Gaza: 'Enough of Blood and Tears. Enough!'

So... question for you: Who is responsible to respond with violence in the face of a threat?

I suppose my answer would be those with the power to do so and who have been entrusted with that power from a legitimate source. Take the leaders of Israel (the US for that matter). It is a terrible responsibility but still a responsibility.

It would not be materially differnt than if I had a stick and came upon you being beaten by a couple thugs. If I have the power to intervene, at some point, I have the obligation to intervene. Perhaps there is a non-violent way out of the situation that does not involve you being beaten to death. Perhaps not.

Am I free to beat the other guy to death when I could have shown restraint and save you? No. Am I free to recklessly endager others in the process? No. My moral obligations in the face intervening are very real.

International war is wildy more complex than my self-serving example. But I think the basic principle would be the same.

What Palestinians seem to need is a leader on the order of an Anwar Sadat; someone who is willing to sacrifice oneself politically and -- unfortunately, ultimately with his life -- to have the strength to come to the table. Israel needs to reciprocate in kind. (Where art though Menachem) Is there too much hatred and bad blood? Probably. But Israel will never achieve peace and security through it's current strategy. And Hamas is hell-bent on anhilating (sp) a whole culture of people. I reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where they play War and both end up hitting each other with a rubber dart at the same time, one in the tummy the other in the head. Calvin says "kind of a dumb game, isn't it?"

Blessed are the peacemakers......

This whole nonviolence produces nonviolence concept is quite interesting to me. And it doesn't match up with real life. Even back in grade school, the bully stayed the bully until somebody popped him in the nose.

I have a cop friend who recently caught a rapist. In the fight that broke out in the capture, he tasered him and also broke his nose. Should he have just had "dialogue" with him? Does anyone seriously think that would work?

In my old neighborhood a woman had her home broken into while she was there and she was tied up as 2 hoods robbed her and threatened to kill her. If you were there...would you use force to stop it? Or let her be abused?

When Eve ate the fruit, Adam was right there. Watching it happen. He never intervened. He failed his wife with his passivity. Unfortunately, there are times to intervene and there are times to fight.

Amen!

Yet what else stops genocide, to terroristic killing of innocents? War and killing prevented more innocents from dying in death camps. Even today, impotent UN peacekeepers stand by and witness killings in sub-Saharan Africa.

Have been thinking of our attacks on Germany also NMRod in regards to this situation . I believe the U2 rocket killed about 3000 English citizens . With about 1000 missles . When we bombed Hamburg for instance we killed about 40,000 germans including women and children The U2 Rocket was assembled underground actually by slave labor , mostly Jews , the number of Jews who died making these undergrond bunkers and such who died were more then all the citiens killed by the U2 rockets . But interestingly France and other nations did not condemn our actions , things are different when your political allies change in regards to your humanity it appears .

But do not expect too many people called by Jesus going to the peace table between Israel and Gaza . If you look here we can't handle a blog too well and that disagreement seems more based on politics of Ceasar .

Cooler- Your long answer contained within it what I was looking for, that it's the governing bodies according to Romans 13 that are responsible for retaliation. My point is that the Church is not. We are supposed to be ministers of reconciliation, as citizens of a Higher Kingdom. There is no such thing as a "Christian duty to support the war effort" just as there's no "Christian duty to vote."

And that's where you and I part company: I firmly believe we should "pick and choose" what we will and won't support in terms of public policy and international conflict, and very consciously and deliberately so. If I take the imperatives of Romans 12 & 13 literally, then every nation is authorized by God to protect it's people. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to choose sides- except in dealing with the oppressed and suffering, which God tells us is his concern everywhere in scripture. And as far as Israel is concerned, if you take Noam Chomsky's view that Israel is little more than an offshore U.S. military base that serves the function of a "cop on the beat ( "Fateful Triangle", which has recently been updated was recommended to me), then you really don't see much point in getting behind the U.S. elites efforts to empower the most right-wing, militaristic Israelis since the 1967 war and occupation in order to control the remaining fossil fuel supplies in the Middle East.Regardless of our criticisms of Hamas, which I think are justified, it is our own crimes that we need to address first, including our military, economic and political support for our proxy (Israel). Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.

Ciao for now~!
http://members.soundclick.com/kevinwayne
http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne
http://kevinwaynesongs.com

So... question for you: Who is responsible to respond with violence in the face of a threat?

You are right. We have parted ways. Picking and choosing what moral failures we challenge or the ones for which we are outraged diminishes our moral voice. It is Israel/US's moral failings in their treatment of Palestinians that raises your moral outrage, yet you have no detectable similar outrage at lobbing rockets into Israel (and a throw away comment at the end of your thought doesn't do it). My point is that people of faith would have much more credibility if we were outraged and speaking forcefully to both. It is the choosing that makes the controversy.

Also, another failing that we entertain often is glossing over failures in one area when they diminish our "favored" position. Take commentors who easily champion Israel's right to defend itself against rocket attack but have nothing to say about how they are failing to care for people who's situation they are causing. Or you, you skipped the part about a majority of citizens supporting a party that calls for the abolition of Israel.

We could have much more moral authority as Christians if we were more careful and fair in how we think and speak.

This sounded like shots at you and that is not what I was intending. These discussions are fun.

I suppose my answer would be those with the power to do so and who have been entrusted with that power from a legitimate source. Take the leaders of Israel (the US for that matter). It is a terrible responsibility but still a responsibility.

It would not be materially differnt than if I had a stick and came upon you being beaten by a couple thugs. If I have the power to intervene, at some point, I have the obligation to intervene. Perhaps there is a non-violent way out of the situation that does not involve you being beaten to death. Perhaps not.

Am I free to beat the other guy to death when I could have shown restraint and save you? No. Am I free to recklessly endager others in the process? No. My moral obligations in the face intervening are very real.

International war is wildy more complex than my self-serving example. But I think the basic principle would be the same.

What Palestinians seem to need is a leader on the order of an Anwar Sadat; someone who is willing to sacrifice oneself politically and -- unfortunately, ultimately with his life -- to have the strength to come to the table. Israel needs to reciprocate in kind. (Where art though Menachem) Is there too much hatred and bad blood? Probably. But Israel will never achieve peace and security through it's current strategy. And Hamas is hell-bent on anhilating (sp) a whole culture of people. I reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where they play War and both end up hitting each other with a rubber dart at the same time, one in the tummy the other in the head. Calvin says "kind of a dumb game, isn't it?"

Blessed are the peacemakers......

This whole nonviolence produces nonviolence concept is quite interesting to me. And it doesn't match up with real life. Even back in grade school, the bully stayed the bully until somebody popped him in the nose.

I have a cop friend who recently caught a rapist. In the fight that broke out in the capture, he tasered him and also broke his nose. Should he have just had "dialogue" with him? Does anyone seriously think that would work?

In my old neighborhood a woman had her home broken into while she was there and she was tied up as 2 hoods robbed her and threatened to kill her. If you were there...would you use force to stop it? Or let her be abused?

When Eve ate the fruit, Adam was right there. Watching it happen. He never intervened. He failed his wife with his passivity. Unfortunately, there are times to intervene and there are times to fight.

I think MLK Jr.'s attitude points out the efficacy of nonviolence, which is different from passivity (black churches actually had nonviolence-training workshops). His demonstrations were designed to get white racists to act up and look stupid, which he knew they would, and when their actions were brought to light things began to change. The only reason to use force is in the pursuit of justice (which is why we discipline our children).

You are right. We have parted ways. Picking and choosing what moral failures we challenge or the ones for which we are outraged diminishes our moral voice. It is Israel/US's moral failings in their treatment of Palestinians that raises your moral outrage, yet you have no detectable similar outrage at lobbing rockets into Israel (and a throw away comment at the end of your thought doesn't do it). My point is that people of faith would have much more credibility if we were outraged and speaking forcefully to both. It is the choosing that makes the controversy.

Also, another failing that we entertain often is glossing over failures in one area when they diminish our "favored" position. Take commentors who easily champion Israel's right to defend itself against rocket attack but have nothing to say about how they are failing to care for people who's situation they are causing. Or you, you skipped the part about a majority of citizens supporting a party that calls for the abolition of Israel.

We could have much more moral authority as Christians if we were more careful and fair in how we think and speak.

This sounded like shots at you and that is not what I was intending. These discussions are fun.

Amen!

In World War II, our leaders could have bombed the train tracks in Europe leading to the death camps, but decided not to, despite knowing exactly what was going on in them. This would have stopped the genocide of millions in its tracks. As Eli Wiesel discovered, western leaders hadn't cared a fig for the plight of the Jews and the others.

Further, in Japan, two atomic bombs were dropped upon helpless civilian populations that no longer had a government capable of defending its skies or shores, without a navy or air force, in a mass vaporization of human life carried out for the curiosity of experimentation.

Believing violence is redemptive, all human beings in their depraved condition make it their first choice for resolving conflict.

What we need is people called by Jesus who work on behalf of peace and reconciliation with the same fervency of effort and willingness to sacrifice and die as those who promote violence and war do.