|
|
|
In 1953, people who hated violence could feel relieved. The Communist regime in China and President Eisenhower together wanted an end to the fighting and they negotiated it. And it worked out okay -- better some of us would say than if either side had forced a fight to a bitter end, as some had wanted. For South Korea, it helped to launch what some would call an economic miracle.
In late November, 2008, a group from Pakistan launched an attack into Mumbai, India, killing at least 178 people and wounding more than 300. India wanted Pakistan to turn over those who had taken part in planning the attack, and Pakistan resisted, but India has refrained from going after them by a military assault into Pakistan -- in other words, war. India did not see the Mumbai attack as part of an effort by Pakistan's government to damage or make war against India. India had to weigh the benefits of making war against the benefits of not making war, and some would say that India's restraint was wise.
Someone favoring peace in the above two instances might also believe that Palestinians might have benefited more from non-violent tactics in expressing grievances against Israelis than resorting to planned acts of aggression and violence. And many see wisdom and success in Martin Luther King Jr.'s use of non-violence in his efforts to win social justice within his country, the United States. King was leading a movement that was appealing to those who favored social tranquility, justice and the rule of law and had enough power to deliver at least some of it.
But non-violence cannot succeed unless both sides in a conflict desire non-violence. States empower policemen to use violence to stop impending aggressions by criminals within their borders. Few if any are pacifist enough to advocate doing away with police departments. But some people, passionately in favor of peace, have difficulty with responding violently to criminality across borders. Internationally if one people have in mind doing harm, enslaving or destroying another people, non-violence is not an adequate deterrent. As in the Korean War, it takes two sides to create peace. And as with the Mumbai massacres restraint works only because neither side wants war. If there is to be peace, both sides have to want it.
Hamas, some in Iran and others believe that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. Attempting to get rid of Israel, or just to do damage to Israel, involves violence, and this violence they justify as defense against the initial creation of Israel and subsequent "aggressions," employing as they do "Zionism" as a weapon word. The Israelis also describe their violence as self-defense. The difference between Hamas and the Israelis is that the Israelis want peace, in addition to wanting to survive. Peace will be possible when both sides want it. Describing Israel's response to violence against it, Golda Meir in the late 1960s said she hated going to war although Israel wins militarily, and she described Israel as having "no alternative." It remains for those who are not Israeli and who do not accept the claim that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth to ponder the legitimacy of Israel's claim of no alternative.
Copyright © 2007 by Frank E. Smitha. All rights reserved.
address of this article: http://www.fsmitha.com/com/hamas.html