"A tragedy of two rights; a tragedy of two wrongs."
Common man: "Easily swayed by simple narrative. Quick to feel but slow to comprehend. Lacking knowledge and power of imagination and the description fits those choric marches that go on filing through our cities, himming (what was this word that you said, please Howard? Presumably, 'continuing'?) the prejudice that hasn't changed for millennia. Defaming in the name of anti-racism the most racially defamed people in history. This is to take nothing from the acute agonies suffered by Palestinians over the years of this cruel conflict. But tragedy teaches you can have affliction without a villain." Howard Jacobson
Howard Jacobson is saying that there is no villain in this 73-year-old conflict and is, therefore, playing down, in fact ignoring the disproportionate response of the Israelis in killing 2,200 Palestinians in 2014 and a further 250 in 2021.
Is not Israel more of the villain in having, but not using, the power and authority to end the war that the Palestinians do not have as the subjugated people?
Are we, in the rich and powerful West, hopelessly compromised and guilty, too for our very own 'member' of our tribe and group, is Israel? We refuse to condemn her disproportionate and, I think, barbaric behaviour because she is part of us - lock stock and barrel! And, our side lacks the imagination to try a different method to stop the Hamas rockets and incendiary balloons.
Howard is revealing that he has no insight into how Palestinians see things because he is giving both sides equality - both right, both wrong, both victims and both villains! That is true but, it does not go far enough, by a mile, to address the problem, the conflict, the war that our side, Israel and the West, has more responsibility for than Hamas.
He seems to be saying, don't use Zionism or Zionist. I'm saying: or, perhaps don't call Palestinians as terrorists or, Hamas members/fighters/people as terrorists. Both sides use these shorthand labels. Both sides are victims, both sides villains. But, the problem is hatred, leading to revenge, leading to violence. The Gandhi way was successful but he arose when the timing was on his side, in the twilight of the Raj.
How can both sides be the Good Samaritan to the other?
How can both 'heap coals of fire on his head'?
In addition, are both sides behaving like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel of Luke story (chapter 15)?
BOTH SIDES USING THE SAME TACTIC, here:
Fire fighters often fight a fire with fire. They set controlled fires in front of a wildfire hoping to burn up the fuel source so the wildfire has nothing left to burn.
The phrase "fight fire with fire" is also used to reflect the idea that you use the same tactics to fight people who attack you.
For example, some people suggest we should fight terrorists using the same tactics they use, fighting fire with fire.
And it's like a bully at school picking on people. Someone may say, "We have to fight fire with fire," suggesting they use the same tactics against the bully he's using against them.
Christians Fight Fire with Fire
Paul says that a godly response toward an enemy "will heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:20, NKJ).
So as Christians, we fight fire with fire. But our fire is different from that used by our enemies.
Our Fire is Goodness
Paul says, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:20-21, NKJ).
When we respond to an enemy with goodness, it heaps coals of burning fire on his head. We fight fire with fire.
Goodness cuts our enemy to the quick, and hurts him more than merely retaliating with the same bad behavior he's shown us.
As a result, our enemy will respond in one of two ways. He'll see the error of his way and repent. Or he'll be inflamed and continue to mistreat us.
from: https://m.biblestudyguide.org/articles/fight/fight-fire-with-fire.htm
Best wishes, to you Howard. And thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment