Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Just Peace considerations in Gaza
Q: In a statement Monday, Vice President Biden said the U.S. is consulting with other nations "on new ways to address the humanitarian, economic, security, and political aspects of the situation in Gaza." What are the religious and moral considerations in determining those "new ways," especially in light of Israel's raid on an aid flotilla from Turkey bound for Gaza.
Violence is a labyrinth with no exit. It is a Catch-22. Violence is a violation of human dignity. It is a desecration of the imago dei, the image of God that lives on the face of every human being. The blockade of Gaza is structural violence. It is not the violence of bombs and bullets until the killing of peace activist aboard a ship filled with humanitarian aid on its way to Gaza with intent to break the blockade. Yet, it is violence against the people of Gaza nonetheless.
Israel says the blockade is necessary for its national security, to keep materials that can be used to make rockets from entering Gaza. Israel sees Hamas as a terrorist organization bent on its destruction. Hamas says it fires the rockets in retaliation against the blockade. It sees Israel as an occupying power and as an oppressor. The cycle of violence continues.
Just Peace theory is both a moral and a religious mode of being, thinking and acting that can break the tragic cycle of violence that has trapped the peoples of Israel and Palestine since 1948. Just Peace theory deploys truth, respect and security to bring an end to violent conflict. First, regarding the current cycle of violence in the name of both justice and security, we ought to ask the Dr. Phil question: "How's that working for you?"
It is not working for Israel whose policies regarding the Palestinians both in Gaza and on the West Bank are causing it to be ever more isolated in the international community. It is not working for the Palestinians who continue to live under occupation, and, in Gaza, live without decent housing, clean water, or schools. They exist in an open-air prison without all the basic needs of life. It is this kind of humiliating violence that causes people such as Hamas to strike back with any means at their disposal.
Nelson Mandela, once considered both a criminal and a terrorist, in his book "Long Walk to Freedom" helps us to understand why people take up arms to fight their oppression. He quotes an African proverb; "The attack of wild beasts cannot be averted with only bare hands" (271). In the mind of Hamas, Israel's blockade is an attack. Mandela says further of the South African government's insistence that the African National Congress (ANC) renounce violence as a precondition for talks:
"I responded that the state was responsible for the violence and that it is always the oppressor, not the oppressed, who dictate the form of struggle. If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently. In our case it was simply a legitimate form of self-defense. I ventured that if the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. 'It is up to you,' I said, 'not us, to renounce violence'" (537).
Eventually the ANC did suspend armed struggle for the sake of moving negotiations forward. The purpose of the violence had been to force the state to the negotiating table. For Mandela, "men and women by their very nature required some kind of negotiated understanding" (529).
Just Peace theory recognizes the basic human need for respect. Justice grows from the recognition of the legitimate expectations and claims of a people. Respect for the enemy requires the face to face encounter. It requires negotiations. The truth is that, no matter the history of violence between adversaries, at some point, they will have to sit down together, reason together and negotiate peace.
Thus, the moral thing for Israel to do is to negotiate peace directly with Hamas even if Hamas does not recognize its right to exist. Hamas ought to take a lesson from the ANC and suspend rocket attacks into Israel for the sake of peace talks. It ought to release any Israelis they are holding as a sign of good faith. Each side ought to be willing to take an independent initiative for the sake of peace. This is a just peace principle.
The blockade ought to end. It cannot lead to the security of Israel. It may keep some military equipment out of Gaza, but it will not make for the positive peace. The positive peace is the peace where enemies no longer want to fight each other. It is the peace that comes from the establishment of justice. The blockade denies economic justice for the Palestinians in Gaza. It retards economic development and the restoration of the country from the devastation of the most recent war. Sustainable economic development is also a Just Peace principle. There can be no peace where there is no justice in its legal, political, economic and social iterations.
The international community ought to stop supplying the weapons and the money to buy weapons to both Israel and to the Palestinians. At the end of the day, it is the plough and building equipment and not the gun or fighter jets or more lethal bombs and rockets that will be the instruments of peacemaking. In peace theory means and ends cohere. Peaceful means bring peaceful ends.
The three Abrahamic religions that were born in this land all have traditions of nonviolence. In Judaism the word "shalom" means wholeness, health, welfare, safety, friendship, prosperity, restoration, happiness and peace. This can only come for one people when it comes to the enemy as well. Thus to make peace, is to work toward all that "shalom" means together. It is the conjoining of steadfast love and faithfulness, of righteousness and peace. (Psalm 85:10)
Islam has a tradition of nonviolence where the greater jihad is the struggle with oneself to overcome one's base instincts, and the lesser jihad is the struggle for social justice. We find peace in our personal righteousness and that righteousness compels us to work for justice in the world. The Qur'an teaches that God commands justice. Rabia Terri Harris in an essay "Nonviolence in Islam: the Alternative Community tradition" published in Subverting Hatred: the Challenge of Nonviolence in ReligiousTraditions quotes the Qur'an to say:
"The good and the evil are not the same. Repel (evil) with that which is better; then the one between whom and you was enmity shall become like an intimate friend." (Surah Ha Mim, 34)
This is not unlike the Christian command to overcome evil with good. "If your enemies are hungry feed them; if they are thirsty give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12: 20-21)
Israel and Palestine are two nations living on a little bit of land. If they are going to live in peace they will necessarily have to begin to work together for the prosperity, happiness and security of each other. A two-state solution is possible, but it is an interim step to some kind of federated state. This is so because there is so much these two peoples will have to share - water, arable land, security, economic cooperation, a capital city and a city holy to billions of people across the globe. And the further truth is that they all, Israelis and Palestinians alike, want all the land from the river to the sea.
There is no way a two-state or a single federated state solution will work without trust and friendship. However, such is possible with time, patience, hope, faith, love and justice.
By
Valerie Elverton Dixon
|
June 9, 2010; 11:15 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Still counting the casualties of Vietnam War, 35 years later |
Next: The Gaza flotilla: More political than humanitarian
Posted by: Salaashalpeace | June 13, 2010 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Valeri Dixon writes:
"Islam has a tradition of nonviolence where the greater jihad is the struggle with oneself to overcome one's base instincts, and the lesser jihad is the struggle for social justice. We find peace in our personal righteousness and that righteousness compels us to work for justice in the world. The Qur'an teaches that God commands justice. Rabia Terri Harris in an essay "Nonviolence in Islam: the Alternative Community tradition" published in Subverting Hatred: the Challenge of Nonviolence in ReligiousTraditions quotes the Qur'an to say:"
Why do you need to throw these bones to Muslims. This smacks of a person who has no clue about Islamic history. Can she cite one instance of Islamic peace. Ms. Dixon please do not feel compelled to spout what ever passes between your ears as some profound observations or deep thinking. It only betrays your shallowness. Just read Indian history from 10th century or European history from 8th century on or the egyptian history from 6th century on.
Posted by: Secular | June 11, 2010 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Valerie Dixon:
You make some good points and you make some that are not so right. All in all, you post presents a nice theory but is overly optimistic.
You said: There is no way a two-state or a single federated state solution will work without trust and friendship. However, such is possible with time, patience, hope, faith, love and justice.
You are correct, but the truth is that in the forseeable future neither side has or will have any trust or friendship of the other side. Time is available, but at this time neither side has any patience or love; both groups claim to have faith, but their faith is in mutually exclusive notions; both sides claim to want justice, meaning simply that the other side should give up and get out; and finally, there is very little reason for any kind of hope that things will get better for both groups.
You said: The three Abrahamic religions that were born in this land all have traditions of nonviolence. This is simply not true. All three groups have used violence against anyone who stood in their way, who disagreed with their ideas, or who were just different. I am surprised at your statement because a scholar such as you surely has a better understanding of history than you statement shows.
You are right that both groups want all the land between the river and the sea and are apparently willing to do whatever to get or keep as much as possible. Both groups are behaving in morally represensable ways, but I think you are to kind to Hamas. They are using pure terrorist tactics of the worst kind. They are pure and simply terrorists.
And if your notions of a just peace are valid, should you not be addressing your comments to the situation in other parts of the Middle East?
Never the less, I like your posts.
Posted by: cecil4 | June 10, 2010 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Cite Islamic Peace? When victorious Sallahuddin ruled Jerusalem he FORBADE any harm to the Christians (unlike what the Christians did to the Muslims and Jews) would not allow any desecration to churches and safe passage for the Christians back to Christian lands. When the Inquisition happened it was the Muslims who gave the Jews safe haven and if memory serves me correct Morocco was the only country that showed empathy to the holocaust survivors. Perhaps the onus should be on one to show where any Muslim country lobbed Tomahawk missiles unrelentingly into a country without regard to its civilians or starved them off with cruel crippling sanctions.