We Could Argue Until The Cows Come Home…Or…
On the surface, at least, the purpose of a system of justice is to bring justice. In America, however, every defendant has the right to legal counsel. Every once in a while a sharp and crafty lawyer can get the defendant off, even if he was caught with blood on his hands. Such is the power of a persuasive argument. But is justice served when legal arguments and loopholes are used to subvert the truth?
We see unfolding before our eyes a tragedy in Gaza. Innocent civilians are losing their lives even as we speak. And as we witness the events of recent days, we also hear some rather persuasive arguments on both sides of the conflict. And since there are strong equities on both sides, and since the arguments are often equally persuasive, depending which side you’re on, then the same question arises once again: Is the cause of justice being served?
From the Palestinian side we hear arguments which would constitute a strong case in a court of law: that Israel is responding disproportionately in relation to the initial provocation of the firing of the homemade rockets and mortars, that the rockets were fired as an act of self-defense in the face of the closures and the economic boycott of Gaza, that only a few Israelis have died as opposed to hundreds of Palestinians, that the targeting of civilians violates international law, and so forth, and so on.
Likewise, those in support of Israel could counter these charges with equally persuasive arguments: that in the face of mortal enemies Israel is forced to project a strong image of deterrence, that the closure and boycott of Gaza came in response to a constant barrage of rocket fire which can potentially target as many as 500,000 Israelis, that the respective number of casualties on either side does not negate the right to self-defense, that the civilian casualties are not intended but are inevitable when the militants choose to position themselves among civilians, and so forth, and so on.
These are just some of the arguments that are volleyed back and forth like ping pong balls. And yet, where is the justice? What do you say to a mother who lost five beautiful daughters who were only trying to make their way on a horse-drawn carriage? We can continue to argue back and forth, and satisfy ourselves that we are out doing one another in the blame game. Or we can be a bit more original, and bring forth peace, instead.
For peace to happen, a lot of things will have to change. Foremost, as far as I can tell, is the way we think. In a way, when we go about gingerly arguing our positions endlessly, with no clear outcome in sight, aren’t we being just a little bit selfish? It’s about what I believe and what I think. In other words, it’s about me. And what is lost in the focus on me, is we.
We are all entitled to our beliefs, and to our ways of seeing the world. But are we entitled to trap ourselves in a vicious cycle of recriminations, a cycle that has no beginning, and no end, a cycle that will deprive our children of their right to a decent and peaceful life? It may well be time, before time runs out, and believe me, time is running out, to step out of ourselves and beyond our difference. It may be time to put on a shelf at least some of who we are and what we believe, in favor of something we can believe in even more, in favor of peace, in favor of sustainability, in favor of what makes sense.
Imagine, if we continue down the path we’re going, we may well find ourselves all dead, and even in death, arguing our case before God: “Oh God,” we’ll say, “We were right about this or that, and we had no choice but to do what we did, in your name no less.” And what do you think God would say in response? “I gave you life so that you could live, not kill, and not die, before your time. I gave you the common sense to bring a semblance of order to your lives. I gave you a wondrous world, full of beauty, so that you could create a paradise right here and right now. And what did you do instead? You took what could have been a heaven on earth, and made it into a living hell. And you did all that in My name? Well guess what…thanks but no thanks.”
Here is my dream for the Palestinian people for the New Year: a country of their own, side by side Israel, a country which enjoys the blessings of peace, prosperity, and freedom, where every citizen has the opportunity to pursue his or her dreams, and where every child dares to reach for the stars.
This war, tragic as it is, will soon come to an end, God willing. And then, hard as it may be to believe, because of many factors which are converging as we speak, there will be an opportunity to broker a lasting peace. Things can be done, right here and right now, by Palestinians, Israelis, and the rest of us around the world, to improve the chances for peace. But in order to do what we have to do, we will have to let go of some of our beliefs, of some of the history, and of some of who we are. We will let go of this, however reluctantly, so that we can realize a better version of ourselves, a version of ourselves that gives fuller expression to the potential for good that is within each and every one of us.
We were created in God’s image. And so, like Him, we too are creators. It is time to create a version of ourselves that allows God to see His image in us.
Join the Conversation
I must disagree, but these arguments are far from valid and persuasive. Millions of people around the world are outraged, and hopefully those who justify Israel’s terrorism will soon come to their senses and put their nationalist extremism behind for the sake of justice. Likewise to Palestinians who justify these rockets, even though it is not at all comparable to their own unbelievable suffering.
We spent so much time on this very site denouncing any aspect of Arab violence or terrorism towards Israel. But there are far too little Israeli voices denouncing their own terrorism as well, and in fact some are taking a very childish approach to this war, saying things like “May God help us kill the last child in Gaza, Go Israel!” And “They deserve it.” It’s this sickening aspect of society that prevents peace. Simply hoping for peace while justifying Israel’s actions does not do anyone any justice. It only insults these innocent civilians whose lives were lost for a petty war that a ridiculous government finds it increasingly harder to justify even with their million dollar propaganda.
Shame on Israel. Shame on Hamas. But in the end it is Israel that the world relies on to bring peace to what many people are now considering to be a grave crime. It is by far one of the most brutal governments in this region. We’re angry and with good reason. Now much of the world is finally exposing Israeli terrorism that was so brilliantly hidden in the past; but not in this internet age.
It’s very bad state of affairs happening in Gaza. It’s very irresponsible of Hamas to refuse renewing ceasefire and sending a few rockets just to be rhetoric instead of being reasonable. ANd it was highly condemnable of the disproportionate and hysteric/brutal Israeli response disregarding all international code of conduct for a state. On both sides saner moderate and democratic forces need to take over from the evil hawks and bring an acceptable and peaceful solution. And I hate to hear rhetorics like “Go Israel” and ‘destroy the last palestinian’ or ‘Wipe out Jews’ or ‘wipe out israel’. People intent upon destruction should think of– if they can produce a life out of nothing or if they can set right the maimed bodies or other sufferings of such victims, or if they can give back life to those deceased civilians. Shame on such evil destructive forces!
Nissim – you write well. I enjoyed reading
I don’t feel the same. In my experience, the opposition in Israel to the killings of innocent Palestinians is much more loud than I have ever heard from the Palestinian or Arab side. Even now, with one of the most internally-accepted operations Israel ever had, there are demonstrations against it in many parts of Israel.
I have a podcast by an Israeli activist that disagrees with this completely, which I will be posting tomorrow.
Frankly I also don’t believe at all that Israeli opposition is somehow louder, if so then perhaps you can consider linking to each and every Israeli blog opposing it. You will not find many. There are some, which we really appreciate, but the majority are clearly justifying this, as are the majority of Israelis in general. The opposition in Israel is not near as loud as it is in the Palestinian and Arab world, and a simple search online will verify that.
How many parts of Israel? From what I heard it was absolutely minimal and some Israelis are expressing their concern for that. The activist I spoke with in the podcast said there were not many people who attended the rally in Tel Aviv in comparison to the rest of the population. But kudos to everyone who actually attended. They are extremely admirable.
If you post each location a rally was held and then the number of the people attending the rallies you will find that factually your statement doesn’t really stand. We expect a lot more Israelis to take action on this.
I’m happy to be wrong. Maybe the Israeli opposition is louder to me because it’s closer. Arab opposition to killings of innocent Israelis will definitely improve chances for peace from the Israeli side.
I don’t read that many but here:
http://yarok.blogli.co.il/ – myself
http://www.haokets.org/
http://nadav.blogdebate.org/
http://www.blacklabor.org/?p=5980 – not really blog but a post nonetheless.
http://www.2jk.org/praxis/?p=1741
http://dvarim.blogli.co.il/
http://www.notes.co.il/shooky/
just people I read regularly or found in their comments.
here’s a video of a demonstration:
http://www.tv.social.org.il/medini/stv-aza-oferet-27-12-08.htm
good reading:
http://israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=102597&blogcode=10353625
Thanks Yarden, here is another link, and one of my personal favorites:
Jewschool
It’s only such justice seekers who will bring peace, as opposed to any war or destruction.
Yarden, I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I will do my best to keep you interested.
Esra’a, I understand that there are different ways of evaluating the equities of each respective side. And I also understand that your criticism of Israel may be harsher than my own. And I can respect that.
But what I’m also saying is that these back and forth arguments may not be as important as the strategic and logistical approaches to bringing peace. In other words, instead of talking peace, we owe it to ourselves to actually bring about its emergence, and I’m not just talking about a temporary cease fire.
Here’s the kind of thing I worry about. Israel occupied parts of Lebanon in response to Palestinian terror attacks. Then, after a war of attrition, Israel pulled out, Hizbullah took over, were armed by Iran, and were able to thwart Israel in 2006, using thousands of missles, and I’m not talking about “homemade” missles.
In a similar vein, Israel occupied Gaza, fought a war of attrition, pulled out in 2005, and since then, faced a barrage of mortar and rocket fire, to which she is responding by launching the current attack.
Let’s say that the occupation is the cause of the attacks on Israel. OK. So Israel decides, unilaterally to pull out of the West Bank, Hamas takes over, Abbas is ousted, Iran arms Hamas with thousands of sophisticated missles, missles that will easily reach Tel Aviv, and Hamas still has a beef with Israel, and Israel is attacked with missles, some of which kill a great many Israelis, and now the conflict has escalated substantially, much greater than what is happening today, which will put even more Palestinians at risk.
There is a reason why Abbas and Mubarak are not going out of their way to defend Hamas. Iran aspires to become the ascendsnt power in the Middle East. For Iran, Israel is just “small potatoes.” Iran is using Hizbullah and Hamas as proxies to spread her sphere of influence. And if Iran goes nuclear, then that sense of ascendancy could well become fixed in stone, giving Iran the power to dicate foreign and domestic policy. And then, would Israel be as invincible as she currently seems to be? Or would she be facing, on a daily basis, an existential threat?
Esra’s, both of us can agree that the violence in Gaza should stop, and that the occupation should come to an end as well. I think that both of us can agree on the need to bring justice to Palestinians. What I struggle with is how to do that, so that instead of using short term band aids, we bring about the changes which will result in a comprehensive peace, for now, and for the long run. I would be very interested in your approach for the long run.
ISRAEL DIDN’T WITHDRAW, HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE? ISRAEL HAD A BLOCKADE. WHEN I SAY BLOCKADE, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LAND BLOCKADE, I AM TALKING ABOUT SEA AND AIR ALSO. HOW THE FUCK DID YOU THINK GAZA WAS GOING TO COPE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS? HAMAS HAD NO CHOICE. AS THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IT WAS THEIR RIGHT TO DEFEND THEIR PEOPLE AGAINST THESE NAZI LIKE WAR CRIMINALS.
So you saying we’ll have peace in the Middle East via the fear of mutual self annihilation? I think I like this idea over what we have now. Look how well the USA and USSR did and look how well India and Pakistan are doing.
Then entire world is facing existential threat because of Israel. I find the idea of only Israel having to deal with this sounds mighty fine to me. At the same time, I hope your not suggesting that Iran will give nukes to one of these rebel groups and they will use it in Israel? If so then I can assure you that only an Westerner or an Israeli would use weapons of this scale on a civilian population. Others are more civilized and I will place history as my evidence. At the same time they are not stupid, fallout knows now boundaries and if they use it in Israel, they’ll be signing their own death warrants.
Jina, chronology and causation are important. Israel imposed a blockage because Hamas decided to launch an incessant barrage of missiles. The blockade did not come out of thin air. It came in response to a tactical decision on the part of Hamas.
Do you honestly believe, Jina, that if, after the pullout of 2005, Hamas decided to sit down and talk, as opposed to launching missiles, that Israel would have said no. I know you’re angry, and you have a right to be, but you have to be fair in your assessment. This is nothing less than a big ass chess game. And there are a lot more pieces on the board than simply Hamas and Israel.
No my friend, I am not saying that. The USA and USSR were somewhat rational. Religion, fortunately, was not part of the mix. Here it’s different. Iranian leaders have said that destroying Israel would be worth it even if half their population would perish. I don’t think they’re kidding. Under the right circumstances, I could see them pushing the button, especially if they really believe that God is on their side.
As for India and Pakistan, I wouldn’t exactly use that situation as an example of stability. That loony place can easily blow any time soon. Pakistan is being overtaken by some really loony tunes, and India may lose its cool with enough provocation, which is exactly what the extremists want.
I don’t buy it, Jina. On a usual day, some 60,000 people worked at the World Trade Center. When Al Qaeda launched the terror attack, they had no way of knowing how many people would be able to escape. That means that as far as they were concerned, they could have possibility wiped out 60,000 people, in addition to the other little schemes they hatched for that day.
The terrorists are not civilized people, not with their enemies, and not even with their own people. Should they succeed, yes Israel would be hurt, or even destroyed, but so would the entire world, especially their own people, the people they claim to represent. The only thing that can possibly keep the terrorists in check is a certain measure of military pressure, but even more importantly, a concerted campaign to improve the lives of ordinary people, so that the terrorists are pictured as holding their people back from a better life. Even the terorrists will not be able to withstand that pressure. Once the people turn against them, they’re finished.
What Israel and the U.S. should be doing now is to improve the lives of people in the West Bank. That is possible. And soon enough, people in Gaza may look at that and say, “Hey, where’s our share?” That’s the type of pressure that needs to be brought to bear on Hamas, instead of allowing them to instigate trouble, and to use that trouble to try to consolidate political power.
Esra’s, both of us can agree that the violence in Gaza should stop, and that the occupation should come to an end as well. I think that both of us can agree on the need to bring justice to Palestinians. What I struggle with is how to do that, so that instead of using short term band aids, we bring about the changes which will result in a comprehensive peace, for now, and for the long run. I would be very interested in your approach for the long run.Approach for long run will have to be based on mutual respect and peace and justice. The way forward would be to reduce the influence from violent non-state actors and making state actors completely accountable for their subversive/illegal activities.
Dear Ameen,
you are right, of course. But I cannot see many ways how to reduce the influence of any numerous violent well-armed group without a lot of bloodshed.
Even if such group loses philosophical and ethical support of the population, it is still able to coerce that unwilling population into submission and into providing the group with all necessary materials (guns, ammo, food, medicine).
Jina
I dont think these people are worth talking to …. they still talking bout hitler and what hilter did to them. Well you must come back to europe to fight that battle …. funny they gave you a piece of land and you are trying to do the same to others now… you jews should have learn by now that killing only makes a group stronger in the long run. So wait and see what is gonna happen to Israel. And u deserve it all …. u became de devil and terrorist of this world and Hitler is still laughing his ass of because it was just a joke on his part. I really dont like to mention Hitler but now the jews are going so for in himuliating and destroying the palistinian people they are becoming worse then Hitler … At least he killed you all .. You keeping people alive in camps for 60 years and telling them u doing them a favor.
Selfdefence is what Hitler said also in those days… he was defending his country from the jewish ras that had a bad influence on their land and on the world and there for they needed to die. Well its all the same now only Israel is the new Hitler.
Good luck new Hitler
al ameen, I agree with you wholeheartedly. You call for “mutual respect,” “peace,” and “justice.” These ideals go together well. Speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. That’s my version of mutual self respect. And justice? Yes. But justice is just another word unless bolstered by opportunities to make your life better. And therefore, I believe in investment, in creating jobs, jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect our environment, and jobs which help to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking, wherever it may be found. And if you maintain respect for one another, and if you give people a place at the table, a stake in their future, then you begin to condition people for the possibility of peace.
I would also agree that we have to find a way to reduce the influence of subversive non-state actors, and to hold accountable state actors. I refer to this as beating the ideological extremists at their own game, of co-opting their strategy, of doing what they do only better. We must compete for hearts and minds, as the extremists do. We have something better to sell, and we have more resources at our disposal. The way to beat the extremists, and to hold accountable the state players, is to buy into a new vision, a Vision of Hope, by which we empower the man on the street to play an active role in making his life better. This will marginalize the extremists, and will help to focus the energies of state actors into more constructive roles.
Marian, this is one hell of a challenge, but we have to believe that it is still possible. There is probably no way to avoid bloodshed. The extremists are emboldened by ideological conviction. But the trick is to position the fight within a broader context, within a vision of hope. Such a vision will give the fight a greater measure of credibility, and will embolden moderates for the fight that lies ahead. Once people begin to believe in the righteousness of their cause, it is very difficult to stop them from realizing their goal. This is what works for the extremists, but it could also work for the rest of us, if we go about putting together the right vision, and the actions that are needed to give that vision a certain measure of substance on the ground.
Justme,
I am trying to talk to you even though I see what you are saying as very offensive. So offensive that most people (not necessarily Jewish) would not have commented you after what you wrote here.
I think you’re making a grave mistake by referring to all Jews as one group. Many of us oppose much of what Israel is doing and try to stop it.
Also I firmly believe that when you are in a dispute, the best course of action is always to try to talk and solve the dispute, as grave as it may be, by peaceful talks, not killings or hate. Because, as many Israelis and Arabs learned over time, killing only bring more killing, and hate brings forth more hate.
As Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.
I’m with you Yarden. Emotions are running very high in the region and around the world, and with good reason. And it is ver easy to let the emotions get out of hand, and to stifle any attempt at reason. The kind of things that Justme is saying are the kind of justifications that some Israelis use to justify a hard line approach. And yet we all know that it will take a lot of give and take to broker not only a truce, but a long term peace. Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to keep at least some of the emotions in check, and to try to reach an accomodation which brings the greatest measure of justice to all the parties concerned. It may not “feel” as good to do that, but in the long run, our emotions will learn to follow good and just policies.
@Marian and Nissim:- Yes elimination of influence from subversive non-state actors should be done in a careful way otherwise situation will become volatile and it’ll be no justice if we let innocents/civilians put to so much SUFFERING. But in eliminating subversive non-state actors bloodshed should be minimised or better still the thing should be left to the state which is also sharing some common values with the non-state actors but it should do the cleaning without giving excuses and of course the state actor should be strong enough to clean its house and measures towards this direction should be made. It’s like cleaning one’s one house rather than a neigbour or an aggrieved party because nobody likes their children to be beaten by neighbours for disciplining purpose.
And of course there’s an important point left from my earlier post. Making the state actors accountable. State actors should abide by all international code of conduct and human rights charter. No state should transgress in to other one’s affairs. To that effect state actors should be responsible enough. Societies/nations should become mature and responsible enough to realise that their existence should not be based on other’s destruction.
Both sides should realise their blunders and should make a way forward in their own interests for the coming generations. Confidence building measures, people to people contacts and people friendly measures should be made so that the whole hysteric hate and bigotry on either name of religion or nation should give way to constructive efforts of nation building and society building and rule of law/justice. It’s also important that aggressions are stopped and people are made to feel safe. No side should be left licking their wounds without justice. Violence begets more violence –peace/justice begets more of the same.
Once again, al ameen, I would agree with most of what you have to say.
I think this is an important point, not only for Israel and Palestine, but for the world as a whole. We cannot afford to defer to the extremists, what should be handled by the state. For the most part, the use of force is exclusively a state matter. Otherwise, any one with a grievance could take it upon himself to launch a campaign of violence, and such action can quickly degenerate into chaos and civil war. Certain uses of power, like declaring war, should be in the hands of state actors, for the sake of order, if nothing else.
Yes, this is the other side of the coin. War can only be declared by the state, but the state must be held accoutable. The trouble you run into, as with Gaza and Israel, is a chicken and egg dilemma, or a vicious cycle scenario. In other words, what came first, and who caused what. Israel could say that it launched its attack because of the firing of missiles and mortars at civilian targets by Hamas. Hamas could say that it launched rockets because of the economic blockade. Israel could say that the economic blockade came as a result of launching rockets. In other words, if you dwell solely on history, and not on the future, it is hard to let go of entrenched positions, because each side can find historical justifications for its position.
I think this is a very important point, al ameen. As we just said above, everyone who fights believes in what he’s fighting for, and can justify the fight in terms of evidence from history. That’s all well and good. But before we continue on this self-destructive path, it is time now to put aside what we happen to believe, in favor of something we can believe in even more, in favor of peace, in favor of what makes sense.
I hate to say it, and I’m not focusing on just one side or the other here, but could it be that a lot of what we believe is BS? And the reason I say that is because up to now, what we believe is taking us down a dark and desolate road. If what we believe denies our children a just and sustainable world, then guess what, what we believe is plain out wrong.
What we need, more than anything else, is a new belief system, a new ideological framework based on universal principles of common sense. If that means putting some of what we believe on a shelf somewhere, then so be it. As you suggest, if certain religious beliefs, or beliefs about our nation, are wreaking havoc in the world, then out they go. We can keep what is good in our religions, and with our patriotism, without succumbing to what is bad.
And I also agree with you that it is time to start acting, and not just talking. Taking gets old. Everyone can out-talk the other. Everyone has a point to make. Big deal. It is time, as you suggest, to initiate some actual “confidence building measures” on the ground. Such measures will speak a lot louder than words, and will say to the world that a vision of hope could be made real if people simply choose to make it so. Give people a job. Invest in education. Help with infra-structure. Get people involved with one another so that they could learn to bridge the ideological divide. It’s hard to hate someone you really know.
Along with An Ideology of Common Sense, should come an international effort to Invest in one another, with jobs, jobs that grow our economies, jobs that protect our environment, and jobs that help neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. That way, we won’t just be talking the talk, but walking the walk as well.