Forgiveness... and Justice
Having spent the last few days away from the busy life to which I'm accustomed to in Singapore, I must admit that I now start to see the benefits of meditation. Not that I have been in meditation here, but I certainly treasure this period of relative calm and isolation from the world. It gives me much needed time to mull through things and to study subjects which I never had the time to do so. I'm not claiming to be anti-social. I'm merely asserting that we all need some time to ourselves. Particularly, if one, like myself, likes to reflect on issues.
An interesting subject that I've came across during my stay here would be that of forgiveness. I first stumbled upon it on Nat's blog where I wrote a few comments in response to various other contributions by others. In writing those comments however, it triggered me to see forgiveness on a much larger scale. A scale not confined to our everyday interactions with other people, but rather, a scale that applies to world affairs. And I have come to the conclusion that forgiveness is in severe shortage. Indeed, its shortfall, I feel, is a main contributing factor to the start and continuation of violence all around the world. Conversely, if forgiveness would to abound in our world, peace would soon reign in the stead of violence.
I shall briefly point to some examples in modern history. Let us return to the years of 1918-1919. It was called The Great War by many, and rightly so, for it was the first time that the world has seen such prolonged warfare involving a relatively large number of participants. The human cost, was needless to say, horrific to say the least. Destruction was widespread and lands were devastated. The result? A harsh and punitive treaty which the Allies forced upon the Germans who were labeled the aggressor. The label is debatable, since many Germans at that time felt that they were merely coming to the aid of their ally, Austria. Regardless, the allied nations, particularly France, were intent on punishing the Germans on having wrecked such devastation on their people and land. As a result of such an intention, the Treaty of Versailles was conceived, and hereafter, blamed as one of the chief reasons why World War II started a mere 21 years after the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles is widely regarded as being overtly harsh to the Germans. Among other things, it labelled the Germans as the aggressor and thus, wholly responsible for the conflict. The Germans were made to pay reparations to the Allied nations for damage caused by the war. To add insult to injury, the treaty banned conscription in Germany, and severely limited the size of its armed forces. Defence industries were prohibited, as were the import and export of armaments. Germany also lost a good fraction (13%) of its lands, 12% of its coalfields (much it went to France), and half of its iron and steel industry. Furthermore, the Rhineland was to be a demilitarized zone and all oversea colonies were to be given to the Allies (mainly to France and Britain, with Japan taking over a German colony in China). The ramifications of this treaty were many. The German public felt that they were betrayed by their own government. They have not, after all, in technical terms, lost to the Allies. It was but an armistice. Yet, the allies took it to mean a total surrender and unfairly forced the German government then to accept the treaty as a defeated nation without any negotiating power would. The resulting economic hardship caused by the treaty (remember that Germany had to pay reparations even with its economy in tatters and a large part of its industries taken over by France) was tremendous. Social and economic conditions in Germany immediately after the war were appalling. As it has always been the case in history, such conditions breed extremists. It was thus, out of these ashes, that Adolf Hitler rose to power; and by channeling the anger caused by the treaty in the German people, steered Germany towards the greatest conflict mankind has ever seen.
It is now possible for us to see the link between the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of Hitler, and the eventual start of the Second World War. However, let us examine the roots of this conflict in even greater detail. Although not the only cause for the 1939-1945 war, it is certainly fair to say that the Treaty of Versailles was chief among other causes. And, while Britain, and especially the United States, had other purposes in mind besides punishing Germany, it cannot also be doubted that France, who pushed the hardest for the treaty, had in its mind, punishing Germany as the main purpose. Such an intention, can ultimately, be traced back to the inability of the French people and government then to forgive the Germans. One might, of course, argue and question if forgiveness on that magnitude is possible. The answer, I believe, is yes. Incredibly difficult, but possible as I have commented in Nat's blog. Here is an excerpt from that comment:'
I don't think that there are any 'precise, specific conditions for forgiveness'. Quite on the contrary, I believe that there are no conditions for forgiveness; because it was never intended for us to judge, only to forgive. Yes, it is true that heinous crimes have been committed by megalomaniacs bent on genocide and that we, who were not their victims, will never be able to fully comprehend the horror of the crimes in their entirety. Yet, forgiveness, even of such a magnitude is possible. Incredibly difficult, but possible as Eva Kor, a Holocaust survivor, has shown the world. I doubt if I could do the same, and I pray that I should never be so tested. Nevertheless, the point remains that forgiveness on such a magnitude is possible. If someone, who has gone through what is arguably the most traumatic experience anyone can live through, is able to forgive her perpetrators, how much more than, should we forgive the 'lesser' sins that others do unto us without conditions? Furthermore, who are we indeed, to judge others? For we are not like God who truly knows the hearts of everyone. Who are we to judge others when we do not fully understand the minds of men? Who are we to judge, when we ourselves are guilty too of wrongdoing in one way or another? Yes, in this imperfect world that we live in, a system of law and justice has to be put in place so that order and society can exist. Yet, I doubt that God has ever intended for us to judge. If He indeed has, Jesus would never have told his disciples to, if someone struck them on the right cheek, to turn to him the other also. Or indeed, 'to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'. No, it has always been His will for us to forgive, just like how Jesus told Peter to forgive not just seven times, but seventy seven/seventy times seven times. With regards to our personal moral values then, I do believe that forgiveness should be without conditions.'
Assuming that forgiveness on such a magnitude is indeed humanly possible, one can then see how The Great War could have been avoided if forgiveness had prevailed. Had forgiveness prevailed over vengeance in the French government in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles would not have been so harsh on the Germans; consequently, social conditions after 1918 in Germany would have been milder, and the rise of extremists like Hitler could have been prevented. Had the Germans been not pushed into such a tight corner, Hitler would never be able to garner the support which he enjoyed (it should be noted here that aside from the public, Hitler also had important support from rich industrialists who wouldn't have been much affected had the treaty been less vicious) and perhaps, World War II can be avoided. Of course, these assumptions are, for all practical purposes, only assumptions. It would be impossible for us to predict with certainty whether a more benign Treaty of Versailles will truly prevent World War II, but I think it is fair to say that had forgiveness prevailed, a major cause of World War II would have been removed. As an aside, it is ironic to note that the French's inability to forgive the Germans, had to a very large extent, resulted in their annexation by the Germans in 1940.
Moving on to more recent history, the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is yet another violent conflict which could have been resolved into a peaceful one had there been more forgiveness on both parties. It is important to note here that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a messy one with many issues to consider, and that plain forgiveness isn't going to resolve all its issues. However, I believe that had forgiveness prevailed, continued violence could have been prevented. Before I go any further however, some background information is required. At the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, is the creation of the state of Israel in what was essentially an Arab land before 1947. Of course, it hadn't always belonged to the Arabs. In fact, it did used to be under Jewish rule, but that had been thousands of years ago, and the land had since changed its rulers many times. However, for the last hundreds of years, the land had been under Arab rule with Jews there being a minority. The root of the problem can perhaps, be traced, surprisingly, to Russia. Anti-semitism was rife in Russia during the 19th century where a large majority of Jews resided. They were forced to live in certain areas, and a law was passed for the conscription of young Jewish children. I write 'children', because young children, as young as 8, were forced into military service then; and it was 'more or less a death sentence'. Things worsen for the Jews in 1881 after Tsar Alexander II was assassinated. A wave of anti-Semitism swept Russia, and Russian peasants went on a rampage that left the Jews reeling in shock. In an effort to keep this post short (yes, I know that it is already rather long), I would not go into further details. However, it should be noted that the Jews endured terrible conditions while in Russia, and it was that event which sparked talks of creating a safe haven for Jews. That idea was soon to be called Zionism, and the idea of a safe haven soon became an idea of an independent Jewish state. Meanwhile, Jews were leaving Russia for Palestine simply to get out of the terrible conditions that they were living in. Not all who left Russia headed for Palestine though, there were other destinations too. Back then, the main focus was simply to get out of Russia. The thought of a Jewish state back in the land of their forefathers had yet to take shape. However, the plight of the Jews in Russia gave impetus to that idea (anti-semitism was not confined only to Russia. In fact, it appeared to be widespread. However, it was in Russia that the Jews endured the worst treatment), and before long, a sympathetic journalist, Theodor Herzl, started to help champion the idea of Zionism. The issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considerably more complicated than what has been written so far, due to, in no small part, Britain's meddling at the end of the first World War. Great Britain, which had not given up its colonial ambitions at the end of the first World War, made many hokum agreements with the Arabs during the first World War in an attempt to establish 'spheres of influences' there after the Ottoman Turks were overthrown at the end of the war. On paper however, the Arabs were to help the allies by rebelling against the Ottoman Empire which was a member of the Central Powers, and in return, the British were to help the Arabs gain independence at the end of the war. Also, in an attempt to allay the fears of the French, they made contradicting agreements between their two nations as to which part of Middle East they would take control over after the war. To make things even more complicated, the British, in an effort to win the support of influential Russian and American Jews, made further agreements with the Zionist movement as well. It was beneficial for the British to do so, as they needed the Russian Jews to help keep Russia, which was wavering and about to pull out of the war at that time, in the war and the American Jews, to convince the United States to join the war on the Allies side. The Zionist Federation was subsequently given the support of the British government to establish a 'national home for the Jewish people' (Balfour Declaration) in Palestine. The result of all these agreements was a complication which up till this day, has yet to be resolved. At the end of the first World War, the League of Nation was born out of American President Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points. Under the covenant of the League of Nation, the Middle Eastern territories that were soon capable of independence were to be given a choice of their mandatory power which was supposed to guide them to independence. A commission was sent to understand the wishes of the Palestine people. However, the commission which indicated the preference of the Palestine people to have the Americans as the mandatory power never made it to the Paris Peace Conference where it was decided that Britain should take on the responsibility of the mandatory power. Britain, which did not then believed in President Woodrow Wilson's belief to give independence to those territories, wanted to maintain a continued presence. As a result, it continued playing its games of appeasement between the Arabs and the Jews, in what would be a massive juggling act. The juggling soon proved to be too difficult however, and violence eventually broke out in the form of rioting in which Arabs, Jews, and British forces were killed. Some of the worst attacks were perpetrated by the Arabs who often killed unarmed and old Jews then. Sadly, that was the start of a score which has yet to be settled. After the Holocaust in World War II, it became more apparent than ever to the Jews that if they were to live freely and safely in this world, they needed to have a state of their own. The Allied nations, after having liberating the many concentration camps in Germany, were sympathetic to say the least. Proposals of setting up a Jewish state in their historical homeland of Palestine (note that Palestine is the name of that region where Israel is now back then) started going around. After much diplomatic lobbying, the UN General Assembly (the League of Nation having being dismantled), in 1947, finally decided to partition Palestine (in the sense of the region), to form a Jewish state. Once again, do note that I have greatly summarised a lot of events that took place so far in an attempt to decrease the length of this post. However, this is the general gist of what happened.
What happened next was civil war in the region of Palestine. The Arabs were understandably outraged and the Jews, having had enough of centuries of ill treatment, fought for their survival and right to exist. This time, there were no international forces to prevent the bloodshed and both Jewish and Arabic blood flowed freely. Brutality reigned. After 6 months of chaos, the Jewish forces established control within their UN designated territory, and on 14th May 1948, declared the state of Israel to be independent. Ever since then, the region has been in a perpetual state of unrest, if not violence. As a summary, almost immediately after the declaration of independence, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan invaded Israel. By the end of the war in 1949, Israel emerged not only victorious, but larger too. Other wars would follow with the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, the Attrition war from 1967 to 1970, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the first Intifada from 1987 to 1991, the second Intifada from 2000-2003, and the second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Altogether, this implies an average of a war every 6 years. The human cost has been terribly high, but had everyone been more forgiving right from the start, continued violence could have been prevented.
While forgiveness alone would not have prevented the initial conflict which was sparked off by the injustice that the Arabs felt and the Israeli's desire for a safe haven, it would have bought the region time to defuse tensions, and hopefully, a better chance at a permanent peace. It would be foolishly optimistic to hope that forgiveness can solve all the problems, but it would stop the hatred and continual spate of violence so characteristic of the conflict. What perhaps are most sorely needed in this conflict are grace, compassion and magnanimity. It cannot be doubted that both sides are almost equally guilty of the bloodshed, with some being caused by overzealous Zionist ambitions, and others, by Arab leaders with ulterior motives of their own. The grievances of both peoples are many, and the list can go on forever. But if peace is to reign, one side must have the courage to desire it enough to go to extreme means. By extreme means, I do not mean the taking of extremely violent actions. I mean extremely peaceful, docile action. One side, must have the magnanimity to first forgive the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of the other, and then the compassion to understand the wrongs that the other side have endured. And in understanding the very real difficulties that both sides have, make a compromise. The very nature of the word 'compromise' means that one has to willingly make concessions, even at the expense of oneself. It is never easy to make concessions at the expense of oneself, but that is why more than just forgiveness, compassion is required. Compassion is that which will allow one to give at the expense of oneself. Also, in connection with the need to forgive, I believe that if we were to stop trying to administer our version of justice, peace would have a far easier time trying to reign over violence. As I have stated in my comment in Nat's blog above, I do not think that God has ever intended for us to judge. And history often shows, that whenever we attempt to implement our version of justice, massive bloodshed is often next to follow. The two examples in which I have listed above are proof enough. In the case of the World Wars, France's attempt to implement its justice on Germany after the first World War, to a very large extent, contributed to the start of the second World War. And in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Arabs' desire to see justice being done resulted in the 1948 and Yom Kippur War. The Israelis' version of justice resulted in two Lebanon invasions, and there were many attempts at justice by commoners in the form of revenge killing during the Intifadas. Of course, there were also conflicts that were not motivated by revenge, but by other motives ranging from greed to survival. The presence of forgiveness and the subsequent lack in judgement in those cases then, would do little to prevent the conflicts. But had forgiveness prevailed and our miserable attempts at justice not gone forward, I think it is fair to say that the world would have seen less violent conflicts than what it has seen thus far.
An interesting subject that I've came across during my stay here would be that of forgiveness. I first stumbled upon it on Nat's blog where I wrote a few comments in response to various other contributions by others. In writing those comments however, it triggered me to see forgiveness on a much larger scale. A scale not confined to our everyday interactions with other people, but rather, a scale that applies to world affairs. And I have come to the conclusion that forgiveness is in severe shortage. Indeed, its shortfall, I feel, is a main contributing factor to the start and continuation of violence all around the world. Conversely, if forgiveness would to abound in our world, peace would soon reign in the stead of violence.
I shall briefly point to some examples in modern history. Let us return to the years of 1918-1919. It was called The Great War by many, and rightly so, for it was the first time that the world has seen such prolonged warfare involving a relatively large number of participants. The human cost, was needless to say, horrific to say the least. Destruction was widespread and lands were devastated. The result? A harsh and punitive treaty which the Allies forced upon the Germans who were labeled the aggressor. The label is debatable, since many Germans at that time felt that they were merely coming to the aid of their ally, Austria. Regardless, the allied nations, particularly France, were intent on punishing the Germans on having wrecked such devastation on their people and land. As a result of such an intention, the Treaty of Versailles was conceived, and hereafter, blamed as one of the chief reasons why World War II started a mere 21 years after the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles is widely regarded as being overtly harsh to the Germans. Among other things, it labelled the Germans as the aggressor and thus, wholly responsible for the conflict. The Germans were made to pay reparations to the Allied nations for damage caused by the war. To add insult to injury, the treaty banned conscription in Germany, and severely limited the size of its armed forces. Defence industries were prohibited, as were the import and export of armaments. Germany also lost a good fraction (13%) of its lands, 12% of its coalfields (much it went to France), and half of its iron and steel industry. Furthermore, the Rhineland was to be a demilitarized zone and all oversea colonies were to be given to the Allies (mainly to France and Britain, with Japan taking over a German colony in China). The ramifications of this treaty were many. The German public felt that they were betrayed by their own government. They have not, after all, in technical terms, lost to the Allies. It was but an armistice. Yet, the allies took it to mean a total surrender and unfairly forced the German government then to accept the treaty as a defeated nation without any negotiating power would. The resulting economic hardship caused by the treaty (remember that Germany had to pay reparations even with its economy in tatters and a large part of its industries taken over by France) was tremendous. Social and economic conditions in Germany immediately after the war were appalling. As it has always been the case in history, such conditions breed extremists. It was thus, out of these ashes, that Adolf Hitler rose to power; and by channeling the anger caused by the treaty in the German people, steered Germany towards the greatest conflict mankind has ever seen.
It is now possible for us to see the link between the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of Hitler, and the eventual start of the Second World War. However, let us examine the roots of this conflict in even greater detail. Although not the only cause for the 1939-1945 war, it is certainly fair to say that the Treaty of Versailles was chief among other causes. And, while Britain, and especially the United States, had other purposes in mind besides punishing Germany, it cannot also be doubted that France, who pushed the hardest for the treaty, had in its mind, punishing Germany as the main purpose. Such an intention, can ultimately, be traced back to the inability of the French people and government then to forgive the Germans. One might, of course, argue and question if forgiveness on that magnitude is possible. The answer, I believe, is yes. Incredibly difficult, but possible as I have commented in Nat's blog. Here is an excerpt from that comment:'
I don't think that there are any 'precise, specific conditions for forgiveness'. Quite on the contrary, I believe that there are no conditions for forgiveness; because it was never intended for us to judge, only to forgive. Yes, it is true that heinous crimes have been committed by megalomaniacs bent on genocide and that we, who were not their victims, will never be able to fully comprehend the horror of the crimes in their entirety. Yet, forgiveness, even of such a magnitude is possible. Incredibly difficult, but possible as Eva Kor, a Holocaust survivor, has shown the world. I doubt if I could do the same, and I pray that I should never be so tested. Nevertheless, the point remains that forgiveness on such a magnitude is possible. If someone, who has gone through what is arguably the most traumatic experience anyone can live through, is able to forgive her perpetrators, how much more than, should we forgive the 'lesser' sins that others do unto us without conditions? Furthermore, who are we indeed, to judge others? For we are not like God who truly knows the hearts of everyone. Who are we to judge others when we do not fully understand the minds of men? Who are we to judge, when we ourselves are guilty too of wrongdoing in one way or another? Yes, in this imperfect world that we live in, a system of law and justice has to be put in place so that order and society can exist. Yet, I doubt that God has ever intended for us to judge. If He indeed has, Jesus would never have told his disciples to, if someone struck them on the right cheek, to turn to him the other also. Or indeed, 'to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'. No, it has always been His will for us to forgive, just like how Jesus told Peter to forgive not just seven times, but seventy seven/seventy times seven times. With regards to our personal moral values then, I do believe that forgiveness should be without conditions.'
Assuming that forgiveness on such a magnitude is indeed humanly possible, one can then see how The Great War could have been avoided if forgiveness had prevailed. Had forgiveness prevailed over vengeance in the French government in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles would not have been so harsh on the Germans; consequently, social conditions after 1918 in Germany would have been milder, and the rise of extremists like Hitler could have been prevented. Had the Germans been not pushed into such a tight corner, Hitler would never be able to garner the support which he enjoyed (it should be noted here that aside from the public, Hitler also had important support from rich industrialists who wouldn't have been much affected had the treaty been less vicious) and perhaps, World War II can be avoided. Of course, these assumptions are, for all practical purposes, only assumptions. It would be impossible for us to predict with certainty whether a more benign Treaty of Versailles will truly prevent World War II, but I think it is fair to say that had forgiveness prevailed, a major cause of World War II would have been removed. As an aside, it is ironic to note that the French's inability to forgive the Germans, had to a very large extent, resulted in their annexation by the Germans in 1940.
Moving on to more recent history, the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is yet another violent conflict which could have been resolved into a peaceful one had there been more forgiveness on both parties. It is important to note here that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a messy one with many issues to consider, and that plain forgiveness isn't going to resolve all its issues. However, I believe that had forgiveness prevailed, continued violence could have been prevented. Before I go any further however, some background information is required. At the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, is the creation of the state of Israel in what was essentially an Arab land before 1947. Of course, it hadn't always belonged to the Arabs. In fact, it did used to be under Jewish rule, but that had been thousands of years ago, and the land had since changed its rulers many times. However, for the last hundreds of years, the land had been under Arab rule with Jews there being a minority. The root of the problem can perhaps, be traced, surprisingly, to Russia. Anti-semitism was rife in Russia during the 19th century where a large majority of Jews resided. They were forced to live in certain areas, and a law was passed for the conscription of young Jewish children. I write 'children', because young children, as young as 8, were forced into military service then; and it was 'more or less a death sentence'. Things worsen for the Jews in 1881 after Tsar Alexander II was assassinated. A wave of anti-Semitism swept Russia, and Russian peasants went on a rampage that left the Jews reeling in shock. In an effort to keep this post short (yes, I know that it is already rather long), I would not go into further details. However, it should be noted that the Jews endured terrible conditions while in Russia, and it was that event which sparked talks of creating a safe haven for Jews. That idea was soon to be called Zionism, and the idea of a safe haven soon became an idea of an independent Jewish state. Meanwhile, Jews were leaving Russia for Palestine simply to get out of the terrible conditions that they were living in. Not all who left Russia headed for Palestine though, there were other destinations too. Back then, the main focus was simply to get out of Russia. The thought of a Jewish state back in the land of their forefathers had yet to take shape. However, the plight of the Jews in Russia gave impetus to that idea (anti-semitism was not confined only to Russia. In fact, it appeared to be widespread. However, it was in Russia that the Jews endured the worst treatment), and before long, a sympathetic journalist, Theodor Herzl, started to help champion the idea of Zionism. The issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considerably more complicated than what has been written so far, due to, in no small part, Britain's meddling at the end of the first World War. Great Britain, which had not given up its colonial ambitions at the end of the first World War, made many hokum agreements with the Arabs during the first World War in an attempt to establish 'spheres of influences' there after the Ottoman Turks were overthrown at the end of the war. On paper however, the Arabs were to help the allies by rebelling against the Ottoman Empire which was a member of the Central Powers, and in return, the British were to help the Arabs gain independence at the end of the war. Also, in an attempt to allay the fears of the French, they made contradicting agreements between their two nations as to which part of Middle East they would take control over after the war. To make things even more complicated, the British, in an effort to win the support of influential Russian and American Jews, made further agreements with the Zionist movement as well. It was beneficial for the British to do so, as they needed the Russian Jews to help keep Russia, which was wavering and about to pull out of the war at that time, in the war and the American Jews, to convince the United States to join the war on the Allies side. The Zionist Federation was subsequently given the support of the British government to establish a 'national home for the Jewish people' (Balfour Declaration) in Palestine. The result of all these agreements was a complication which up till this day, has yet to be resolved. At the end of the first World War, the League of Nation was born out of American President Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points. Under the covenant of the League of Nation, the Middle Eastern territories that were soon capable of independence were to be given a choice of their mandatory power which was supposed to guide them to independence. A commission was sent to understand the wishes of the Palestine people. However, the commission which indicated the preference of the Palestine people to have the Americans as the mandatory power never made it to the Paris Peace Conference where it was decided that Britain should take on the responsibility of the mandatory power. Britain, which did not then believed in President Woodrow Wilson's belief to give independence to those territories, wanted to maintain a continued presence. As a result, it continued playing its games of appeasement between the Arabs and the Jews, in what would be a massive juggling act. The juggling soon proved to be too difficult however, and violence eventually broke out in the form of rioting in which Arabs, Jews, and British forces were killed. Some of the worst attacks were perpetrated by the Arabs who often killed unarmed and old Jews then. Sadly, that was the start of a score which has yet to be settled. After the Holocaust in World War II, it became more apparent than ever to the Jews that if they were to live freely and safely in this world, they needed to have a state of their own. The Allied nations, after having liberating the many concentration camps in Germany, were sympathetic to say the least. Proposals of setting up a Jewish state in their historical homeland of Palestine (note that Palestine is the name of that region where Israel is now back then) started going around. After much diplomatic lobbying, the UN General Assembly (the League of Nation having being dismantled), in 1947, finally decided to partition Palestine (in the sense of the region), to form a Jewish state. Once again, do note that I have greatly summarised a lot of events that took place so far in an attempt to decrease the length of this post. However, this is the general gist of what happened.
What happened next was civil war in the region of Palestine. The Arabs were understandably outraged and the Jews, having had enough of centuries of ill treatment, fought for their survival and right to exist. This time, there were no international forces to prevent the bloodshed and both Jewish and Arabic blood flowed freely. Brutality reigned. After 6 months of chaos, the Jewish forces established control within their UN designated territory, and on 14th May 1948, declared the state of Israel to be independent. Ever since then, the region has been in a perpetual state of unrest, if not violence. As a summary, almost immediately after the declaration of independence, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan invaded Israel. By the end of the war in 1949, Israel emerged not only victorious, but larger too. Other wars would follow with the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, the Attrition war from 1967 to 1970, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the first Intifada from 1987 to 1991, the second Intifada from 2000-2003, and the second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Altogether, this implies an average of a war every 6 years. The human cost has been terribly high, but had everyone been more forgiving right from the start, continued violence could have been prevented.
While forgiveness alone would not have prevented the initial conflict which was sparked off by the injustice that the Arabs felt and the Israeli's desire for a safe haven, it would have bought the region time to defuse tensions, and hopefully, a better chance at a permanent peace. It would be foolishly optimistic to hope that forgiveness can solve all the problems, but it would stop the hatred and continual spate of violence so characteristic of the conflict. What perhaps are most sorely needed in this conflict are grace, compassion and magnanimity. It cannot be doubted that both sides are almost equally guilty of the bloodshed, with some being caused by overzealous Zionist ambitions, and others, by Arab leaders with ulterior motives of their own. The grievances of both peoples are many, and the list can go on forever. But if peace is to reign, one side must have the courage to desire it enough to go to extreme means. By extreme means, I do not mean the taking of extremely violent actions. I mean extremely peaceful, docile action. One side, must have the magnanimity to first forgive the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of the other, and then the compassion to understand the wrongs that the other side have endured. And in understanding the very real difficulties that both sides have, make a compromise. The very nature of the word 'compromise' means that one has to willingly make concessions, even at the expense of oneself. It is never easy to make concessions at the expense of oneself, but that is why more than just forgiveness, compassion is required. Compassion is that which will allow one to give at the expense of oneself. Also, in connection with the need to forgive, I believe that if we were to stop trying to administer our version of justice, peace would have a far easier time trying to reign over violence. As I have stated in my comment in Nat's blog above, I do not think that God has ever intended for us to judge. And history often shows, that whenever we attempt to implement our version of justice, massive bloodshed is often next to follow. The two examples in which I have listed above are proof enough. In the case of the World Wars, France's attempt to implement its justice on Germany after the first World War, to a very large extent, contributed to the start of the second World War. And in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Arabs' desire to see justice being done resulted in the 1948 and Yom Kippur War. The Israelis' version of justice resulted in two Lebanon invasions, and there were many attempts at justice by commoners in the form of revenge killing during the Intifadas. Of course, there were also conflicts that were not motivated by revenge, but by other motives ranging from greed to survival. The presence of forgiveness and the subsequent lack in judgement in those cases then, would do little to prevent the conflicts. But had forgiveness prevailed and our miserable attempts at justice not gone forward, I think it is fair to say that the world would have seen less violent conflicts than what it has seen thus far.
posted by Jun Yi at 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home