Sunday, October 18, 2015

Four Principles of Conflict

1 – Violence against civilians is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it: Israelis or Palestinians, ISIS beheadings or American drones – it's always wrong. And rationalizations - “we weren't targeting civilians” or “our oppression made us do it” - are only lame excuses.

2 – No one is completely wrong, and no one is completely right. We can't divorce actions from the conditions that give rise to them. Saying “don't write the second paragraph” is an attempt to cut off understanding the conditioning of your adversary at a point at which you can feel virtuous about your actions – but no one is blameless, and no one deserves to feel virtuous. If we don't make an effort to understand the other side's conditioning we'll never achieve peace.

3 – If you say you want peace but you won't work for justice, all you want is quiet, and you won't get peace or justice.

4 – As Rabbi Gandhi said: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”



1 comment:

  1. 1 – Violence against civilians is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it: Israelis or Palestinians, ISIS beheadings or American drones – it's always wrong. And rationalizations - “we weren't targeting civilians” or “our oppression made us do it” - are only lame excuses.

    At first I was going to say ALL violence is wrong, whether civilians or military or police . . . Then I thought, “wrong” is a fuzzy category. Maybe it is a continuum like like bad-worse-worst. I think I prefer the a mantra like, the least violence necessary, or reducing violence is a goal to be pursued . . .

    2 – No one is completely wrong, and no one is completely right. We can't divorce actions from the conditions that give rise to them. Saying “don't write the second paragraph” is an attempt to cut off understanding the conditioning of your adversary at a point at which you can feel virtuous about your actions – but no one is blameless, and no one deserves to feel virtuous. If we don't make an effort to understand the other side's conditioning we'll never achieve peace.

    Point 2 sort of makes my case for my comments on point 1: wrong is a continuum, as is virtue. And trying to understand our motives and the motives of everyone in a particular situation is a worthy goal and may be a good means to good ends.

    3 – If you say you want peace but you won't work for justice, all you want is quiet, and you won't get peace or justice.

    If it fits on a bumper sticker, it must be true? More words, more examples equals more wisdom? Quiet may be a worthy goal in itself, but not through gag orders or censorship. Can we get to justice without judgment? Doesn’t judgment imply punishment and some level of coercion and therefore violence? How can judgment not trigger retaliation, and therefore disturb the peace, and destroy the temporary quiet?

    4 – As Rabbi Gandhi said: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

    See response to point 3: is proportional “just war” worse than “asymmetric warfare”? Is it really true that returning love for hate actually “works”?

    ReplyDelete