too hard - forgive me jesus
I have to admit something - perhaps even ask for forgiveness.
Last week when I was thinking of what I would do at our tangent congregation, it crossed my mind that it would be good to explore the developing conflict in the middle east between Israel and the Syrian-backed terror group Hezbollah in Palestine. It is a powerful issue that needs grappling with as we express our spiritual discipline of discerning world issues.
What is the Christian response/action to such things?
I need to admit that I found it too hard and did something else. I thought that result would be that we would just pool our ignorance about such matters - so I retreated to another topic. It is for this reason it makes me glad their are publications like sojourners who write articles such as these - the new war in the middle east (free registration required).
I found this statement powerful:
“As Christians committed to the cause of peace, our role is not to “take sides” in the struggle, in the traditional sense, but rather to constantly stand for the “side” of a just and secure peace. We can ignore neither the horror of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (including direct attacks on school children) nor the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories (with all its “collateral damage” to Palestinian children). We must have the vision and courage to stand against the acts of violence by terrorist organizations, as well as the massive state violence by the region’s military superpower, while avoiding the trap of positing a false “equivalency” between actions that are not equal.”
And then I cringed when I read the next line:
“We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing.”
Yep, that’s me. Still me - I need to work this through in community - help me Lord.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:35 am
MN - how can you ever say “God bless X as they fight a war and give them victory…”? How can you pray for a nation to be destroyed? That’s sick.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Bec,
A nation destroyed is not the same as people exterminated.
Eg the defeat of Nazi Germany or even Japan at the end of WWII. Both nations were effectively ‘destroyed’ economically but also in their capacity to restart a war. (and, though it’s not the point of my comment, but both nations were looking to exterminate as many of their targets as possible).
Unfortunately, the civil underpinnings of the two countries that allowed them to rebuild (ie values, philosophies, reason) do not exist in terrorist groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas. Whilst Germany and Japan are now considered allies of the ‘West’ (or even a part of it), no such regeneration is possible with the terrorist groups.
They exist to exterminate both the state of Israel and all Jews. It is their stated aim. The Mark Steyn article referenced prior is right - they have no interest in setting up a government, their only interest is wiping Israel off the map.
Therefore, if the only way to stop them is their annihilation (and, according to the groups themselves, that IS the only way to stop them), then why would that be wrong? If I was in a fight to the death, I would indeed fight to the death. If I was called on to defend my family, I would do so in such a way as to render the attackers unable to pose a threat again.
After WWII, Jews vowed ‘Never again’. That was a fairly decent warning IMHO.
I, too, pray for the success of Israel, just as I pray for those who are innocent to be spared. I pray mostly for Christ’s return, though.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Can any of you name me even ONE ideology that has ever been exterminated by physical violence?
July 26th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I would rate the ending of the cult of personality surrounding the Japanese emporer after WWII as one ideology that was exterminated by physical violence.
And while Naziism is still around in a fractured form, it is fairly impotent largely as a result of the end of European hostilities in WWII.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Follow-up: I agree that you can’t end an ideology with violence, per se. Many Japanese may still revere the emporer as divine. The aim is to render the ideology as harmless as possible.
Unfortunately, when the ideology ivolves deathcults like Hezbollah or Emporer Worship, there is a terrible cost in lives that must be paid in order to render it harmless.
(And I only came up with the 1.5 examples above as I’m on my lunch break and don’t have my history links on my laptop).
July 26th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Also, the more I read the quoted passage above, the more my blood boils.
As Christians committed to the cause of peace, our role is not to “take sides” in the struggle, in the traditional sense, but rather to constantly stand for the “side” of a just and secure peace
Bullshit. Says who? And who is to determine what a ‘just and secure peace’ is? Who is to determine how the ‘just and secure peace’ is obtained?
Very simple, let’s look at the two parties involved:
Terrorist: A just and secure peace can only be established by driving Israel into the sea and reclaiming the land.
Israeli: A just and secure peace can only be established by recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
These are well known positions, and are absolutes. So which one do these people stand for given there is no middle ground?
Do people really think that being a Christian means renouncing violence? What if war breaks out here? Why am I not allowed to use violence to defend my family if I’m a Christian?
We can ignore neither the horror of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (including direct attacks on school children) nor the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories (with all its “collateral damage” to Palestinian children).
And the Israeli pullout of Gaza and planned pullout of the West Bank has resulted in the retraction of the vows to push Israel into the sea, have they? Ask Mahmoud Abbas how that proposal is going.
Can’t these people look at the nation of Israel and, instead of jealousy and ancient conflicts, see a friend to be made? Does anyone think that Israel would not welcome Palestine or Lebanon as a friend if they renounced terrorism?
We must have the vision and courage to stand against the acts of
violence by terrorist organizations, as well as the massive state violence by the region’s military superpower, while avoiding the trap of positing a false “equivalency” between actions that are not equal.
Terrorism exists because of our moral and ethical standards. Western powers target armies with armies, so the terrorists target civilians. Western powers do not target civilians, so terrorists hide amongst civilians. Our ‘enlightenment’ is used as a weapon, precisely because that is all that terrorists have to fight with.
Every innocent person killed on either side is another victory for the terrorists. They don’t listen to reason as we do, and they don’t hold life dear, as we do. They count on the West losing heart (see, for example, the Vietnam War and particularly the Tet offensive).
The sooner the world sees terrorism for the disease that it is and resond accordingly (swiftly and powerfully) the more peaceful our world will be.
Plus, I would contend with the ‘massive state violence’ claim. I think it is groundless.
We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing.
About the only thing I can agree with. However, doing the right thing doesn’t always feel like the right thing. Confrontation, whether in war, in a relationship or in a church situation is almost always unpleasant and can have lasting consequences that are bitter, but sometimes it’s the only thing to do.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
By Golly Asd - Who could refute any of that - and you’re right - especially right about the bullshit part. Says who??? Great write!
Jesus didn’t take sides either when he drove money changers out of the temple with a whip ( CALM DOWN LIONFISH - He was jesus, it was okay for HIM to do it). FYI Jesus was NOT a pacifist.
I have no prob at all Bec - praying for God Bless the Boys that make the noise, with bombs for Hezbolah. Sounds like a Joni Mitchell song in reverse though. If you really want peace in Isreal ( pipe dream) help the IDF fight them - maybe contibute money to Isreal for the war on terror effort - put me down for $50.00 - more bombs for hezbollah - HEY>>> LEt’s start a website so we CAN contribute.
July 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
MN,
Thanks. I’m hoping not to be seen as a bloodthirsty reactionary prick - I’d like to think my position is a rational one, based on sound Biblical principles and a lot of soul searching & prayer. Of course, I’ve been known to be wrong once or twice.
If you’re looking for a way to support the IDF, try here: http://www.pizzaidf.org. I’m taking it out of my tithe :-p
And I agree with Jesus not being a pacifist. I read Paul Coughlin’s ‘ No more Christian Nice Guy’ a little while ago and it is certainly a different take on Jesus and manhood than found in other places. Also that ‘Wild at Heart’ book by whoever-it-was.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I don’t see much theology there, Asd.
Further, your entire argument assumes that it’s possible to secure physical safety with physical violence - and I don’t believe that to be the case. Unfortunately, the causes of physical insecurity are extremely complex, and it takes more than a helluva lot of ammo to resolve them.
How on EARTH can Lebanese or Palestinians look at Israel and see a friend to be made? I mean, there’s hardly the empirical evidence to suggest that it’s possible, is there? You’re taking an irrationally one-sided view of this - unfortunately there isn’t a “right” side and a “wrong” side here - there’s just humans battling for power.
I’ve worked in a couple of post-conflict situations (doing research on the ground) and the one thing I’ve learnt is that once I’m there, things will seem a whole lot more complicated. It’s really easy to read all the newspaper reports, academic analysis, statements put out by aid agencies and other NGOs…but once you’re on the ground, talking to the people on all sides (as there’s ALWAYS more than just two sides - there’s always a multitude of factions), all you can hear is a clamour of voices, all of which have much validity as well as much bigotry. If there’s any “truth” to be had, it’s that the ideologies that drive civil conflict are themselves driven by conflict over access to resources.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Well, I haven’t quoted chapter and verse, being on my lunch break and all.
But then, the quote at the top of this section isn’t exactly bursting at the seams with much ‘theology’ either.
And neither are your posts.
You call me one sided and irrational - I believe that’s unwarranted, but that’s your POV. I’ve seen nothing in your posts that go through the history of the setting up of the nation of Israel to the present that shows Israel to be the party that is comitting the wrong. And yet you call me ‘one-sided’ because I believe Israel is allowed to defend itself?
‘There’s hardly the empirical evidence to suggest it’s possible’. I guess not, after all, Israel started all those wars against it’s neighbours and all that. Oh, hang on, it was the other way around.
Talk to anyone in Israel that you like, they want to be left alone. Then talk to the Lebanese and Palestinians. Ask them the same thing and they will reply the same. Then ask them why they elect Hezbollah & Hamas into government when they are committed to the destruction of Israel.
‘Just humans battling for power’. No. As I stated, review the public comments by Hezbollah and Hamas who have started the recent fighting. They are not battling for power, they are battling for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of Jews. I have seen no equivalent statements by Israel but would be happy for you to point them out to me.
And in all this, are you trying to tell me that my grandfathers and their brothers were WRONG to take up arms against the Germans and Japanese? Because that’s violence,/i>.
And am I to offer my wife and daughter to the man who breaks into my house looking for a rape victim? Because I wouldn’t want to secure their physical safety with physical violence now would I?
‘Conflict over access to resources’: in this case the ‘resource’ seems to be Israel’s right to exist. No mention has been made of oil or gold because the only wealth in Israel seems to be that which they created themselves. Have a look at how the Gaza strip has degenerated economically since the pullout.
Look, I’ve tried to present a series of logical, well-thought out arguments as to why I see that, in the current situation, Israel is acting correctly in trying to annihilate a real and present threat to the peaceful existence of it’s people. Any loss of life, innocent or not, is a sad reflection of our fallen world. I want God’s will to be done most of all but wouldn’t mind knowing His plans for the Middle East.
Bec, despite what you might infer from what I’ve written, I can see where you are coming from, and can appreciate what you’re trying to say. In the past I have held similar positions myself. Looking at conflict from a Christian position calls into question all that we hold dear about God, peace, love, justice and redemption - in fact one could say our entire faith. There aren’t always easy answers.
What I would like is if you would try to bend your mind a little over to my side of the argument instead of bandying about terms like ‘irrational’ and questioning the theology of my statements while cherrypicking parts and ignoring the rest.
I’ve assumed yours are coming from a Christian, rational basis and I would appreciate you doing the same.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Sorry for the really bad italics formatting. Yuk.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
That last statement should read ‘you’ not ‘yours’
I hope my former English teachers don’t read this site.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
surely if the Old Testament teaches us anything, it’s that if God privileges a group of people, that privilege comes hand in hand with enormous responsibility.
Israel’s consistent abuse of human rights cannot be considered part of God’s plan. it’s the thought that their behaviour should go unchecked because it’s believed they have some divine right to do so that makes me feel sick.
God put the Jewish people into exile because they claimed the privilege but not the responsibility of being God’s people.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
and yes, i do believe that Lebanon’s part in this war is wrong as well.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Well said Cheryl.
For those that claim God’s favour, also have to deal with the other part of God’s covenant comes with it too.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Asd - I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear and only realised after posting. I was responding to MN’s comments that you were making good points. I think you do (although I strongly disagree with them), but I don’t think that anyone here has mounted theological arguments aside from Cheryl.
I’m not sure where to begin with your post…
Israel didn’t start the violence against it’s neighbours? Sorry? What has Israel being doing against the Occupied Territories for all this time? Israel’s actions have been illegal under international law. Israel is a rogue state, a state that ignores international law just as much as the US or Iraq have. Actually, forget that - Israel has ignored international law more than the US has. At least there was some scope for legal argument about the meaning of the Security Council’s resolutions re: Iraq - I disagreed with the arguments mounted by the US, but at least they had some. Israel has flagrantly flouted international law. If there’s one thing we learnt from WWII, it was the importance of respect for international law.
Yes, Hezbollah and Hamas triggered the recent fighting, but surely you don’t view these actions in isolation from history? Again, if there’s one thing I’ve learnt from my forays into research into conflict, it’s that it goes back a very long time, and that people go around and around in circles blaming each other. Something has to put a spoke into the wheel, and believe it or not - violence is rarely, if ever, that spoke.
Resources - there’s more “resources” in the world that natural ones. Social, political, intellectual. People in the Gaza strip are horrifically poor, they’re denied access to basic health care and other essential services. They’re literally fighting for their lives. Everywhere I look - East Timor, Solomon Islands, remote Australia, the middle East - I see young people (men, generally) resorting to violence because it’s the only way they can experience any sense of hope and empowerment in their lives. If people are denied access to their land in which their spirituality is rooted, if people are denied the means to make a living, if people are denied the ability to take their sons and daughters to hospital - they will be angry. If they’re angry enough, they will resort to violence. And that violence will give them a brief experience of power, and more violence will follow.
I’m sorry, but I do think that your posts are irrationally one-sided. I think they’re very well argued, but when I say they’re “irrationally one-sided”, I mean that I think that it’s irrational to think that there’s ever an easy answer to the problem of conflict. I can’t think of any conflict that’s one sided. I think there’s a lot of blame all round here, as Cheryl points out. Given that you’ve come out very, very firmly in favour of Israel here, I see that as one-sided - and my understanding of conflict leads me to believe that’s a emotive, rather than objective, view to hold. I truly didn’t mean it to be the insult that I realise it came across as - I was rather responding to the emotion of your posts.
I weep when I read things on conflict, because I think of the voices of the young people I’ve interviewed and emailed in the last few years. So few of them plan to kill people, even hurt people. They get involved not knowing where things will lead. And they all speak of the excitement in finally having something to do, of having something to believe in. That’s why I simply can’t believe that there’s a right and wrong side in this. I know that if I were doing fieldwork in the Middle East right now, I’d have friends who were Israeli, friends who were Hamas, friends who were Hezbollah…and all of them would weep for their own pain and the pain they knew they were causing others. And all of them would want it to end.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Asd - I should write things in Word then post them - I hate this little box thingy as you can’t see how your posts ’sound’ if they’re longer than a few sentences! When you read the above, remember I’m very tired and you can’t hear my tone of voice - I actually don’t get angry about this stuff, it just makes me want to cry, because I truly have spoken to quite a few young people involved in conflict, and when I began doing that…well, my view of things became a lot more complicated.
The only thing I’m now certain of is that, in the right time and place, it could be me holding a gun.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
crap. time for me to go to bed, obviously.
I’d change that phrase above from “Israel is a rogue state” to “Israel is being a rogue state in this respect”. I think it is - I think Israel is flouting international law, but I don’t want that to be read as me denying Israel’s right to exist - I don’t deny that at all.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:05 am
Hey bec, one advantage of being on the west coast is that I can stay up late and spray to my heart’s content while most readers are asleep.
But I won’t - I’ll try to keep this short (I said ‘try’) as personal time constraints will leave me unable to return to this matter in any length until after the weekend. Maybe this thread will have died down by then, but I can’t drop things without making some points relating to the tone and inferences in your posts, rather than the theme of this discussion (and yes, I have taken your tiredness into account).
You comment: ‘Given that you’ve [ie me] come out very, very firmly in favour of Israel here, I see that as one-sided’ and ‘but when I say they’re “irrationally one-sided”, I mean that I think that it’s irrational to think that there’s ever an easy answer to the problem of conflict’.
Whatever you intended to mean with those statements, what I read are two things:
a. that I am irrationally one-sided because I do not take your side; and
b. my views are simplistic leading to the first easy answer that comes along.
I find the second part highly offensive. Haven’t you read what I’ve posted?
In your post you say ‘I think you do [make good points] but soon after call me irrational. Does not compute. Either my points are ‘good’ or they are ‘irrational’.
I have stated, clearly, that my position has come from a lot of thinking and soul searching: ‘I’d like to think my position is a rational one, based on sound Biblical principles and a lot of soul searching & prayer. Of course, I’ve been known to be wrong once or twice.’
How you can read that and still assume irrationality, simplicity or emotionalism, when I can credit you with the opposiite: ‘I’ve assumed you are coming from a Christian, rational basis and I would appreciate you doing the same’ (from the bottom of my post #40 but with the corrections I highlighted in 42 for readibility).
I expect a bit more grace and maturity in this argument yet your second last paragraph in #46 is highly insulting and does you no service.
You say ‘irrationally one sided’. I have consistently claimed a rational basis for my arguments. But because I don’t share your point of view you have decided that my position is ‘irrational’.
You infer I have taken the easy option, when a critical and neutral view of my points over the last few days would provide some sense that these views have actually been thought out. Why can’t you credit me with that?
You accuse me of being one-sided and that my ‘one-sided’ views are emotive and not rational based on your understanding of conflict. But that’s all. Just an accusation without any justification except for your ‘understanding’.
I have made points, sometimes strongly and sometimes snidely, but have not attacked you for your views yet you have sought to undermine me with perjorative statements, cherry picking and taking out of context (eg in #40 I said Israel didn’t start the wars with it’s neighbours - this has nothing to do with violence in the Occupied territories that you bring up in #46).
The fact that you cannot bring yourself to my way of thinking does not cost me any sleep (aside from the time taken to post this). I’m a big boy and am used to having others disagree with me.
The fact that you attack my ability to reason, and by inference Christianity (because what does a Christian use to inform their thoughts if not the Bible and their faith), does cause me sorrow.
Please re-read that second last paragraph again. Then read the definition of ‘irrational’ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational and think about what you’re accusing me of.
I’ve tried to present my thoughts with as much logic and thought as I could in what is a highly emotive subject for anyone but have been met with what I consider unwarranted insults. Am I being precious? Ask me in 6 months and I may agree with you.
As I said, I am not going to be able to spend much time on signposts until next week. I just wanted to convey how I feel with the way that my postings have been dealt with. I harbour no ill-will but needed to get this off my chest.
Hope everyone has a great weekend and blessed Sunday!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:05 am
And sorry for the long post - I did try to keep it short.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Asd, I’m happy to take back the “irrational” because I can understand why it was insulting, however what I was attempting to say was that I felt your arguments were driven by emotion rather than reason, and in that sense they were ‘irrational’. I’m sorry it insulted you. I guess I don’t privilege reason to the same extent you do, because I personally don’t find it so insulting to be accused of acting on emotion rather than reason…I’ve had many debates with a Muslim friend of mine that insists faith is entirely reasonable and rationale, and I insist that there are at least aspects that are inherently irrationale. I don’t think that’s an insult, but I know that’s partly because of my postmodern mindset. So I apologise for the offense caused and I will choose my words more carefully next time. My second paragraph in post 46 was not intended to be as insulting as you read it - I was endeavouring to explain myself. I have probably failed again here, but I’m not sure how else to put it.
I apologise if I was ‘cherry picking’, but I was attempting to engage with the content of your post. Could I have done this differently/better? (That’s an honest question).
I did not attack your views because they weren’t “Christian”. You will note I have steered clear of the theological. There is a reason for that - I simply don’t feel capable of mounting those arguments, so for the time being, I will consider to think and ponder them. Again, in my post at 46 I attempted to make it clear that I was responding to MNs comments, not yours. I was not meaning to insult your Christianity - it’s something I despise immensely. I was responding to MN’s suggestion that there were theological arguments made in your posts, which I didn’t think there were (were there?) Again, this is *not an insult* (if it were, then I would be covering up or not admitting the fact that there’s no theological arguments in mine!)
Look, I’m truly sorry for any hurt caused. Perhaps this reveals a generation/cultural gap - I don’t see ‘irrational’, ‘emotive’ and ’subjective’ as insults, but rather statements of fact as to methodological. I don’t privilege objectivity, rationality and reason over them. In the second para in post 46, I was actually attempting to undo harm - I wasn’t meaning to compound it!!
July 27th, 2006 at 9:13 am
BTW Asd…I just read your posts again, and I hope you can forgive me if I chose my words badly. Your posts are highly emotional (and that’s not an insult!), very intense, full of highly passionate arguments. And I read your post at #40 as containing some rather patronising, sarcastic comments directed at me. I assumed that you didn’t mean them to come across the way I interpreted them, so I would appreciate it if you could assume the same for me.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:05 am
There’s some interesting discussion over at Pomomusings on this issue:
http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/2006/07/no_words_1.html
http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/2006/07/israel_does_gre.html#comments
For the record, I find Adam’s views of the conflict one-sided too, sometimes offensively so. And he chooses his words badly, too.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Meanwhile, while most of the world refuses to acknowledge the truth of what is happening in Southern Lebanon, life in Iran, backers of Hizbollah, carries on as normal (see link). I doubt that there will be much outrage though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm