Which side are you on in the Israeli-Arab Conflict?

There are two sides, and only two sides, to every conflict. Which side you are on determines whether I consider you a friend or foe. In relation to the Middle East, Rob Eshman, the editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, makes the point eloquently:

There are two sides in the Middle East conflict: Jews and Arabs who want compromise, and Jews and Arabs who want to demonize and eradicate their neighbors.

“Compromise” is an ugly word. It contains within it the ring of defeat. That is why it is the right word in context. The Israeli-Arab conflict is irresolvable without the commitment of the main contendents to give something up, something of extreme value, for the foreseeable future. Politically speaking, the debate needs to center around what those "somethings" will be.

I choose my enemies carefully. You are my enemy if you belong to the coterie of those who demean and demonize those they oppose. If you will stop at nothing in the attempt to eradicate your opponents from the face of the earth, as far as I’m concerned, you are a practical atheist, in the sense that vengeance is yours, not the Lord's, because you are the Lord in your eyes. If that is your modus operandi, you take your orders, it seems to me, from the Prince of Death. Rest assured, I will demonize you.¹

There is a time to kill, and there is a time to die. Until Isaiah 2:2-5 is realized, there will be wars and rumors of wars. But the only ones who are worth opposing with an implacable hatred are the following: the votaries of death, those whose mission in life is to destroy the lives and reputations of those they determine are their enemies. The votaries must be opposed. Like Agag the Amalekite of old, hacking them to death is a duty (1 Sam 15).² Everyone else is worthy of consideration even in the midst of irreconcilable differences.

In any case, the ability of right thinking to change things for the better is highly overrated. The world is made a better place more often and more simply by acts of kindness. For example – examples matter - some of you are qualified to answer this question, or know someone who is. 

Notes

¹This will seem contradictory to some. But it’s not. John Locke, in making a case for the principle of tolerance in the field of religion, circumscribed the reach of mutual tolerance to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, the Roman Catholic Church was not committed to the principle of religious freedom, nor did it tolerate rivals within jurisdictions it regarded as its exclusive domain. It followed that its own freedom needed to be curtailed.

²I would love to imagine that this text is without consequence, or should be without consequence, in today's world. I know of no evidence to the effect that it is.

Comments

[John Anderson]

One of my teachers, Marc Ellis (don't stone me!) has written widely on this topic. Some recommended reading of his works:

*Toward a Jewish Theology of Liberation
*Unholy Alliance
*Ending Auschwitz

Having taken several classes with him, I have become quite well acquainted with this conflict. He is clear about his belief that Palestinians have and deserve rights, and that these rights are being infringed upon by Israelis (fences, walls, house demolition, etc.). Yet at the same time, I struggle very much with his position in that it does not see any religious import or motivation behind Israel's claim to the land. This, I think, is a major flaw in his work.

My other question to him would be what occupation has ever been peaceful? For instance, my home state of South Dakota. The land on which I lived growing up, where I went to undergrad, and where my family still lives, belonged to the Native Americans. Now we have relegated them to reservations. Where I am now, Texas, is no different. Any land is problematic and is only the property of any group until another takes it from them.

In closing, of course I would prefer (and hope ardently for) a joint peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. I do not, however, have any idea of what a successful agreement would look like, nor do I have any foolish sense that it would be successful or accepted by adherents to either group. This, to be sure, is the most depressing realization of all.

[JohnFH]

Hi John,

Don't forget his latest:

Reading the Torah Out Loud: A Journey of Lament and Hope

My struggle is this. The dialogue among academics Marc Ellis orchestrates says a lot about his own social location and that of the chosen few he includes. It wreaks of bookstores, ivy, and (fair-trade) coffee. It has little or nothing to do with the streets of Jenin and Gaza or life in Israel for Jew and Arab alike. It engages even less with the realities of Basra and Mosul, Beirut and Kabul.

The dialogue he orchestrates excludes all those, and they are legion, who regard the cause they identify with as more valuable than their own lives, for whom God is strong and human beings are weak.

[John Anderson]

Your comments are well taken. Please do not confuse the ideas of the teacher for those of the student.

He actually has a new volume coming out in a "does not equal" series. The volume is entitled something like "Judaism does not equal Israel" or something to that effect.

I concur, also, entirely with your statements regarding the exclusivity of those he invites to be a part of the conversation. That, I think, is a major flaw. The other I point out above: the failure to recognize a religious dimension in the conflict.

I would question, though, whether what he says speaks to the situation on the ground. I do not know how his work is received in Israel (if it is at all . . . and if it is, I would venture not very positively!), but I do think what he says is an important part of the conversation and should be heard. I just do not think it is a voice that will overcome anything, especially when that voice itself is so divisive.

[Wayne Leman]

I'm on the side of any of those in the area who have been oppressed or disenfranchised or are under the threat of violence, or whose ancestors have been so treated because of their race or religion. I'm also on the side of any who truly want to find ways of respecting the lives of people wherever they live in that volatile region. I'm on the side of anyone who understands that violence only begets violence, often for generations.

I want to believe that I am on Jesus' side in this terrible conflict. I think he is not only crying over Jerusalem, but also Nablus, Haifa, Nazareth, Tel Aviv, and Gaza City.

[JohnFH]

Wayne,

Thanks for your comment. The position you describe is close to the one that is second nature for me: double solidarity - the absolute right for Israel to exist with safe and secure borders but solidarity at the same level with the long suffering Palestinian people.

In terms of solidarity with Israelis, at a minimum, that has to entail condemnation of all targeted killing of innocents by Palestinian terrorists, thus, of the deliberate slaughter of civilians by suicide bombers or missile barrage.

But how does that condemnation avoid being reduced to empty chatter, without practical consequences? Here agreement ends. US friendship with Israel is long-standing, and takes the form of political, military and intelligence cooperation. There is a very large consensus in the US that this friendship is a pillar of the nation's foreign policy. For some, the friendship has deeper, religious roots. For others, the friendship ought to end, in application of the principle of "tough love."

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, what practical consequences solidarity with them ought to have is cause for bafflement and dismay. The idea of a two-state solution seems ludicrous at this point. Hamas and Fatah are credible enough as terrorist organizations, but not as administrators of a state.

A final note: the principle that violence only begets violence. In many ways that is true, but very few of us believe the principle has unlimited application.

My wife Paola just became a citizen of the United States a few days ago. I helped her study for the exam - which most native-born Americans could not pass. One of the questions: what does "the rule of law" mean? Short answer: Romans 13. That is, the rule of law involves the use of coercive violence - arrest, detention, compelled forfeiture of specific rights, including the right to life in many states and on the federal level, proportional to crimes committed.

It is true that the violence of the state also begets more violence. At the same time, we believe it legitimately deters violence. If we didn't, we would no longer believe in the rule of law.

[Phil Sumpter]

John, have you heard of the organizatin Musalaha? I posted a moving video introduction to the organization here.

[Phil Sumpter]

Sorry, I meant here.

[JohnFH]

Phil,

Thanks for the link. Actions of this kind speak louder than words.

[Justin (koavf)]

John,

When I read your title, I was prepared to whip out my standard response, but yours was more eloquent and elegant. Essentially, there is no way to be pro-Israeli without being pro-Palestinian and vice versa. The partisans who choose one side at the destruction of the other are really not representing anyone's interests. Violence is cyclical and when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israelis in a night club, the IDF will demolish homes in Ramallah. Who stands to gain from this? Whether the peoples in the Holy Land are living in one state or two, their fates are inextricably linked.

-JAK

[JohnFH]

Justin,

Thanks. You express the matter very eloquently yourself.

[Jeremy Pierce]

This may well be true for any conflict where both sides have a legitimate claim, especially when both sides are partially in the wrong. I think that's true in this conflict (although I think the Palestinians are in the wrong much more obviously and in many more ways).

But I'd be hesitant to endorse this model of thinking about war in general, particularly when there are cases without any such symmetry. Sometimes one side clearly and indisputably is in the wrong, and compromise isn't some absolute goal worth pursuing when it would actually be a softening of justice to reduce commitment to the truth. If an aggressor really has no right to whatever they seek to claim for themselves, or if their crimes are so heinous and unprovoked that they simply must be responded to, then compromise would be moral cowardice. I would say something not quite as strong but nearly so with cases where the claim of one side is almost entirely true, and how that side conducts themselves isn't perfect but mostly righteous with respect to how the conflict is carried out.

I'm not saying that anything here goes against that. I can see someone reading this post in a way that's consistent with what I just said, and I can see someone else reading it and thinking you would deny what I just said. Because of the second possibility, I thought it was worth a comment to see if you'd be on the same page with me on that for such cases.

[JohnFH]

Jeremy,

We are on the same page. It is common for pacifists of the last couple of generations to ignore the fact that the state is by definition a coercive organism (traditional Anabaptists like the Mennonites are more clear-headed).

It is also unrealistic to think that compromise, though often necessary, resolves things. It usually just reconfigures problems in a new way.

Furthermore, in this war as in many others, one of the most important things to figure out is the difference between between appeasement and necessary compromise.

With a determined enemy, appeasement is a very dangerous strategy.