Why Not Just Walk Away?

This is my (now proofread) response to an article (which I can no longer locate) suggesting that all our efforts to make things better in the Middle East simply makes things worse. The author feels that we would actually be doing the people in the Middle East a favor by simply walking away, not to mention the benefits to ourselves. He makes a good case and it is an interesting contribution to the discussion:

Interesting idea, but American domestic politics make abandoning peace efforts in the Middle East impossible. Large segments of the American electorate are intellectually and religiously tied to Israel in a way that is not always understandable of those of us who do not share their obsession. If you do not accept the Bible as infallible, literal, and inerrant; then you can consider such a policy. But if you accept the Bible as those things, then it is clear that Israel is the center of the world. Even while proclaiming that we are a Christian nation and one nation under God and even a blessed nation superior to all others; these voters believe that, biblically, Israel is the only nation that really matters.

I also cannot help but be reminded of the situation in Northern Ireland. Any attempts anyone made to intervene made things  worse, for three centuries of occupation. In fact the US was often accused, with some real justification, of providing essential financial support to the terrorists. It was regarded as an impossible place, as unsolvable a problem as is the Middle East.

I don't think we can simply walk away. We have involved ourselves too deeply. To walk away now would say to the world that when the United States makes agreements we don't really mean them. It would prove that we will maintain our  commitments only so long is convenient for us to give a damn about you. This is a  message we cannot afford to send.  If we cease to be the leader of the world, Russia or China will be happy to take over.

Obviously, much of what we've done in the Middle East has made problems much worse. That's because we've done things which are self-destructive and even stupid. Rather than end all involvement in the Middle East, I suggest we take a more Northern Ireland approach. Peace did not come until both sides were told that they must both make sacrifices and new commitments. The worst thing about the Middle East now is that we always see only one side.  

Americans who support the Palestinians ignore the bitter, even genocidal, hatred of groups like Hamas. Americans who support the Israelis somehow cannot understand the horrors of so many dead Palestinians.  

A more just and fair positioning of American power, with attention paid to both sides as victims and victimizers could make a difference. In any event, it's too late to get out now.

Idle Thoughts -- Hallie's Do's and Don'ts

What does Philip Hallie mean by negative and positive commands? Explain. Do you agree with him that positive commands are harder to live up to than negative commands?

To Hallie negative commands are the do not's. The 10 Commandments of the most frequently used example. They tell you all the things that you should not do.

Even the two which could be seen as positive commands, keep the Sabbath holy and honor your parents, in context really come out more as don't do bad things on the Sabbath and don't do bad things to your parents. I think it is fair to say the entire Decalogue can be regarded as series of negative commandments.

According to Hallie, negative commandments are commandments that are aimed at keeping us away from moral pollution. If you obey negative commands, your hands, and theoretically your soul, will be clean. In this sense, it is rather like a command from a parent who says to his youngster, don't play in the dirt. By staying out of the dirt you will keep your clothes clean.

This is good as far as it goes, but while negative commands prevent you from doing any wrong, they do not lead you to do anything that is good either.

Positive commands on the other hand, are commands that tell you what you should do, not simply what you should avoid doing. Cram.com does an excellent job of explaining them, so I will simply quote from their article below.

-- A POSITIVE ETHIC requires us to be more than decent; it is to be active, even risky in what we do to help others. It is to be, for example, "one's brother's keeper." Or as stated in Isaiah, "defend the fatherless," and "defend the widow." Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan in the Bible.
Positive—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and Negative—“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.” --

So now you have to do something more than just not get dirty, you have to actually go out and work hard to do that which is right. The negative command might tell you not to hurt your neighbor, but a positive command requires you to actually help your neighbor. As we mentioned before, all the prophets in the entire Bible, including Jesus himself, all declare that we must actively work to help the poor and the desperate. Failure to do so is failure to do enough good in this world.

Of course it is much harder to obey a positive command. For a negative command all you have to do is avoid something. This can be a very passive act. A positive command requires you to actually go out and work at something, to accomplish something. It's not enough just to avoid, you must actively seek out and do.

I can't help it be reminded of the story of Jack o'Lantern, which I used to tell the children at my school every Halloween. It is actually an old Irish folk tale. In the story there was a man named Jack. He never did anything bad. He never did anything good. He was just Jack.

In this context you could say that he obeyed all the negative commands, and payed no attention at all to the positive ones.

In the due course of time, Jack died. His soul ascended up to heaven where St. Peter greeted him. St. Peter carefully looked in the book of all those who had done good during their lives and were therefore entitled to enter heaven. He shook his head, looked up at Jack and said, "Sorry m'lad. You've never been good enough to come in here."

Jack was horrified, but there really wasn't any other choice, so he then descended down to hell. There Satan greeted him. Satan carefully looked in the book of all those who had done evil during their lives and were therefore doomed to enter hell. He shook his head, looked up at Jack and said, "Sorry m'lad. You've never been bad enough to come in here."

Jack was outraged. He insisted someone had to take him in somewhere! But St. Peter and Satan were absolutely determined. Jack wasn't listed in either book as having done either good or evil during his life, therefore he was not entitled either enter heaven or hell.

When Jack finally got tired of arguing, he didn't have anywhere else to go, so he returned back to earth. He really hated being a ghost, so he decided he would just have to take over someone else's body. Even as a ghost, Jack had trouble seeing things at night when he was able to be active, so like so many poor people in his day, he carved a lantern out of a huge turnip and put a candle inside. All night long, he wandered the hills flashing his lantern here and there, trying to find some fool who was out late at night so he could steal his body and live again.

Now when the Irish say "o'" they mean "of", so naturally people came to call him Jack o'Lantern. Jack of the lantern, who was doomed to spend all eternity wandering around hoping to catch someone foolish enough to be out at night so that he could steal his body. And all because Jack could never be either good nor bad when he was alive.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Once again we hear that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” In this case it relates to the Middle East -- http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/israeli-group-accuses-palestinians-of-glorifying-terrorists-with-landmark-names/19468717 -- but the comment is universally made and is accepted to reveal a great truth. I disagree.

While is obviously true that what Israelis call a freedom fighter or a terrorist is often the exact opposite what the Palestinians call a freedom fighter or a terrorist, and vice versa, the two are entirely different states of being with different definitions. A freedom fighter is one who struggles to gain what he perceives as justice and, yes, freedom, for his nation or people. “Freedom fighter” describes the purpose of a person’s actions.

“Terrorist” describes the type of action taken by an individual. The purpose of terrorism is to bring about some result; usually political, sometimes moral, by inflicting terror and fear on a target group.

The two terms are clearly not interchangeable. It is entirely possible for a freedom fighter to abjure all terrorist actions. It is also possible for a freedom fighter to embrace terrorism.

I can’t call it extreme focus, since terrorism is always an extreme; but I use the example of a largely defused terrorist/freedom fighter situation to illustrate the case. Consider Ireland. Brutally invaded by the monstrously cruel war criminal, Lord Protector Cromwell, and held in savage bondage for centuries thereafter by the evil empire, Great Britain, Ireland’s people responded by fighting for their freedom. Sometimes they took legitimate and appropriate military action, sometimes they took terrorist action. Often the line between the two became blurred and confused. Nevertheless, the point is clear that one can fight for freedom with or without using the tactics of terrorism.

I have a deep emotional commitment to the cause of Irish freedom. I insist that Ireland must one day unite and become the one nation she justly deserves to be. Yet I condemned the terrorist actions of both the IRA and the various Protestant organizations that for so long caused what the Irish described as “The Troubles”. In other words, I supported the cause while condemning the more extreme tactics.

Consider Gandhi. A freedom fighter to be sure, but can anyone say he is a terrorist?

Note: I use the Irish example because so much progress has been made. a situation which existed in a state of mutual hate and terror/counter terror for centuries has moved to peaceful effort to resolve the issues. Thank you Bill Clinton, Rev. Paisley, and so many more. The impossible happened after 300 years in Ireland, it can happen in the Middle East, but let’s not wait quite so long.