Does Israel make every effort to reduce the amount of bloodshed when it retaliates to those firing rockets into Israel? This is a big question for me because I too believe Israel needs to defend itself but Israel’s means of defense does not seem to work to its benefit in that rockets continue to be fired and Israel’s strong retaliation only destroys the image of Israel further–and this image is hugely important because Israel needs real allies if a secure two-state solution is to come about.

100 Palestinians died a few weeks ago and my first impulse was to say that Israel was lawfully defending itself and its citizens. As Mark Regev said, children are growing up in fear of rocket fire–Israelis are not being killed by rockets en masse, but they are still disrupting life and injuring civilians. I agree with Regev that this is unacceptable.

However, the argument that Hamas uses civilians as human shields–what can Israel do?–does not satisfy my question or my hope that Israel believes in a moral obligation to protect civilian life– whether they be Palestinian or Israeli.

I don’t know enough about the IDF’s military strategies but does anyone know whether it’s possible for Israel to (or whether Israel should) make a stronger commitment to protect the lives of innocents/civilians Hamas surrounds itself with, in its means of defense? It seems that if Israel vocalized or enacted a more humane retaliation policy– the rest of the world would more sensitively understand the complicated situation Israel is in.

I realize this is a complicated question but I appreciate your comments/answers.

Thanks for JANIP–the questions on this post are of the sort I ask constantly but usually my fellow academics are not interested–this will be very helpful.

-Rachel

As long as human beings remain on this earth there will always be disagreements and conflicting views. And it is actually impossible to eliminate disagreements through violence. Violence only brings even more resentment and dissatisfaction.

Non-violence, on the other hand, means dialogue, it means using language to communicate. And dialogue means compromise, listening to others views, and respecting others rights. Nobody will be a hundred percent winner, and nobody will be a hundred percent loser. That is the practical way. In fact, that is the only way.

The concept of “us” and “them” is almost out-dated. If our interests existed independently of those of others, then it would be possible to have a complete winner and a complete loser, but since in reality we all depend on one another, our interests and those of others are very interconnected, and gain a hundred percent victory is impossible. Without this approach, reconciliation is impossible.

The reality of the world today means that we need to learn to think in this way: “The middle way approach”.

Therefore, in the spirit of reconciliation, we should advocate a sharing of interests so that genuine progress is possible. Compromise is the only way. Through non-violent means we can share views, interests, feelings, rights, and in this way we can solve the problem. The principle of non-violence should be practiced everywhere. It means work and effort, and yet more effort. And this cannot be achieved by simply praying.

It is not a question of one nation or two nations, but of the survival and health of humanity in the region. If we let hatred guide us, then we can be so cruel and so destructive. But on the other hand, if we promote good human qualities, then wonderful actions and marvelous things can happen.

The reality of the existence of other cultures and other communities cannot be ignored. The nature of modern existence is such that the well-being, happiness and success of one’s own community are very connected with the well-being and interests of other communities and other societies.

If we take revenge upon the enemy or rivals, then it creates a kind of vicious cycle. And especially when this happens at the community level, it can go on from generation to generation. The result is that both sides suffer. The whole purpose of life becomes spoiled. You can see this in the refugee camps, where hatred is cultivated towards another group. This happens from childhood on.

Even if your rival is made unhappy through your actions, what is there for you to be so joyful about?

Some people consider that strong hatred is good for national interest, and this is very negative. It is very short-sighted. Counteracting this way of thinking is the basis of nonviolence and understanding.

In some of the most developed societies, a lot of attention is paid to the attitudes towards the rivals or enemies. This is because hatred can be the greatest stumbling block to the development.

If you can learn to develop patience and tolerance towards your rivals, then everything else becomes much easier, your tolerance towards all others begins to flow naturally. So, one’s enemies or rivals play a crucial role, There is no fortitude similar to patience, just as there is no affliction worse than hatred.

One must exert one’s best efforts not to harbor hatred towards the rival, but rather use the encounter as an opportunity to enhance one’s tolerance. In fact, the enemy or rival is the necessary condition for practicing patience. Without an enemy’s action, there is no possibility for patience or tolerance to arise. From this standpoint we can consider our rival as a great teacher, for giving us this opportunity to practice patience.

It’s the very struggle of life that makes us who we are. And it is our enemies that test us, provide us with the resistance necessary for growth.

Peace to all,
Gino Barcal.

Thanks for your comments. JANIP is a pluralistic movement, but I do believe Chris and I probably represent the “median.” (besides the fact that he and I happen to agree on many other things and have many common things in our background). Regarding any mention of Zionism in the mission, you are right, and there was a debate about that. You should bring it up again. I wish we had included the word Zionist (even in the name of the organizations) but many of the founder members felt that they did not want to alienate other academics who were supportive of Israel but, unfortunately, felt uncomfortable with the term. It was clear, though, from the discussion that all the current members are Zionists in which all support a Jewish state for the Jewish people in the land of Israel.
You are right that in todays circumstance no Palestinian leadership could deliver real peace. Changing minds is a long process, but if the minds of the Palestinian people are to change so they will support peace, we need to start the road. At this point, is all I ask. In my book I talk about lots of things (social, cultural, economic) that we could be doing to foment that process, and we are not. The road is long, but If we never start to walk, we will never make it to its end…