War |
Monday, July 17, 2006 |
With the horrible situation facing Israel and with all the blood and suffering in the area it has been hard to continue writing about matters such as pluralism that seem far from having a life and death impact.
But after a few depressing days I feel that there are some points relevant to the idea and practice of pluralism to be made in light of this war.
One thought is that this is a grim conflict between a camp - Israel - that, however imperfectly, struggles wth pluralistic ideals and policies, and a camp that totally rejects these ideals and the possibility of their realization - the Islamic terrorists - Hezbollah, Hamas and their individual and state supporters. It is ironic that the rhetoric of opposition to Israel utilizes terms such as "occupation" and "imperialism" that actually portray the goals and categories of the Islamist agenda and inadvertantly betray the limits of that group's horizon of thought. Since it dreams of domination and totalitarian control over other groups, it cannot imagine that anyone else may not dream of the same thing. The totalitarian mindset is, thus, self-validating and justifies any means for its effectuation.
But this bitter perspective should not be used by those who support Israel for the purpose of weakening or even destroying pluralism, for pluralism, as just mentioned, is one of Israel's defining (though still incompletely realized) ideals. Thus, just as it is legitimate to demand that people of good-will must acknowledge the clear truth that Hezbollah and Hamas have absolutley no right to attack Israel, and that these attacks reveal a fundamental hatred at the base of their ideologies, it must also be acknowledged, as a simple truism, that Israel, like every human society, is capable of error and worse. Voices of criticism have their place within the broad spectrum of persons and groups who support Israel fundamentally. It should still be possible to question strategies and policies, to raise up values and standards of justice, wisdom and realpolitik against which israel's actions must be measured. Some criticisms, questions and protests may be rejected by others as "incorrect" or "counterproductive" or, even, as "naive" or "stupid." And, indeed, the enemies of Israel revel in criticizing her every act.
But let it never be said that criticism expressed by supporters of Israel is, in itself, inappropriate, forbidden or traitorous. If we lose the ability to welcome controversy and critique, even in times of crisis, then Hezbollah and Hamas will have won.
But after a few depressing days I feel that there are some points relevant to the idea and practice of pluralism to be made in light of this war.
One thought is that this is a grim conflict between a camp - Israel - that, however imperfectly, struggles wth pluralistic ideals and policies, and a camp that totally rejects these ideals and the possibility of their realization - the Islamic terrorists - Hezbollah, Hamas and their individual and state supporters. It is ironic that the rhetoric of opposition to Israel utilizes terms such as "occupation" and "imperialism" that actually portray the goals and categories of the Islamist agenda and inadvertantly betray the limits of that group's horizon of thought. Since it dreams of domination and totalitarian control over other groups, it cannot imagine that anyone else may not dream of the same thing. The totalitarian mindset is, thus, self-validating and justifies any means for its effectuation.
But this bitter perspective should not be used by those who support Israel for the purpose of weakening or even destroying pluralism, for pluralism, as just mentioned, is one of Israel's defining (though still incompletely realized) ideals. Thus, just as it is legitimate to demand that people of good-will must acknowledge the clear truth that Hezbollah and Hamas have absolutley no right to attack Israel, and that these attacks reveal a fundamental hatred at the base of their ideologies, it must also be acknowledged, as a simple truism, that Israel, like every human society, is capable of error and worse. Voices of criticism have their place within the broad spectrum of persons and groups who support Israel fundamentally. It should still be possible to question strategies and policies, to raise up values and standards of justice, wisdom and realpolitik against which israel's actions must be measured. Some criticisms, questions and protests may be rejected by others as "incorrect" or "counterproductive" or, even, as "naive" or "stupid." And, indeed, the enemies of Israel revel in criticizing her every act.
But let it never be said that criticism expressed by supporters of Israel is, in itself, inappropriate, forbidden or traitorous. If we lose the ability to welcome controversy and critique, even in times of crisis, then Hezbollah and Hamas will have won.
posted by Helene
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home