God's Politics - Jim Wallis blog, faith blog, religion, christian, christianity, politics, values

In the Washington Post and throughout the blogosphere, debates rage about the recent spate of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, each side condemning with righteous indignation the sins of the other and proclaiming their own side's innocence. In a recent Post letters section, for example, Yaffa Klugerman wrote, "I was shocked to read [the] assertion that the murder of eight students in a Jerusalem seminary ... was reminiscent of a 1994 attack by Baruch Goldstein, a Jew who shot a group of Palestinians at prayer" (killing 29 Muslims and wounding another 150).

Another writer decried the Post's lack of balance in putting the seminary killings on page one and having no mention at all of an attack a few days later in which Israelis killed five Gazans. (A short news item in the April issue of Sojourners magazine reported on Hamas rocket attacks that sparked reprisal raids into Gaza by Israeli Defense Forces, but the magazine went to print before the killings at the seminary.)

For those seeking to justify their next round of violence, there will always be another provocation to point to; revenge and retaliation will never end anything, but merely create the rationale for the next bloody attack. And both sides can legitimately condemn acts of inhumanity committed by the other. The only way to stop the deadly spiral is to stop – to recognize that all life, on both sides of the conflict, is sacred, and that the proper, humane response to suffering inflicted even on one's enemy is mourning, not vengeance. Until then, violence will continue to beget violence, and hopes for peace in the Middle East will remain a pipe dream.

Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners magazine.

Comments

i mourn with you, my brotha, for each and all on both sides. may we join GOD in bringing rest to that weary land.

Posted by: melvin bray | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM

Remember (and it is a shame to have to point this out) that the response Jesus commanded (and the one he modeled) to violence was complete non resistance. In a world where power and status are all important this is so outrageous that we cannot bear it, thus the endless justifications for state violence from self-described Christians.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | March 27, 2008 9:12 PM

Dear Jim,

I agree with you. The goal of peace hardly anyone opposes. The means/process to peace is the issue.

I suggest we begin by loving and then listening to those with whom we disagree.
Secondly, as you indicate, take serious Jesus who says love our enemies and do good to those who cause us harm.
I suspect this challenge would be easier to meet if we understood Jesus when He said He is the vine and we are all the branches. I believe He was saying we are all ONE not only in Him, but with one another. Hence, when we hurt another, I believe He is saying we hurt ourselves. In understanding this we would see it is in our actual self interest not to hurt, but to assist each other. Appealing to our self interest is the process/means by which we can achieve peace and it needs to be perceived as in the self interest of all.
Blessings,
Harry J Bury

Posted by: Harry J Bury | March 28, 2008 12:08 AM

On the ides of march 2003 I carried a sign in a protest against the war that read, violence begets violence, I had no idea how right I was.

Posted by: Oak | March 28, 2008 10:34 AM

Violence always breeds violence. One criticism of "an eye for an eye" is that at some point, everyone becomes blind. We can take this metaphor further to point at that when the violence cycles out of control, everyone has become blind. And when other nations who espouse violence are trying to participate in the dialogue, well, that's just "the blind leading the blind." We need new vision and new leaders who can bring the ideas of grace and forgiveness to the dialogue.
In my discussions on this I acknowledge that yes, the people perpetuating the violence have a grievance. But that doesn't make the violence right. Addressing the grievances is part of the solution, but in a non-violent way.
BTW- Don- I don't think Jesus would advocate non-resistance. I think He advocated non-VIOLENT resistance. Read MLK Jr. "Ways of Meeting Oppresion" for more on this difference.

Posted by: lomagirl | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM

lomagirl,
Perhaps Jesus would have gone for non-violent resistance, but "led as a lamb to the slaughter" and turning the other cheek don't sound like any resistance. He did, on the other hand, go after people using religion to leverage power and wealth with a whip. I am partly attacking the hypocrisy of people who pick and choose which part of the Bible to take literally.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | March 28, 2008 6:44 PM

But in the end, wasn't being led to the slaughter the ultimate resistance? Isn't turning the other cheek resisting the position of violence that the attacker is trying to put you in? Being non-violent isn't the safest path to take if you value your life. (I don't know what to say about the attack on the money changers in the temple. I wasn't there- do you think he actually got anyone with that whip?)

Posted by: lomagirl | April 5, 2008 9:38 PM

Beyond Eye for an Eye (by Jim Rice)

Comments

Post a Comment