Christians, non-violence and the Middle East – some random thoughts

tank

The world seems to be beyond horrific at the moment. Civil wars in Nigeria, Sudan and Ukraine as well as fighting in the Middle East in Syria, Gaza and Iraq. Grossly inhumane treatment of ordinary people by militias, rebels, terrorists and governments.

Surely there is something for christians to learn from all this?

Present horror

We in the west recoil from the callous actions of combatants in the Middle East:

  • Over a thousand killed in Gaza in the last month as Israeli bombs kill civilians in the latest episode in a long-running battle. Hamas may have started it this time, but Israel is extracting far more than “an eye for an eye” as the Torah demands. An estimated 20,000 people, mostly Palestinians, have been killed since the founding of Israel in 1948.
  • In the past month, brutal ISIS/Sunni insurgents have gained control of a large section of Iraq, with several thousand killed and perhaps a million displaced. There have reportedly been many Government soldiers executed in cold blood, threats made against christians and, perhaps, threats of genital mutilation of women. This follows the invasion of Iraq by western forces in 2003 and the continued civil unrest that has followed. Estimates of the total death toll vary widely, between one hundred thousand and a million.
  • 160,000 are estimated to have died in the 3 year old Syrian civil war aimed at removing dynastic President Bashar al-Assad. Again, so many are civilians, unable to escape the fighting. The rebels are mainly ISIS/Sunni fighters, and it seems hatred among different factions of Islam are a major factor.

We like to know who to blame

It is natural to be aghast at this wanton killing, the disregard for civilian life, and sometimes the deliberate targeting, execution and torture of civilians. Fairly or unfairly, Islam appears in a very unfavourable light in many of these incidents – it is hard to believe many of these fighters believe in a God worthy of any respect or worship.

But christianity doesn’t escape unscathed. Western countries have been complicit in much of this, for motives that vary from defensible to spurious.

Israel vs Palestine

After World War 1, the Ottoman Empire broke up, and Palestine was left in control of Britain. Sporadic fighting broke out between the Jews and Palestinians, and Jews and the British, and eventually Britain and the UN decided the country should be divided. No doubt the Holocaust during WW2 contributed to this choice. And so the modern state of Israel was born.

Unfortunately the creation of Israel displaced many Palestinians, resulting in some killings by both sides. Arab forces from neighbouring countries invaded but were repulsed. However they continued to try to overcome Israel in several subsequent wars. Israel made things worse by enlarging its territory, condemning the Palestinians to a smaller area and creating more refugees.

Undoubtedly both Palestinians and Israel have legitimate complaints against each other and both are at fault. But the decisions of Britain and the UN leading to the final outcome which discriminated against many Palestinians, were also a cause.

Iraq

The decision by the “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq in 2003 and depose Saddam Hussein was supposedly aimed at removing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMDs), fighting international terrorism and bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed Iraqi people.

It seems fair to say that none of these goals were achieved – there were no WMDs, the war has probably increased terrorism, and it is hard to see how the Iraqi people are safer or freer than before. All this at a cost to all combatants of hundreds of thousands of lives and something like two trillion dollars, with a similar amount to be spent in the future on medical costs and interest payments on borrowings to finance the war.

There can be little doubt that the war was a terrible blunder, creating instability that has led to the present situation in Iraq and making life much more difficult for christians in the country. Had the same money been spent constructively in the region, the world might be a very different place.

Afghanistan

A series of coups in Afghanistan in the 1970s culminating in a Communist regime, led to interference by both Russia and the US. Russia invaded in 1979 and the US began to support and fund the mujahideen resistance groups. Billions of dollars were channelled through Pakistan to arm and train the resistance.

Russia withdrew in 1989, but many believe the US funding assisted to the rise of the Taliban by arming and training many of its fighters. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when US-led forces overthrew them. The country has not been really stable, united or safe since.

The cost of the war, to all combatants and civilians, is possibly about 50,000 deaths and $1-2 trillion, so far, with further expenses in interest payments and medical costs. It remains to be seen how effective the Afghan government will be, and whether the Taliban will regain control when the western troops leave.

Syria

The civil war in Syria has seen limited involvement by western nations, who have tended to side with the rebels. Future involvement on the ground doesn’t appear likely, but aid to arm the rebels is proposed by the US.

US and allies play the role of policeman

Wikipedia shows that the US has been involved in over 30 actions in foreign countries, including covert actions to change regimes on 13 occasions since 1949. Australia, UK and other allies have participated in many of these operations and wars.

Monumental failures?

Many of these interventions have been unlawful, many have been ultimately unsuccessful. Many have cost many lives, some have led to worse situations, and many have involved questionable practices including torture, showing apparent disregard by US and allies for the rule of international law and the value of human life. For example, the US ‘war on terror’ in response to the September 11 attacks has cost 300 times the number of lives lost in those attacks!

Do we understand an honour culture?

Western actions in many of these cases seem to show little understanding of the honour-shame culture of the Middle East. In the west we tend to think of right vs wrong, but Muslims are more likely to think in terms of honour and shame, which means that they may respond to situations in ways we would regard as futile and detrimental to their own best interests. But death may be preferable to shame.

Thus it may be silly to think that strong force against Hamas will eventually stop the rockets. Strong force may only provoke more rockets in response as the only way to avoid shame. Israel must surely know this, but sometimes I think western responses will only have any chance of success if they offer an honourable way out for all combatants.

A christian response

With all this background, a christian response seems clear. Jesus taught non-violence – loving enemies, praying for persecutors and turning the other cheek. We can argue whether this means total pacifism or whether other parts of the bible allow war in some circumstances.

But the disregard for (foreign) human life, the willingness to go to war to achieve questionable and often unachievable aims, and the use of violence before all other options have been exhausted, must surely be contrary to Jesus’ teachings. And so often the violent response has not produced peace, only more violence, as we know it must.

Surely the default position for christians must be to oppose violent resolution of international differences, and to refuse to vote for bellicose politicians. If we ever support war, it must be after much prayer and with great trembling.

How can christians be warlike?

The Bradford University Department of Peace Studies judged the 2003 Gulf War, on the basis of US rhetoric, to be a ‘religious war’. All that killing and damage was judged to have been done in the name of Jesus!

Somehow christians, in the US at least, have confused religion with patriotism, or even placed patriotism above following Jesus. Somehow they believed God was on their side, in this war and generally. Fortunately, christians elsewhere, certainly in Australia, were generally opposed to the war.

Christians also often support Israel uncritically, blaming Hamas for all the killing when clearly there have been injustices against the Palestinians too. (For two excellent christian reactions to the present fighting in Gaza, see Apocalyptic Israel Worship Will Be the Death of Us All and The Difference Between Palestinian Rockets and Israeli Bombs.)

Some christians see Middle Eastern conflicts as necessary war between Christianity and Islam, despite Paul’s teaching that “we don’t wrestle with flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12).

war poster

Surely we need to learn that:

  • Jesus doesn’t see it things the way US christians often do.
  • War inflicts terrible misery on ordinary people who are just like us.
  • Too often it achieves very little good.
  • Sometimes, as in the Middle East at present, western actions can make the whole situation worse for years to come.
  • Few conflicts are black and white, and our prayers and influence should be to end the conflict and bring justice to all.

I suggest we need to repent of our support for actions which I cannot believe Jesus would ever condone, pray for our leaders and vote for those who promote peace, pray for those poor people still suffering in all the conflicts and do what we can to contribute to helping them.

“Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

1 John 3:18

Photo Credits: DVIDSHUB and danny.hammontree via Compfight cc

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Christians, non-violence and the Middle East – some random thoughts

  1. btg5885 says:

    This is very well done. Thanks to George Dowdell for reblogging it. I agree with this holistic view. Several points resonated with me, which I have written about before. First, God is not on anyone’s side. He is above it all. If those in the US doubt the veracity of this concept, let me ask a simple question – on which side was God during the Civil War, as both sides said he was on theirs? Second, we need to respect people’s faith, even when it does not jive with our own. So, many wars have been started and many have died for these differences, some of which are not material at all and which could not be explained by most of its followers. Third, no religion promotes violence. It is only extremists in those religions who use their religious texts as a means to kill others who are different, whether they are deemed infidels or not. Yet, people are so scared of those who wield weapons in the cruelest of ways, that they become silent or try to hide to live their lives as safely and peacefully as permitted. Fourth, we must not tolerate leaders who marginalize people and run corrupt regimes. We also cannot let women be treated so poorly. These conditions make it ripe for someone to recruit the young and brainwash them to commit acts of terror. Yet, we must do our best to changes the conditions that created this. I am sorry for the soapbox, but am moved by your wonderful piece. Thanks, BTG

    Like

  2. Martin J Hannington says:

    Thank you for this George. It is hard to see how the madness will end but Jesus words resonate strongly as I read your article…the peacemakers will be called the sons of God not the war mangers.
    I was jerked into reality the other day when a friends blog was writing about the Farborough Air Show. Any one living within ten miles of the show cannot but hear the exciting sounds of jets ripping through the sky at deafening speed, for which thousands of people pay good money to see. The noise at times is deafening and as my friends blog concluded, ” this is the last sound many people will hear”. The sound we celebrate and get so much joy from, is the very sound that melts the skin from people’s faces and turns to cinder the very lives you speak of.
    Something has to change… Keep writing.

    Like

  3. unkleE says:

    Thanks for these thoughts.

    George – thanks for re-blogging.

    BTG – I agree with all those points.

    Martin – I found your comment “this is the last sound many people will hear” very evocative and chilling – not a nice thought but an important one to consider.

    Like

  4. wendon74 says:

    Reblogged this on Progressive Rubber Boots and commented:
    I cannot say this enough: I do not in any way support Hamas and their use of human shields, but I do not support Israeli bombings either. Christians need to stay out of this, stay away from supporting one side over another. Do you think it is easy for non-Zionist Jews right now, or Palestinians that do not support Hamas? No, I do not think so either.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. ignorantianescia says:

    This is one thorny issue. As much as I dislike interventionism, I am concerned people are now tending too much to an isolationist extreme. I think there are some cases that justify some intervention, like the current crises in Iraq. The problem with many of these attempts lies with the aim of toppling governments without good alternatives.

    Like

  6. unkleE says:

    The problems I see with interventionism are:

    1. We can’t intervene everywhere so decisions may be arbitrary or for bad motives.
    2. Often intervention claims to be to improve the lot of oppressed people, but in reality some personal interest (e.g. oil) may be the driving reason.
    3. Intervening unilaterally can just be bullying because we have the armaments.
    4. Sometimes the ‘cure’ is worse than the original illness. It is hard to predict outcomes.
    5. Jesus taught non-violence.

    I think there are times when we are forced by circumstances to violate these observations, but we should try to see both sides, try to find alternative options, and try to look forwards to the likely outcomes.

    The US invasion of Iraq seemed to break most of the right principles and get caught by many of the problems. The US goals were hopelessly unrealistic and that should have been obvious to them. As a result, things have gone from bad to worse. The same seems likely in Afghanistan. And not heeding these principles seems likely to prevent Israel achieving peace.

    Like

  7. ignorantianescia says:

    True, although there were additional problems in the case of the Iraq war, with some also true for the Afghanistan war:

    1. It was not legal.
    2. It aimed at regime change.
    3. Atrocities were also committed by the invading side (not even considering accidental deaths as collateral damage).
    4. There were insufficient attempts at capturing the hearts of the population.

    However, I think the current problems in Iraq with the advance of the calibate amount to a humanitarian crisis, so limited support to Kurds and government forces should be all right, if the government gets its house in order.

    Like

  8. unkleE says:

    Yes I agree that those things were generally wrong with the invasion. And I agree that something needs to be done to protect innocent people. But increasing the munitions available is a very short-sighted solution, though sometimes it amy be the only one. But somewhere, we have to find disarming solutions, not extra-arming solutions.

    Like

  9. cerddaf says:

    1, There is two things both sides are agreed on:
    One side are baddies, the other lot are goodies. They just disagree which is which.
    Both sides agree the deaths of 2000 (mostly innocent) Palastinians is well worth it. It buys Israel temporary safety and it gets Hamas Arab support. Cheap at the price.

    Both are baddies.

    The way to resolve conflict is to ask questions like:
    – what are my side doing wrong, that the other lot can reasonably object to. Can we stop doing it?
    – what are the other side’s reasonable demands. After all if we can offer those it will ruin the credability of the extremists on their side.

    At present Israel is steadily nibbling away at Palastinian land, in a way that drives moderates into the hands of Hamas. Meanwhile Hamas demands the destruction of Isreal – which makes it impossible for Israel to offer anything other than crushing force.

    Until those two issues are settled there can be no peace.

    Like

  10. unkleE says:

    Hi cerddaf, that is a fairly cynical response, and I believe it is justified. Neither side really wants peace, both want to win. Ordinary people are the collateral damage. Thanks for commenting.

    Like

Please leave a comment - anonymous is OK, but please identify yourself with a username. An email address is needed if you want notification of new comments. Please be courteous and constructive - see the Comment policy (link in the footer).

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s