin? After all, everyone on earth, in varying degrees, is composed of elements from either side of the clash. As individuals, we go through a continuous process of adapting to that turmoil, finding solutions that allow us to live, rather than die. Nobody said the world has to be an oasis of total harmony and peace. But there's not a chance in hell of coming even close to that if you can't even hear the conversation above the sound of the bombs.
