Continuing on the subject of ethics and
moral choices, let us think if war is a beneficial option. As a case in point,
we shall consider Israel – a nation constantly at war. Israel is a country many
hate to love and love to hate. Some Christians hate Israel! These are often
ardent supporters of the notion that the Israelis have been unjustly awarded
occupation of their homeland by the UN.
If the Israelis were not given the land
for habitat, the Christian animosity against Israel would be nonexistent. If Israeli
occupation is reasonable, the Israelis and the UN ought not to be blamed, and
the Christians are being unreasonable in their animosity towards Israel.
Conversely, if Israeli occupation is unjust, Israelis and the UN have erred,
and the Christian animosity could be considered reasonable.
May the following questions lead us into
a conclusion. First, are the Jews a legitimate race? The answer is an
uncomplicated YES. Unlike other races such as Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and
Philistines that were either destroyed or merged into another culture to lose
their identity,1 the Jewish race survives to this day.
Second, ‘where were the Jews before they
converged into their homeland?’ An
undisputable answer is that they were in other parts of the world - America,
Germany, Russia, Sweden...
Third, ‘why did the Jews disperse to the
various parts of the world?’ Biblical and extra-biblical history affirm that
the Jews lost possession of their homeland due to the Roman, Byzantine, Arab,
Crusaders, Mamluk, and Ottoman conquests, hence had to disperse.
The Jews indeed lived in their homeland
before the Roman conquest. Prior to the Roman conquest, the timeline of Jewish
history was:
1.
Exodus from Egypt
2.
Settlement of the Israelites in Israel.
3.
Establishment of Jewish monarchy with Jerusalem as capital (King Saul to King Solomon).
The first temple built in Jerusalem by King Solomon.
4.
United Israel divides into Northern (Israel) and Southern (Judah) Kingdoms.
5.
Israel crushed by Assyrians and Judah by Babylonians. Jerusalem and the first
temple destroyed, and Jews exiled.
6.
Many Jews return from exile during Persian and Hellenistic periods; the temple rebuilt.
7.
Israel suffers further conquests; Jews exiled.
Although the Jews were exiled to
different parts of the world, they began to immigrate into their homeland
during the Ottoman rule. In 1909, Tel Aviv – an all-Jewish city - was founded.
Given these facts, one can deduce that:
1.
The Jews are a race with a homeland from as early as the 13th – 12th
century BC/BCE. The Jewish race survives to this day, maintaining its national
identity. (Israel was rechristened to Palestine in 5 BC.2)
2.
The Jews were exiled to various parts of the world due to foreign conquests,
but they returned in parts even before the UN legitimized Israel’s homeland in
1948.
3.
Therefore, the Jewish claim to Palestine is not utterly outrageous as some Christians
propose, but vastly reasonable and legitimate. The decision of the United
Nations, to grant Israelis the land, was reasonable and credible.
“If
the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more conflict, but if
Israelis put down their weapons down there would be no more Israel.” 3 If this quote is valid, we concede
Israel’s right to defend herself against any aggression. Alternately, there is
a possibility that the UN erred in awarding the land to Israel (should be
substantiated through objectively credible evidences). This presents a situation
of an aggressor and a defender. So we ask, ‘Is there morality in war?’ Can war
be justified (Just War) or is “Pacifism” (no violence in a war) the only answer
to peace in the world?
The first existential reality is the
presence of evil in this world (all forms of unjust aggression that destroys people
and societies rather irreparably). When
evil is existent, do we remain quiet or oppose? To what extent are we to oppose
evil?
In case of a communal violence, if armed
police are present on the scene, should they be pacifistic and allow the
carnage or should they curtail the evil aggression even if it warrants
elimination of evil elements? This situation is a no-brainer, I vote for the armed
police to use their weapon. Translating this into a context of national
security, ‘how should one nation respond to an evil neighbor’s war against it?’
Should the defending nation remain pacifistic to allow the evil nation to maraud
and massacre or should it defend itself at the cost of a few or many human
lives? Once again, I vote for an adequate defense than being pacifistic.
Let us consider another case in point
for the purpose of examining pacifism and the Just War theory. In June 1967,
Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. These
nations had amassed their troops on the Israeli borders. Based on sight and intelligence
that these nations were out to destroy, Israel destroyed the Egyptian air force
and moved into the Golan Heights (held by Syria) and the West Bank (held by
Jordan).When aggression is evidenced by military amassment, a preemptive strike
is a better option, for it prevents loss of lives from the defending nation.
A conflict between two pure and
righteous entities is not an existential reality, as both entities will abstain
from destruction. In conflicts, we observe a lesser and a greater evil, or
shall we say, lesser and a greater good. In such cases, one would prefer lesser
evil or greater good. While determining the lesser evil or the greater good,
people disagree and a conflict ensues. This is predominantly due to
subjectification of a latent or an obsessive bias intrinsic to an individual.
Permit me to contextualize this thought.
When Christians think on Israel, they could
reason through dispensational or covenant theology (Replacement theology /
Supersessionism). The former espouses
Israel and the church as distinct entities, and the latter replaces Israel with
the church. But these doctrines are associated with specific methods of
biblical hermeneutics. The dispensationalists adopt literal hermeneutics and
the covenant theologians allegorize the prophetic passages. Thus, we sense a
complex web where one leads to another – literal hermeneutics leads to
Dispensationalism, which leads to supporting Israel unequivocally.
I have attempted to investigate this
subject by scrutinizing Israel from a non-theological standpoint, to determine
if there is reasonability in the Israeli claim to their homeland. Through a
factual examination, I understand Israel’s claim to be reasonable. If Israel
employs unjust violence to pursue her valid and reasonable claim, I disagree
with their modus operandi.
Finally, does a Just War betray the Lord
Jesus Christ’s teachings on love and turning the other cheek? Is the Lord a
Pacifist? Of course, the Lord advocates pacifism in many contexts. However, one
should diligently observe the deeds of an immutable God in the past, present
and the future. The Bible does not teach absolute pacifism, for we are called
to love good and hate evil (Romans 12: 9). The Bible narrates numerous contexts
where God used war to eliminate evil. In fact, God designed our immune system
to constantly wage war against any alien intrusions so to keep us healthy. Thus
the following can be reasonably postulated:
1. There is evil in this world.
2. Presence of evil posits a source of
evil, namely Satan.
3. God eliminated evil through the means
of war (E.g.
Deuteronomy 7).
4. A holy and a Just God will eliminate
Satan/evil permanently
(Revelation 19 & 20).
5. Pacifism posits non-violence, but the
Lord, in eliminating Satan forever, will wage war (Revelation 19: 11bff).
6. Thus, Christ, the second person of
the blessed Godhead, does not posit absolute Pacifism.
If an individual preaches absolute
Pacifism, he ought to answer many questions, of which some are: would he allow
a violent mob to massacre and loot the innocent? If the pacifist responds in
affirmative, does he really love his helpless society, so to obey God’s commands,
or is he merely in love with his pacifistic ideology?
As individual Christians we are not to
battle evil with arms. If
that were the case, our perpetual task will be militancy against evil. Just War,
from a nation’s perspective, is acceptable only when there is an evil/unjust
aggression involved that strives to destroy the sanctity of lives. Just War
should also involve: just cause, just intent, last resort activity, formal
declaration of a war, limited objectives, proportionate use of force, and
respecting noncombatant immunity.
Here is my conclusion:
1. The award of homeland to Israel was a
reasonable and a legitimate decision, so Christians’ hatred for Israel is an exaggeration.
However, any nation’s (Israel included) use of unjust violence is to be opposed.
2. The Bible does not teach absolute
Pacifism. A nation can defend itself from any unjust/evil aggression.
3. Individual Christians are not to
battle evil with arms, but should cooperate with the State and be law abiding
citizens.
References:
1 http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/existence-of-the-jewish-people-today-is-objective-evidence-that-the-bible-is-true/
2 According to some views. Another view
states that Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name to Palestine.
3 Quote ascribed to anonymity, as far as
I am aware of.
