We Must Learn to Identify and Counter the Discourse that Justifies Violence on Any Side of a Conflict, Especially when Expressed through Religious and Ritual Justification

By Jesse Wheeler

News

It is not difficult to find Israeli or pro-Israel justifications for violence, often extreme, within the Israeli and international press. The following are but a sample:

Fighting Amelek Again | IDF Ordered to Shoot Down Passenger Planes to Kill Arafat | Israel’s Sports Minister Posts Video with Genocidal Chants by Fans | Chief Rabbi: Gentiles Can’t Live in the Land of Israel | Ethnic Cleansing Justified by Jewish Law | Israeli Lawmaker Tells BBC He’d Put Ahed Tamimi “In The Hospital” by Kicking Her Face | “We Should Exact a Price” from Ahed Tamimi “In the Dark,” Israeli Journalist Says | Why These Palestinians Are Desperate to Be Declared “Clean” by Israel

Within the above one finds justifications for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and worst of all, child imprisonment and rape. Perhaps most insidiously, amid a barrage of articles referencing the “all but inevitable” coming war with Lebanon, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently penned the following:

“If Hezbollah and Iran think they can place rocket launchers in densely populated Lebanese and Syrian villages and towns — and expect that Israel will not take them out if it requires large collateral civilian casualties — they are as wrong today as they were in 2006.

[In 2006] Israel’s Air Force — without mercy or restraint — pounded Lebanese infrastructure, Hezbollah offices and military targets in the southern suburbs of Beirut — not to kill civilians [sic] but not to be deterred by them, either, if they were nested amid Hezbollah weapons or headquarters.”

“Yes, it was ugly and brutal,” say Israeli planners, “but it worked. This is not Scandinavia […] Sometimes only crazy can stop crazy” (Cf. Thomas Friedman Justifies Slaughter of Arab Civilians by “Crazy” Israel).

However, it cannot be emphasized enough that blame in this case points in multiple directions. During a recent gathering in Lebanon, Hezbollah had lifted a banner which can only be read as having genocidal intent. The text of the banner stated, “The objective is clear and precise: removing Israel from existence.” A Lebanese contact, and longtime advocate for Palestinian rights, felt forced to respond in desperation: “How can the purpose of ‘The Party of God’ (Hezb-Allah) – or any mature organization for that matter – be the annihilation of ‘the other’?” In addition, another contact responded cavalierly in a recent discussion about Israel: “Of course, the Jews won’t stop until they have taken over the whole world.” Similar examples include:

The Iranian Regime on Israel’s Right to Exist | Jewish Student Group Hit With Vandalism: “Death to Israel” | Poll: 93% of Palestinians Hold Anti-Jewish Beliefs | 74% of People in the MENA Hold Anti-Jewish Beliefs | Iranian Army Chief: We Will Turn Tel Aviv and Haifa into Dust

Analysis

Discourses surrounding the Palestine-Israel conflict are no stranger to “dehumanizing” or what might be appropriately labeled “justifying” language – rhetorical strategies used to validate acts of violence against another. Though naturally tempting to downplay such statements made by those with whom one most naturally identifies while highlighting those of the other, it must be recognized that blame points clearly in many directions.

The chosen phraseology found above speaks for itself. Friedman’s notion of civilians being “nested” like insects in Beirut’s southern suburbs, a densely populated metropolitan neighborhood, is callous and absurd. To say violence is justified because “this is not Scandinavia” is old school orientalism at its worst – as if Lebanon, a tiny country famed for its top universities and miniskirts as much as its Islamist militias, is crawling with “crazies” ready to strike at a moment’s notice. The language employed implies that no one in the region can truly be innocent. Contra Friedman the disproportionate civilian carnage is precisely the point, according to the Dahiya Doctrine (Cf. IDF Plans to Use Disproportionate Force in Next War). In the words of former Israeli minister Moshe Ya’lon in 2015:

“[W]e are going to hurt Lebanese civilians to include kids of the family. We went through a very long deep discussion … we did it then, we did it in [the] Gaza Strip, we are going to do it in any round of hostilities in the future.”

Such speech is not only bigoted but also counterproductive, working at cross-purposes with the pursuit of justice and human flourishing in the region. Recently, the fruit of such discourses is seen in the ability to murder unarmed protesters with live ammunition or stab random passersby.

Violence is often understood as inhabiting the realm of the irrational, the aberrant. So, we dehumanize. Recent research, however, seems to point in an additional direction. In this view violence is not irrational, but rationally motivated by one’s communal ethical system. It is the perceived humanity of the other which make them morally culpable. So, one becomes rightly subject to violent reprimand upon the violation of an ethical or moral norm. “Violence is intentional moral action.” In this way great violence, great evil, has been enacted in the name of justice, order and peace. Situations of intractability, as we see in the Middle East, result when two or more cultural-ethical systems – systems of interpreting reality and defining justice – come into significant conflict. Learning therefore to identify and effectively counter justifying discourses within the context of one’s own convictional community becomes of paramount importance, a prophetic act.

Theological Reflections

Despite their ubiquity, such discourses of justification must be fervently repudiated irrespective which “side” one most naturally empathizes. To do otherwise is to bear false witness against our sisters and brothers in the human family, bearers each of the Divine Image. But, it is ultimately Jesus Christ who provides for us the tools to stand firm in the face of our own community gone wrong. When asking us to leave our sacrifice at the altar and seek reconciliation, he grants us the ability to challenge religious and ritual justifications for violence. When asking us to turn the other check, Christ removes from us the shame of forgoing retaliation. In the command to love our enemy, we are set free of the narrow confines of ethno-religious identity for the inclusion of all within the reach of our empathy and compassion. In removing the planks from our eyes, we perceive the sin from which we ourselves need to repent – deconstructing our rationalizations for hate in the process. In Christ’s words and example, we are gifted the moral hooks upon which to anchor ourselves when we find our brethren swept away by justifying discourses and bloodlust.