Let us imagine
Pacifism in the Middle East

Behnam Sadeghi
May 17, 2006
iranian.com

Here I will criticize the widely held notion that violence is justified in self-defense.  Another conventional claim is that in a conflict, violence can be directed at military personnel or official/strategic assets of a state (or non-state actor).  Yet I would argue that such violence is typically reprehensible just as targeting ordinary civilians is.  My arguments are intended to apply to typical conflicts (i.e. not exceptional ones; thus the use of force would have been justified to prevent the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide).  I will use the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a case in point.

The citing of self-defense as a justification for violence is ubiquitous, if not universal. It has been used to justify everything from religious terrorism in Egypt, to al-Qaeda’s act of mass-murder on 9/11, to Turk/Kurd violence, to the killings by the Iraqi insurgency, and finally to Palestinian acts of violence.  In fact, it is difficult to think of a conflict where both sides do not use self-defense (or its cousin, preemption) as a justification.  But one must keep in mind a few things:

First, the appeal to “self-defense” is usually not about self-defense in the strict sense.    Take the Palestinians’ stone throwing or shooting at Israeli military personnel.  It is not the case that if they don’t hit the Israelis, they will be shot and killed.  Rather, “self-defense” is normally construed loosely and broadly. The claim is usually that “they” did such-and-such to “us,” and therefore now we should punish “them,” otherwise “they” will do it again.  It is not that “this man is about to shoot me right now, and I should hit him now or I’ll die.”

Second, as we know from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, normally each party to a conflict will be able to cite past acts of aggression perpetrated by the other party.  Each side will readily recite a litany of wrongs to which it is responding. And, usually, each side has grievances that are valid.  A dispute often looks more like “gray vs. gray” than “black vs. white.”  So, then the argument turns to the questions of who “started it first” or who suffered the most.  And while each side argues over the past to prove their status as victims, the violence continues in the present, new atrocities pile up, and suffering and victimization perpetuate.

Third, the cost incurred by so-called “self-defense” in terms of human suffering on both sides is often greater than the (perceived or real) injustices it is meant to address.  The carnage and suffering generated by the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraqi insurgency, and terrorism and war in general, prove that “self-defense” can cause more harm than good.  Violence rarely rectifies perceived or real injustices; instead, it provokes counter-attacks, causing greater suffering, and greater injustice, for all parties concerned.

Fourth, there are alternatives to violence that not only reduce human suffering on both sides, but also are more likely to succeed in bringing about reconciliation.  Some of these non-violent alternatives would not have been effective in the pre-modern period. They have become especially attractive due to features of modernity such as the rise of mass-communication, which has made possible the mobilization of peaceful mass movements and public opinion.  Trust can be established more easily when pressure is applied without bloodshed.  Gandhi and the American civil rights movement proved that political and ethnic conflicts can be resolved peacefully.  The availability of peaceful means of struggle weakens the argument of those who advocate the use of guns. 

The above arguments are formulated on pragmatic grounds. I now wish to make a moral argument based on the essential humanity and equality of all persons.   Suppose that Palestinians and Israelis stop thinking in terms of “us” vs. “them.”  Suppose they think of themselves as one people. I am speaking of a situation where Jews have their own culture and religion, and the Arabs theirs, yet both consider each other as equal partners in one larger community based on their shared humanity and shared trust in G-d. Then their conflict would turn into a family dispute, and family disputes are far more amenable to amicable resolution.

What could things look like if Arabs and Jews thought of themselves as one family?  Let us imagine it for a moment.  Despite their disagreements, they could unilaterally show each other love, be more resilient and compromising in disputes, and even turn the other cheek. Each side would cry for the victims on the other side.  Palestinians could welcome Jewish settlers in Gaza instead of celebrating their departure. The settlers could honor Palestinians, share resources with them, and work with them towards a better future for both. Palestinians could treat Israeli soldiers and settlers with affection rather than shoot at them.  Israel could expand Palestinian rights, help the refugees, and cease military operations. The two communities would compete to exceed each other in benevolence.

The scenario I am advocating may seem hopelessly naïve, and maybe it is.  But think about it:  just as violence has a tendency to escalate and snowball, unilateral acts of kindness tend to be disarming, inviting further kindness.  If you genuinely respect, honor, and love someone, then they are likely to reciprocate. 

How can third parties contribute to peace?  They can encourage negotiations instead of supporting one side against the other. Certainly, supporting groups that target innocents in pizzerias, restaurants, and buses does not advance the cause of peace. In addition, third parties ought to help the victims of the conflict on both sides: Palestinian refugees, Jewish settlers who were forced out of their homes in Gaza, and families of those killed.

Gestures of unilateral kindness may lead to greater trust, to larger gestures of good will, and eventually to reconciliation.  Might then one day Arabs and Jews come to see one another as their own flesh and blood?