I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture. But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world. There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.
Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war. The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however. It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state. A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others.
If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned. Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition. The Crusades were launched by the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!"). Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels. That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews. The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.
It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose. Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire. The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians.
Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed. It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.
From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza. I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact. Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas. That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.
Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social. Outrage generates outrage. Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response. Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism. What other outrages await us? Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme. The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.
No comments:
Post a Comment