Israel and Gaza

[nerdanel]

And for the moral absolutists in this thread, I would really like to see how many injuries and deaths of loved ones and days living under the threat of personal injury or death it would take before you reconsidered your absolutism.

I hope you would not REALLY 'like to see' such a thing, nel.

Obviously that was a figure of speech.

I'm not smug in any way about suffering--I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was. It is terrible how much how many people are suffering in this world. This pain is not "abstract" to me, actually. I almost can't bear to keep living sometimes, thinking about the things that people are REALLY doing to each other.

It's not that I think you are smug about it, it's that I think your position is entirely untenable for anyone who is confronted with the serious threat or actuality of grave injury or loss of life (either their own, or sufficiently close friends, children, or other family members) at the hands of terrorists. And for all of us not in this position, the thought of being in that position IS necessarily an abstract one, leaving much more space for absolutist moral judgments against those who act out of necessity to defend their own (or their dependents' and loved ones') physical safety.

But if suffering is used to justify the causing of more suffering, then there is no end to it.

Which again, I can agree with you here, while my city and state and country are serenely not under attack. Which is to say, it may be perfectly acceptable to you or me to say that party A should not act harm or kill party B (particularly if party A would risk harming innocent bystander C), even if party B is attempting to inflict fatal violence on party A. We may quite nobly propose that party A should break the cycle of violence, even if this requires the risk of great personal risk of serious injury or death. But let party B come to San Francisco, inflict fear on our streets, kill my friends, compromise our transit system, and cause fear in our parks and restaurants and synagogues and then ask me again what I as party A may justly do or support doing. Or perhaps we can send party B over to Berkeley, to terrorize young university students walking to class, place grade-school children at risk of losing their lives, and increase the danger of reading while walking outside. At some point, the danger would render your position flatly untenable, unless you are literally willing for your family, your children, and you to die rather than to inflict violence to stop a terrorist threat. Your position is literally untenable for anyone who exhibits a preference for living over dying, unless that person is privileged to live in a place of peace - and from that place of peace, to condemn the self-defensive actions of others who are not so fortunately situated.

As for Voronwë's point, I think that each of Israel's actions would need to be analyzed individually to determine whether the particular action was a reasonable use of force based on self-defensive necessity, and that some actions would likely pass a test of reasonable self-defense while others would not. But I am mindful that it is all too easy to armchair quarterback those decisions from a peaceful land thousands of miles away.

[Teremia]

I was just taken aback by that particular sentence. Of course it's a figure of speech, but a jarring one.

I understand the general hypothetical intention behind it: imagine THIS awful scenario! Imagine someone doing THIS horrible thing to THIS person you love! THEN you would hit back!

I've had people saying that sort of thing to me since I was a kid. And of course maybe they're right. But I want to think there is some hope for this world, so I will stick with the untenable pacifism.

Lord knows the cycle of violence-begetting-more-violence is just as untenable. Really.

[yovargas]

Yov, FWIW, I don't believe that violence is EVER "the only way." Ever. It's just that...well...we don't seem to be intelligent or imaginative or evolved enough to think our way clear to another way. So we make ourselves believe that it IS the "only" choice. The "only" way.

A madman walks into a city square with a machine gun and starts shooting wildly into the crowds. You really think that there is another reasonable response in this situation besides "shoot him back"? If so, I'd like to hear what it is.

While the analogy is very far from perfect, there are situations where nations act like such a madman and yes, the only reasonable response in those situations are to shoot back.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But I am mindful that it is all too easy to armchair quarterback those decisions from a peaceful land thousands of miles away.

I agree, and I don't think that I would be well suited to making these kind of decisions. I am grateful that there are people who are willing to make difficult decisions, even when I don't agree with them.

But while I agree with your general point, I don't think that should prevent people from expressing an opinion about the decisions that are made, whether it be to oppose the invasion of Iraq, or the economic blockade of Gaza, or Hamas's mostly ineffectual but still terrifying launching of rockets into Israel.

[nerdanel]

I was just taken aback by that particular sentence. Of course it's a figure of speech, but a jarring one.

It's a jarring one because it is that jarring reality that the non-pacifists are living with, as they act to defend their lives and physical well-being.

I understand the general hypothetical intention behind it: imagine THIS awful scenario! Imagine someone doing THIS horrible thing to THIS person you love! THEN you would hit back!

I've had people saying that sort of thing to me since I was a kid. And of course maybe they're right. But I want to think there is some hope for this world, so I will stick with the untenable pacifism.

Actually, I don't know if you would hit back or not. It would be presumptuous of me to assume that you would. I said that your position would be untenable in the face of a grave enough physical threat, *for anyone who exhibits a preference for living over dying.* It is possible that in this situation, you would prefer to embrace your principle of absolute pacifism rather than to act (or endorse others acting on your behalf) to protect yourself, your friends, and your children and other family members from grave harm or death. Certainly there are plenty of people who have sacrificed their lives (or others' lives) for the sake of some principle they believe in, and perhaps you would do so. But most of us would choose self-preservation, and it is both unreasonable and untenable to insist that another person should choose pacifism over self-preservation - particularly when the speaker is not themselves facing the same grave threat.

[nerdanel]

But while I agree with your general point, I don't think that should prevent people from expressing an opinion about the decisions that are made, whether it be to oppose the invasion of Iraq, or the economic blockade of Gaza, or Hamas's mostly ineffectual but still terrifying launching of rockets into Israel.

I certainly agree with this.

[Teremia]

nel, pacifists also live with that "jarring reality" of human cruelty.

What I objected to in the figure of speech was the way it wished violence on someone (even if figuratively) to make a point. It isn't because of somehow blithely ignoring the horrible things going on in the world that I became a pacifist. It's not a naive position.

It may be untenable or wrong, but it is the core of my--what's the word?--being; hope; view of the world.

[JewelSong]

it is both unreasonable and untenable to insist that another person should choose pacifism over self-preservation

But no one is insisting on this. No one is prescribing what anyone else should choose.

I find this reaction happens often when discussing pacifism. People will respond as if you are telling them what to do. Reponses like "Well, you can't expect ME to..." or "Well, if YOU were in such-and-such a situation, then you would..." are very common. It is as if, by declaring oneself to be a pacifist, you are somehow accusing others of...something. Or that you are "insisting" that others follow your convictions.

This is not the case. Pacifism (at least, the way Teremia and I are defining it) is a personal choice and a personal conviction. To be honest, I cannot tell you what I would do if personally attacked. I do know that if anyone had tried to hurt my children, I would have done anything necessary to stop it - including fight to my very last breath. And yes, kill the attacker if I had to.

However, in war, it is usually NOT a personal attack. It is old men, sending young people off to battle, to kill other young people with whom they, personally, have no quarrel. It is fighting for a "cause" rather than personally defending one's house and family. Are there exceptions? I am sure there are. However, being a child of the Vietnam era, this is what war looks like to me. People are trained that they are fighting "the enemy." And "the enemy" is not someone's father, or brother, or son or daughter. "The enemy" is other.

It seems that is the only way to convince people to kill perfect strangers.

A little digression...

William Penn was the "father" of Quakerism in the New World. He became a "convinced" Friend through George Fox, who was the original founder of the Society of Friends. As most people know, Quakers are considered one of the historic "peace churches" with a testimony against all war. There is a story that Penn once asked Fox "How long must I wear my sword?" And Fox replied, "You must wear it as long as you can."

In other words, Fox did not command Penn to remove his sword, this instant. Instead, he encouraged him to keep wearing it - until such time when his convictions had become such that he could no longer keep it on.


PS: If anyone is interested in the Quaker peace testimony, or other early Quaker statements about war and violence, you can find them here: http://www.quaker.org/minnfm/peace/

[yovargas]

But no one is insisting on this. No one is prescribing what anyone else should choose.

I find this reaction happens often when discussing pacifism. People will respond as if you are telling them what to do. Reponses like "Well, you can't expect ME to..." or "Well, if YOU were in such-and-such a situation, then you would..." are very common. It is as if, by declaring oneself to be a pacifist, you are somehow accusing others of...something. Or that you are "insisting" that others follow your convictions.

In the context of this conversation, isn't the whole point of bringing in the idea of absolute pacifism to say that Israel should not be shooting back at Hamas?

[JewelSong]

Well...that isn't MY point. No time to elaborate now...hopefully I can gather my thoughts and make a coherent post later today.

[nerdanel]

But no one is insisting on this. No one is prescribing what anyone else should choose.

I find this reaction happens often when discussing pacifism. People will respond as if you are telling them what to do. Reponses like "Well, you can't expect ME to..." or "Well, if YOU were in such-and-such a situation, then you would..." are very common. It is as if, by declaring oneself to be a pacifist, you are somehow accusing others of...something. Or that you are "insisting" that others follow your convictions.

This is not the case. Pacifism (at least, the way Teremia and I are defining it) is a personal choice and a personal conviction.

However, in war, it is usually NOT a personal attack. It is old men, sending young people off to battle, to kill other young people with whom they, personally, have no quarrel.

I interpreted your previous posts in the way that yov suggested and responded accordingly. If that is not what you meant, I am interested in understanding how the above remarks relate to the Israel-Hamas conflict. If they don't relate at all ... well, I understand that threads osgiliate, but it'd be helpful to know if people have wholly departed from attempting to address the thread topic. If you not only declare yourself a pacifist, but declare that war "in general" and "ITSELF" is immoral, those who engage in it are "barbaric" and cannot have any "moral high ground", etc. . . . in a thread about Israel and Hamas, then it seems reasonable for the reader to conclude that some comment about Israel and/or Hamas is intended. (Teremia's remarks were similarly or more prescriptive, including " I think that killing, whatever the justification, is bad in itself, and I've just decided to be against it absolutely" (in the context of opposing "principled relativism" and endorsing absolutism). She also included a sweeping statement against "Anybody . . . killing Anybody," where presumably Israeli citizens, Hamas members, and other Palestinians all fall within the definition of "Anybody." The clear thrust of both of your remarks was to prescribe what others - others whose lives and bodies are under a daily external physical threat that to my knowledge neither of you are facing - should choose to do.)

I do agree with you, Jewel, about the puzzling ironies in the "law of armed conflict" and "international criminal law." I share much of your ambivalence about an attempt to define WHICH types of death and physical harm are "permissible" in times of conflict. And I can see how, in attempting to prescribe "civilising" rules (as I was taught in the UK), the international law may seem to lead to too much passive acceptance of the inevitability of war. (Then again, perhaps teaching these war-time "norms" IS a way to mitigate damage against vulnerable, innocent, and/or civilian populations, or at least to allow the international community a mechanism to denounce that damage at some later point.) I also agree that there are many conflicts that have occurred and will occur unnecessarily (i.e., not to stave off imminent death or grievous bodily injury), most initiated by males who have no fear that they themselves (or their sons, or daughters, in many cases) will have to put their lives at risk. But again, I'd expect that discussion of these general issues in a thread about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would make some attempt to tie the general principles to a comment on the actions of one side or both. I'd assumed that Teremia and you were implicitly doing so, given the breadth of your comments.

As for my one sentence that Teremia finds so objectionable, I am not sure exactly what it means to "wish figurative violence" on someone, but I'm fairly certain I wasn't wishing anything other than to use a figure of speech. I make no apology for that sentence. And while I am not saying you are blithely ignoring the horrible things going on in the world, I think that your position as sketched out in this thread does not in any way engage with those horrible things. If applied granularly to how countries should act when their citizens are in tremendous mortal danger (or how individual people should react to the threat of serious injury or death), the position simply falls apart - or requires acceptance of death (even painful or torturous deaths at the hands of enemies) rather than resort to violence. Again, it is fine to swear off the use of violence/deadly force in self-defense on an individual level. But I think it is morally offensive to insist that others must take this approach, to accept death rather than defend themselves against deadly threats - which insistence is frankly implicit in the position that all killing is wrong no matter what.

[Teremia]

I wish I weren't feeling so depressed today, because in a better mood I might at least be able to enjoy the irony of being labelled "morally offensive" for saying people shouldn't murder each other.

Let me try again, from a different angle:
IF the backdrop of our beliefs and habits were non-violence; IF people generally had a horror of killing or hurting another person--the world would be a better place. You say there are extreme situations in which violence is justified. My point is that to justify violence ahead of time--to make non-violence the "morally offensive" position--means arming ourselves first mentally, then physically, and guarantees that there will be more violence in the world.

I'm not saying that if someone attacks a murderer to save her child's life that someone is reprehensible for not choosing death over violence bla-bla-bla. I'm saying I'd rather violence be seen as a serious and exceptional VIOLATION of the general commandment against killing, and not assumed, ahead of time, to be necessary and justified. What harm would there be in having the world be generally pacifist in orientation, with occasional violations--instead of generally violent in orientation, with occasional peaceful moments? To concede from the get-go that violence will be our basic rule is to concede too much. Of course a pacifist world is a utopian ideal: but working towards that ideal would mean making a lot of better, kinder choices that in themselves would be a good thing.

Now in Israel and Gaza we have people who are suffering, who are exhausted from having suffered, who have suffered terrible harm at each other's hands, and who probably wish the other side would just disappear. What good do Quaker ideals do there, you ask. Good question. But we are at a point in the history of these peoples where awful decisions have been made for years and years and again and again. I don't know how people overcome histories of brutality. Mandela was inspiring. Ireland is inspiring.

I don't think adding more brutality to that situation helps create the foundation of any kind of future. People who have rockets fired in their direction--will they want peace? People whose children have been killed--won't they want revenge?

Even the example of the Yazidi people in Iraq (example raised by V) makes me sad and worried more than anything. Why are those people trapped on their mountain and threatened with slaughter by ISIS? Doesn't it ultimately have something to do with the absolutely disastrous US invasion of Iraq? And that violence was partly paid for by my taxes, which is part of the burden of responsibility and guilt that being an American seems to involve these days.

Right now there are undoubtedly thousands of decisions being made that will determine whether/where/when the NEXT civil war/massacre/war/crisis happens in many places around the world. My wish would be that we would try to avoid making things worse. That we would not invade the next Iraq. etcetera. etcetera.

In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians there are no easy answers at all. But even there there are undoubtedly many decisions that could be made more constructively, to perhaps maybe eventually make future conflagrations in the area less likely. I can't see how killing civilians makes peace one iota more likely. (Perhaps Alatar is right, that exhaustion can bring resolution--but wouldn't one think exhaustion had already been reached here?) And despair breeds more violence. And violence breeds more hatred. And it never ends.

I think that despite the seeming hopelessness of the goal, we humans should work for peace, not just in current conflict zones, but in places where future disasters can perhaps still be averted.

[JewelSong]

I am sorry if I have moved too far away from the topic, which is specifically the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I think I was trying to address what seemed to me to be a kind of tacit acceptance of violence (for whatever reason) and a kind of resignation regarding the ongoing hostilities.

The overall question seems to be "What is Israel supposed to do when Hamas seems hellbent on destroying them?" And the general and accepted answer seems to be "They should fight back in kind, using as much violence as necessary in order to beat them."

And I guess this is where my comments came in, because I do not believe that is, or should be, the only solution. And ultimately, I do not believe it will be effective in obtaining what everyone says they want, which is peace.

I do not think it should be "morally offensive" to suggest that there might be an alternative to violence. Here is a statement by the UK Society of Friends that lays out some very specific goals to achieve a lasting peace.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/news/quakers-u ... -palestine

It says, in part:

"Amid faltering ceasefires and talks, Quakers in Britain are calling for urgent action on Gaza. They urge the UK Government to recognise Palestine as a nation state; they call for a comprehensive arms embargo on all sides in the conflict and for an end to Israel’s blockade of Gaza and occupation of Palestine.

The calls for action come in a statement made by the decision making body of Quakers in Britain, the Yearly Meeting, attended by 2,000 Quakers in Bath. As part of their commitment to peacemaking, Quakers continue to challenge anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The Yearly Meeting heard essential steps towards full and fair negotiations:
Palestine to be recognised as a nation state
An end to indiscriminate fire by all sides
A comprehensive arms embargo
An end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and blockade of Gaza
Freeing elected Palestinian leaders now held as political prisoners
The use of international law to hold all parties to account for their actions.

The Yearly Meeting heard that this week that Quakers were invited to meet Foreign Office ministers on the crisis. Teresa Parker, programme manager for Israel and Palestine for Quakers in Britain, was among representatives from faith and secular agencies who went to share views and experience of the region."

(More detail at the link.)

Quakers have historically had some success in getting warring factions to sit down at the table and talk. People tend to listen to them, even if grudgingly. Maybe they will have some success here, too.

Certainly better than continued violence.

ETA: Cross-posted with Teremia

[Frelga]

That's a very nice program. So how do you go about stopping Hamas from firing at Israel?

[nerdanel]

I wrote: "But I think it is morally offensive to insist that others must take this approach, to accept death rather than defend themselves against deadly threats - which insistence is frankly implicit in the position that all killing is wrong no matter what."

And from there, y'all have constructed some gigantic strawmen to, um, knock down. Non-violently, of course.

The above does not say that it is morally offensive to say that "people shouldn't murder each other." (In fact, self-defensive killing where proportionate force was used is legally NOT recognized as murder, for the reasons I have articulated.)

Nor does the above make non-violence the "morally offensive" position.

And the above certainly does not say that it is "morally offensive" to suggest that there might be an alternative to violence.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's a very nice program. So how do you go about stopping Hamas from firing at Israel?

By taking away their support among the people of Gaza, by ending the economic blockade and providing real support to moderate alternatives who, unlike Hamas, actually care about the Palestinian people.

Even the example of the Yazidi people in Iraq (example raised by V) makes me sad and worried more than anything. Why are those people trapped on their mountain and threatened with slaughter by ISIS? Doesn't it ultimately have something to do with the absolutely disastrous US invasion of Iraq? And that violence was partly paid for by my taxes, which is part of the burden of responsibility and guilt that being an American seems to involve these days.

To some extent, I agree with you that the situation with the so-called Islamic State and the Yazidi people (and all of the others that are being threatened with harm and worse by the so-called Islamic State) does have something to do with the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq, which both I and the current POTUS joined you in vigorously opposing. But that doesn't change the situation right now in which thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people are threatened with death (and a whole people threatened with genocide), with absolutely no reasonable justification. If the use of military force against the people conducting these atrocities can help save those thousands to hundreds of thousands, then yes, I believe that to refuse to use that force as a matter of principle would be morally offensive.

[Frelga]

That's a very nice program. So how do you go about stopping Hamas from firing at Israel?

By taking away their support among the people of Gaza, by ending the economic blockade and providing real support to moderate alternatives who, unlike Hamas, actually care about the Palestinian people.

The frustrating part is that this is clearly the only way to get anywhere. But how to actually do this?

My understanding is that the blockade - I assume you refer at least in large part to the wall - is popular, or at least tolerated, in Israel because it put an end to suicide bombings. So the next step is to come up with a way to prevent suicide bombings without the blockade and convincing Israel to give it a go. And while I really do want to believe that Palestinian people would choose improved economic conditions over continued, one-sided warfare, like the rational humans they are, that is at best a very long-term process and this latest conflict has made it less likely than ever. Also, it is not clear that it would be sufficient to vote Hamas out of the office even if Palestinians were prepared to do so. They are the ones with the guns.

And even if a way to do all this was actually found, we would still not get anywhere without Israel being able to shoot back when shot at.

I do know that if anyone had tried to hurt my children, I would have done anything necessary to stop it - including fight to my very last breath. And yes, kill the attacker if I had to.

If there is a scenario where violence is acceptable to a pacifist, such as saving your own child from an attacker, then isn't the rest just haggling over price?

My own philosophy is that of non-aggression, which I find more practicable than pacifism. Certainly the world would be nicer "IF people generally had a horror of killing or hurting another person" as Teremia says. The problem is, they don't. If people were only other than they really are, so many other philosophies would actually work. Communism included. But they aren't, so they don't.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Frelga, I wish I had the easy right answers to your questions, but of course if such answers existed, someone smarter than I am would have provided them.

One thing that I have noted about the current conflict is that (and I would be interested to hear whether this is your understanding as well), there appears to be less division in Israel about it. Even much of the of the more liberal side of the political spectrum inside Israel supports the government's position, and there also seems to be much less tolerance for dissent against the majority position. I think that ties into what you say about the support for the wall. I'm hoping that attitude will begin to manifest itself in the type of "conflict exhaustion" that PtB mentioned earlier in the thread in response to Al's point about the Irish example. But it doesn't change the fact that Israel needs a real negotiating partner in order to successfully negotiate.

[Frelga]

I don't claim to have a hand on the pulse or anything, and Israel is a much, much more diverse country than most Americans realize, so it's hard to say. I do get a sense of "well, we tried to be nice and it didn't work", but I may be completely wrong and going off a small sample in any case. And really, so many of the non-violent solutions have already been tried.

I do not doubt that you are at least as smart as anyone who has tried to tackled that problem. If the solution exists, it is very, very complicated. And so I get annoyed when I hear "Well, to achieve peace, everyone should stop fighting." Well, yes, they should. Now explain that to Hamas.

[Teremia]

I think a world based on non-aggression would be an excellent place. We still have the problem of convincing everyone to non-aggress.

Even on the small small scale of families and friendships, it can be so hard to reconcile people who feel wounded by each other. It's hard to know where to start on the enormously more complex wounds of the Middle East.