| |
Don't let the title mislead you. I don't hope for a war. Yes, usually when people talk about a future war, it is because they anticipate it. And because they anticipate war, it means they are just waiting for it and are not doing anything to prevent it. This makes them war hawks. It means they want the war to come, because they see no other way and are not willing to accept an alternative. War hawks don't make compromises; they don't try to make peace. War hawks make war.
You can call me a war hawk, but you can't say that I want war. I know more than most people, in that I know what is worth fighting for. War is a stupid thing. Many people die in war. And in most wars they die for nothing. But some wars are different. Sometimes there is a reason to fight. Sometimes there is a Reason for war. In this type of war, yes, people do die. But they die for a Reason.
This is a cheap consolation. To say that your loved ones are dead, but there was a Reason for their deaths--they have died for a Reason. No matter what happens, war is disgusting. It is brutal and cold. And in the end, there is no reason for war, just as there is no reason for evil. But there is a reason to kill and defeat evil. Evil is the cause of war. Needless death is what gives rise to war. And wars are fought to blot out the evil. The expectation of war is that justice will be served.
But war is not just. Innocent people die in war. War is anarchy. It is the opposite of law and order. War happens because people don't follow the Laws, or because they argue about what the laws are. War is the result of disputes. It erupts when people argue about what is "Right." As far as I'm concerned, there is only One Right, as there is only One G-d. If everyone followed G-d's Laws, there would be no disputes and there would be no wars. But people fight, even over G-d. They fight about G-d's "Laws." In other words, they fight to be gods, and they fight to replace G-d. People fight because they're not sure what is Right. They fight because they've separated themselves from G-d. And even those who follow G-d's Laws and walk with G-d, are forced to fight wars because others got lost.
How can there be two Rights? One person might follow G-d, while the other will follow gods. And when the later says my gods are "G-d" and my laws are "Laws," then he's saying to the first person, "you're wrong." If this person thinks he's right, then he can't tolerate the first person's Laws, because, how can both people be Right? And when the first person's Laws contradict with those of the other person (or visa versa), then both people will be faced with a dilemma, for how can Justice be served if both people have a different idea of what Justice is? And if both people care about Justice and want justice to be served, then they'll have a big dispute. At that point it doesn't matter who's Right anymore, because there's going to be a war.
The only way to prevent war is to compromise, thus settling the dispute by other means. But if a person knows he's Right, or thinks he's right, then why would he compromise? A compromise only happens when both people say they're wrong and accept a solution, or when one side gives in and accepts the other side's idea of justice. If a person is weak and is afraid he might lose, then perhaps he'll compromise even though he knows he's Right. So people that are Right, or think they're right, can avoid a war by saying they're wrong. Yet by doing this, their idea of Right loses its validity. And further, these people are compromising themselves, because they place themselves at the mercy of another person's idea of justice, not knowing if they'll be tolerated unless they assimilate and become different people. Which is hard to do, because Right is Right and a Law is the Law. Which usually means they'll be faced with injustice for the rest of their days, or until they're willing to fight for their Rights. In the case of a mutual compromise, both people accept that they're wrong and place their fate in the hands of the arbitrator, or the terms of the mutual agreement.
In the aftermath of a war or as a consequence of peaceful diplomatic disputes, there are treaties, or mutual agreements. These agreements are signed to put an end to war and/or to prevent war. The winner of a war might choose to be lenient towards the defeated, or he might decide to try to wipe them out completely, either literally or through the guise of assimilation (which is the motto of "convert or die"). The incentive for doing these things is to prevent another war. Look, after the winner has been victorious, why would he want to risk defeat and cause another war? War is death, and not even the evil like war. The evil like to kill and ruin the world, but even though they are killing themselves by doing these evil things, they don't like to die. Therefore, in either scenario, the winner of the war becomes the "Law," and if he is to stay in power, his laws must be defended.
The point of a treaty is to defend these laws, by setting them down on paper in an agreeable way. How these laws have been agreed upon is an issue of war and/or compromise, but the treaty itself is another issue. If the victor kills the defeated then there's no reason to sign a treaty, but if he forces them to convert (which is to assimilate) then the treaty sets down the manner in which this assimilation will take place. If the victor chooses to be lenient and tolerates some aspects of the loser's laws, customs, and ideas, then the treaty establishes what is tolerated and what is not. Anything can be written in a treaty, but there is a limit to how absurd the demands of a treaty can be. Since the whole intention of a treaty is to prevent war and establish law and order, a treaty that doesn't fulfill this role defeats its purpose.
There have been many foolish leaders who were the victors of war, but then became the victims of its consequences. These people won, but then they made crazy demands of the conquered, and eventually fell at the hands of rebels (that were once conquered and subdued peoples). Of course, the winner is the one who has a stronger back and a greater will. So even though people might have been conquered, they can always become conquerors. It's not for nothing that it is said, "If there is a will there is a way." Even if the treaty was agreed upon without a war, senseless treaties are worthless and will not prevent war. And making compromises for no reason, or when people think there is no reason, will only be a reason for war, thus fueling the flames of violence and disorder.
The ideas mentioned above are not based upon any specific circumstance. They are general ideas that apply to all circumstances of this topic. But now I will discuss the issues of Israel. I will not discuss the issues of other nations, not even Israel's enemies, because the other nations don't interest me. You might say I am biased, because I don't try to understand my enemies, but that is not so. If you understand Israel then you'll understand the issues of its enemies. Israel's enemies are against Israel. If you know what Israel stands for, then you'll know what they are against and thus you'll understand their dispute. But I won't speak from their point of view. I'll speak of the death and defeat of Israel's enemies, but I will not succumb to their point of view. Any person who speaks on behalf of Israel's enemies, becomes Israel's enemy, unless that person is some sort of spy who is able to help Israel by taking her enemies' point of view. Let this be clear to you, lest you think there is no harm done when you sympathize with Israel's enemies and unintentionally pit yourself against Israel and her better interests. This error is clearly epitomized by the empathy a person might have for the little Arab tirelessly fighting against the presense of an Israeli army or nation, when you realize that what you are really rooting for is that the mass of Arab nations succeed in driving Israel into the sea, ultimately routing the Jews in their only corner in the world and exposing them to the slaughter of a ruthless aggressor. In an existence where survival is at question, you'll learn that there is no room for empathy towards the enemy. |
|
Politics 
For Israelis Ab...
(1) Posts