I've been trying to think what it is I have to say about the situation in Israel/Lebanon and, the truth is, that I'm lost for words.
I had lunch with a friend yesterday, and we both agreed that we had no words. We both agreed that we can't take sides and that the most atrocious thing about the whole situation was seeing dead bodies on the nightly news - especially those of very young children and babies.
My friend said that all she can do at the sight of dead bodies is cry. So she changes the channel for a few minutes until the news moves on to something else. Then she feels guilty. We should be crying at the fact that human beings are killing other human beings, shouldn't we? But how can a person stand to watch that all the time?
And then the big question - if we can't cope with this sort of pointless death as human beings and if we keep seeing it on television and in the papers, do we just end up desensitising ourselves to the whole thing? What can we do other than donate to relief agencies? But isn't that too simple and just a way to assuage our own guilt?
As a Christian, I believe passionately in forgiveness and reconciliation. I said passionately and I mean 'passionately'. I am a passionate pacifist. A lot of people do not understand that. Some seem to think that pacifism is born out of a stance of 'I can't be bothered. I don't want trouble. Let's all just get along so that I can get own with my own selfish life.'
I believe that pacifism, forgiveness and reconciliation are at the core of the Gospel. They are not pink and fluffy easy-peasy things to do. They are damn difficult things to do; if they weren't the sort of hatreds and rivalries that we have in the Middle East would not be occuring.
Jesus called those who follow him to forgive endlessly - seventy times seven. The twelve recognised that this was an 'unreasonable' and outrageous request when they challenged him and said 'Surely you don't mean that.'
From the point of view of Christian theology, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a just war. At best, there is only the regretably unjust war that we may have to engage in for survivial - but it is still sinful.
As a US citizen, I abhor the fact that the US government is refusing to talk to Hezbollah until the latter do what the former want. As a UK citizen, I abhor the fact that the UK government seems to be following lock-step with US policies. As a Christian, I abhor the fact that so many other Christians cheer the fact that Lebanese babies are dying. I do not believe Lebanon are innocent, but I also do not believe the apparent US view that Israel are innocent either. The whole situation is a paradigm of mimetic violence on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Philippa, in my personal opinion, in dealing with mimetic violence, "who started it" doesn't matter. I have my own feelings about who I think is most wrong, but I have very strong intellectual convictions that the right ethical stance toward mimetic violence is that anyone who is not non-violent is guilty. I do not see anyone being non-violent in this situation, so I think you and I are in partial agreement, at least.
In terms of which Christians are applauding the killing of Lebanese citizens, they are out there in blogland. I can point you to blog entries by email if you think I am not being truthful and want justification. Other than that, it's not my intention here to be pointing fingers at individuals.
I hear your concerns about pacifism. At a practical level, for me the answer is "War is sometimes regretably necessary but is still sinful"
If there is a "just war" from a Christian theological point of view, that means that God blesses some forms of violence. I do not believe that. I think God weeps at violence. At it's most extreme, a just war theology supports "God wants us to kill those people". I do not believe that God ever blesses any human being killing another human being.
I do not believe that God ever blesses any human being killing another human being.
I don't really understand how it is that hot topics inevitably seem to attract a lot of comments, but I'm anticipating someone now saying to me "Abortion is sinful". That always happens whenever I say anything that someone takes to be "liberal" because we all have our stereotypes about what "liberals" believe.
So let me say this now. I believe that abortion is sinful. I believe in consistency on this point. War is sinful. Abortion is sinful. Capital punishment is sinful. Euthanasia is sinful.
There, I hope I've covered that point before its raised.
PamBG,
Reading your post reminds me of the phrase "there's nothing passivve about pacifism." Pacifism is, at its best, an active engagement with a violent world, bringing and modelling peace. Many of the best models of peace in recent history have been extremely passionate and extremely active: Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. as the best examples. In their witness for peace they were willing to take on a great deal of violence in order to take the steam out of violence, just as Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount.
I am not always ready to call myself a pacifist; philosophically I sometimes think that some measure of violence may be necessary and justified. But my deepest sympathies certainly lie with pacifists, who enter into a world of violence and take that violence on, hoping that their suffering will help to end violence. I wish that I had their moral courage.
Philippa,
Well ... Hezbollah began all this crap.
For violence to be justified, according to the classical form of Just War Theory, it must not only have a just cause, but it must also be limited in its conduct. While it may be the case that Israel's cause in this conflict is just (as you argue with the above line), their conduct is certainly not sufficiently limited, and as such it only hurts their cause.
Limited conduct entails a number of things, including but not limited to the proportionality of a response and minimizing civilian casualties. Israel's response has been anything but proportional, and while Hezollah bears some responsibility for the massive number of civilian casualities for their cowardly method of firing rockets from highly populated areas, Israel has shown little regard for civilian life.
Just the other day Israeli tanks fired on a UN building, and then, when that building, which housed four international monitors, radioed Israeli command to inform them that they were taking fire, an Israeli fighter jet destroyed it. While they almost certainly didn't target the UN building (what would Israel stand to gain from attacking the United Nations?), that they hit it, despite knowing its location in advance and despite being clearly informed that what they were firing on was a UN building rather than a Hezbollah target, indicates a flagrant disregard for the collateral damage inflicted by their actions.
In general, in the Arab-Israeli conflict my sympathies lie with Israel. That Israel is surrounded by nations which deny its fundamental right to exist is beyond troubling. But that does not give Israel a blank check to conduct war in any way that it wishes. Even assuming that war is sometimes morally permissible, the conduct of the Israeli military in this particular conflict, no matter how just their cause and no matter how legitimate their provocation, is morally repugnant.
That, of course, says nothing about Hezbollah, who as a militant and terrorist organization shows even less regard for civilian life, seeing all Israelis as legitimate targets. But just because one side is obviously wrong, that doesn't make the other side right.
I recognize that this does not respond to the substance of your comment, which reflected a great deal of heart-rending soul-searching. Like you, I also don't have any answers. I was particularly impressed with your reflection on pacifism and just war, as they apply to both nations and individuals. While I have never been attacked, I have had some martial arts training, and share your instinct to use a measure of violence to subdue an attacker.
The best formulations of Just War Theory are, in my mind, the most limited ones. The presume that violence always entails a certain amount of evil, and they seek to minimize that evil as far as is possible. Fortunately most of us are not subject to the immediate threat of violence. I, for instance, cannot say for certain that I would be justified in killing someone who was attempting to kill me, my wife, and/or our son; but I can say that living a life characterized by peace has made it infinitely less likely that I will ever be in the unfortunate position of having to make such abstract moral reasoning concrete.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, even if violence is theoretically justified, as I sometimes think that it is, living a life of peace is the best policy. Would that everyone agreed with that!
Hi,
As a Lebanese, I would advise to get the thoughts of people in Lebanon. And in order to get a clearer perspective of the situation from inside Lebanon, from a Christian Lebanese, ChristianityToday has posted a well balanced article by Mr. Akkad...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/129/42.0.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/130/22.0.html
Chili, thank you for that link. I do know Lebanese Christians personally and what they have to say is in line with this Christianity Today article.
Just out of curiousity, do you abhor that Hezbollah and most of the Palestinian population is committed to the extermination of Israel?
John, To repeat what I said, I think both sides are guilty. I think that's a perfectly comprehensible and unambiguous statement. I do not believe that there any innocent parties in this conflict. I think that the intention of all three governments is for war. But I also bet that there are a lot of Palestinians, Lebanese and Israeli civilians who are sick of decades of killing and who would like to be peaceable.
Thanks for this post pam, it's help ful to read.
Steve
ps - I love the graceful way you've been responding to comment.
Steve
If I were King of the World I would declare a big part of the area we call the Holy Land an international territory.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all have holy sites in the area and because of the religious importance all three feel they have a "right" to the land.
I do not see any resolution to conflict in the region until there is an international agreement that all sides can live with. I don't think that there is an answer that any of them will be totally happy with.
But alas, I am not king of the world.
Post a Comment