糖心vlog直播平台

July 21, 2006

I am one of those Catholics who understands and agrees with the jus ad bellum of Israel at this moment. I am also cautious in judging a disproportionate Israel attitude in bellum because I am naturally inclined to judge severely Hezbollah's disproportionality. But I am also seriously perplexed about at least one contradictory aspect of the theory of the 'Just War', which arise from the real motive of any war: hate.

No war exists without hate because you cannot explain except with recourse to hate all those attitudes typical of war: demonizing an enemy, multiplying hate, provoking, acting without pity, killing children, torturing, etc. .Yet, when you seek to set limits while engaging in violence and war (jus in bellum), you are asking for a war in which hate is banished in favour of a sort of respect or love for the enemy. This is paradoxical. From a humanitarian point of view, jus ad bellum and jus in bellum are justified only if their ultimate motive is not hate but the will to affirm the value of life even inside a situation of war.

The question is: how to give death in a way that is at the same time an affirmation of the value of life? How to fight injustice and violence so as to affirm your fundamental respect and love for human life, for peaceful coexistence? (This is the same question which concerns the reasons for death penalty.)

In my opinion, setting a "limit" is a way because only such limits recognize the insanity of war and do not multiply hate. But this limiting can be expected only from one who is dragged into the war. Only who did not want the war is in the position to denounce its absurdity. This tremendous task to react only inside fixed limits seems to be a burden on the one who is forced to protect oneself, if he really believes in peace.

Thus, this task becomes a sign, a powerful word before the world on the reliability of one's goodwill. For instance, who could forget what the heroic resistance of Israel to the provocation of the Iraqi Scuds during the Gulf War meant for the Middle-East?).

As a Christian, I ask myself what is the meaning of the tremendous road the Gospel points to: "offer no resistance to one who is evil" and "love your enemies" (Matthew 5,39.44). Perhaps one answer is that the setting of limits is the only way to react without producing hate or fostering the conditions for an irreversible escalation of a conflict. Limit, or in any case paying attention to the innocent, is a tremendous responsibility, the only one which could proportionately face the enormity of war. 

Ombretta Pisano
Documentalist at SIDIC Roma

Webmaster's Note:
The following was not submitted as a direct response to the "Informal Dialogue," although some of its authors were involved in the e-mail exchange that led to it. The attached letter or statement is certainly relevant to the topic.

CHICAGO BOARD OF RABBIS

Dear Colleagues and Friends:

Once again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has erupted into large-scale violence.  All of us agonize over media images of the dead and wounded, too many of them civilians.   Because the Palestinian and Lebanese casualty figures are inevitably greater than those suffered by Israel, there is a tendency among some observers to conceptualize the conflict as the Arab David vs. Jewish Goliath, placing an unfair burden of blame on Israel.  This has caused inter-communal tensions between Christians and Jews in recent years.

It is the sacred responsibility of religious leaders to speak out in the face of violence.  We are writing colleague-to-colleague in the hope that you will keep in mind some basic facts about how this round of hostilities began, who started it, who is sponsoring Hamas and Hezbollah, and for what purpose?  No evaluation of the situation can be fair unless it is grounded in these realities.

We are especially sensitive to concerns regarding proportionality or collective punishment.  After all, it was Abraham, the first Jew, who challenged God's justice in "sweeping the innocent away with the guilty."   Does the search for three kidnapped soldiers justify Israel's aerial operations and its use of heavy armor and artillery?   Why not negotiate a prisoner exchange?   Because these questions the focus of debate among Jews in Israel and throughout the world, we understand how non-Jews who support Israel's right to defend itself (jus ad bellum) might oppose the way in which the operation is being conducted (jus in bello). 

In this regard, we ask that you remember that proportionality is calculated not by the event, but by the threat.  In the present instance, the menace facing Israel is larger than the specter of three captured soldiers.  Israel is confronting a regional threat, which begins with Iran, Syria and their proxy, Hezbollah, and stretches to the radical Islamic Palestinian group Hamas.  We endeavor to demonstrate this in the attached material. 

The four of us writing this letter cannot be characterized as "hawks."  One was primary drafter of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago's letter urging President Bush not to invade Iraq.   We are unanimous in advocating mutual concessions through diplomatic negotiations as the pathway to peace.  But we also appreciate that the exigencies of real-life situations must be considered when applying theoretical constructs. 
This letter, with its attachment, is intended to initiate a conversation, not end it.  We are eager to receive your response, in any way you choose to send it.   At day's end, all of us are committed to peace.  Let us not allow our differing visions of how peace can be achieved impede our mutual efforts in pursuit of a goal mandated by the God of all humankind.

L'Shalom,

Click here for:
THE CURRENT ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-LEBANESE CONFLICT: THE VIEWS OF FOUR CHICAGO RABBIS

July 21, 2006

Friends,

I just wanted to add a few reflections to my earlier remarks in the Boston College website's "informal dialogue":

1)  Please understand those remarks as essentially focusing on one major moral question--the morality of collective punishment.  They do not represent my full position on the situation.  I fundamentally  agree with the thrust of the recent statements from the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican that Hezbollah started this situation and must be assigned principal blame for it. I also affirm the right of Israel to respond militarily while observing some constraints in line again with the thrust of these Catholic statements.  I would affirm that the basic jus ad bellum conditions have been met in terms of Israeli military action. 

2)  Despite the tragedy and suffering of the present hour, I for one also see some political shifts taking place that may lay the ground work for new peace efforts. The information released on July 20th that Egyptian negotiators have resumed meeting with Hamas to try to convince its leaders to divorce their cause from that of Hezbollah, the statements from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries which do not support Hezbollah and the comments of sectors of the Lebanese community reported in the Chicago Tribune as well as on the internet which spoke of the Lebanese President calling for the demilitarization of Hezbollah offer some positive indication of a shift towards substantive negotiations beyond merely a ceasefire.  To be sure, nothing will come easy in this regard and the situation is volatile--one reason why I feel it is in Israel's interest to show some restraints lest this developing shift collapse. I am not a naive idealist but I do find a bit of light here.

John Pawlikowski

July 28, 2006

These clearly are deeply troubling and difficult times, and I know that many people are struggling to find a framework for assimilating what is going on. Some of my own reservations and concerns as to certain attitudes being expressed by some Catholic intellectuals appear in the attached analysis of the statement recently issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to which I would add the following observations:

A number of Israelis have been talking of creating a “new paradigm,” and I think that what is happening already reflects some of that. In none of its previous conflicts with an external enemy have the citizens of Israel themselves so borne the brunt of direct attack, with cities shelled and civilians killed and wounded on a daily basis. This is thus a unique war on the home front, but it is also reminiscent in one way of the 1967 War, when the Soviet Union was stirring the pot in an attempt to advance its (anti-American) hegemony in the Middle East as Iran can be said to be doing today. What is also unique about this conflict, however, is the religious component, with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas driven by a radical Islamic ideology that is colored by apocalyptic fervor.

In that light it has been said that this is the first war in which Israel is engaged which is not at its core an Israel-Arab conflict, and the response of some of the Arab states shows that they understand that. Given the basic principles and goals of Israel’s current adversaries, for whom this is a fight to the finish, reconciliation is not a possibility and negotiations and compromise make no sense. Most Israelis realize that, and I suggest that these are some of the realities that need to be taken into account by those who call for what they regard as a more “proportionate” response to the threat that Israel faces. Finally, I would point out it is not only Israel that is threatened by the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis but also Lebanon, “moderate” (mostly Sunni) Arab nations, and American interests.

None of this is meant to say that we should be unfeeling regarding the pain and suffering of Lebanese civilians. What it does mean is that there are complex issues at play here, some of them quite new, which it behooves us all to do our best to try to understand. And these kinds of observations perhaps explain why so many members of the Jewish community are troubled when they hear voices condemning Israel’s behavior that seem to fail to acknowledge what Israel in fact is up against.

Michael C. Kotzin,
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago

July 31, 2006

Friends,

I write this letter in response to the fascinating exchange on your site. Peace had a major influence on my life. I made a choice to come back to Israel as to my surprise peace erupted during the Oslo initiative and the process that followed. I was a strong supporter of the process and still am a peace dreamer.

Today, I write this email from my study at home, in my home city of Haifa, that has suffered a strong and most effective attack these days, claiming more then ten lives and wounding many others. I write from my home town where my wife, my kids, and I have been staying indoors for more then three weeks now, suffering tens of "live" attacks (in which a clear <boom> reflects the nearby fall of a bomb) and even more so false alarms (in which only terror arises and no falls - meaning it may still come ...). . So, I do not write from an objective bystander position, but I do write from a part of Haifa (Kababir) that is a Muslim and Jewish neighborhood, with a real belief that co-existence is a possibility and an alive and kicking reality.

I have read your discussion on the Jus in Bello criteria and I must say it does perplex me. No matter how I think about the issues of right and wrong in this war, I do not agree that Jus in Bello can be simply applied. Let me explain: The issue of proportionality is not related to the proportionality of damage inflicted on you but only in relation to the cause of using the force; retaliation is not a cause and not reason to use force, thus killing just the same numbers if it does not help in stopping the aggression is not justifiable according to any moral norms, including jus in bello.

Whom you attack is also an issue: you need to target the offenders. While it is common even in Israel to separate the Hezbollah from the Lebanese people, this is very problematic reasoning. The facts that there is a Hezbollah member in the Lebanese government, that there are Hezbollah members as an integral part of the Lebanese parliament, and that most if not all these terrorists are Lebanese in nationality and residence make this whole distinction questionable. Yet, it might perhaps become an effective perspective and therefore I am in favor of redefining the government and state responsibility in the Lebanese case. Lebanon may be a partner for peace (not a friend, a partner) and the Hezbullah probably will not..

I am, however, not in agreement with those who invoked Jus in Bello regarding excessive force. One may argue that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were excessive force. They were clearly effective in bringing further aggression to an end, yet the argument will always be whether less force or one less bomb, or conventional force without resorting to "the bomb" would have done the job. Moreover, I think that although large parts of Beirut were hurt, it is a fact that most parts were not - that reflects discrimination. Should there not be such discrimination a vast minority if not the majority of the Israeli public would turn against this war. Any Israeli leader knows it. Furthermore, discrimination in Lebanon is part of what Israelis see as effectiveness, we want the majority of Lebanese against Hezbollah, not with it against us.

I think we should invoke what I call the Principle of Moral Economy: the need to choose the most effective measures to reach the just goals of unavoidable war while inflicting minimum damage on soldiers, non-combatants, and non-military targets. In the war against Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza - it is definitely my feeling that we resort to "Just War" too easily and simplistically. I have a clear feeling that we have all violated Moral Economy in the ways we get caught in a cycle of escalating measures. We all resort to just the "Just War" self-servingly. I personally, would rather see an international shift to avoidance of war first, Moral Economy if the war started and leave the discussion on Just war to the very important post-mortem analysis of war.

It is with grief that I learned of the events in Qana. As a father myself, especially in recent weeks, I identify with the victims. As an Israeli I understand the energetic if not joyful reaction of the Hezbollah. They have been the only winners in this situation. There could not have ever been something so damaging to Israel. But I mostly grieve about the issue of moral economy. The whole international community is taking a narrow "just" but not a "morally economic" call for an immediate ceasefire. This will clearly lead us to another round of violence very soon - that will be more disastrous and certainly escalate. What is needed is "a solution" not a cease fire per se. This solution needs to take into account the imperfect way the leaders in the area think and react, the needed balances and the neighboring players, Egypt, Syria and Iran included, making sure Egyptian superiority in the area and hegemony in the Arab world will be sustained.

Ofer Markman
Haifa, Israel