Progressive Christians Uniting

The Perils of “Taking Up the Sword”

Jesus’ teaching that he who takes up the sword will perish by the sword, like so many of his sayings, cannot be taken as accurately describing the situation for every individual who goes to war, or for every nation that does so. Yet, also like so many of his other sayings, it deserves to be taken seriously. At a minimum it means that when our basic response to every threat is destruction of those who pose the threat, it is likely that the threat will grow.

Inflicting destruction on our enemies is a temptation especially to powerful nations. We consider that our power should protect us from every external danger, and that if anyone harms us, we can respond by harming them many times more. We assume that this will destroy our enemies and leave us in position to enjoy our power.

The Roman Empire thought the way to weaken Christianity was to kill Christians. But the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. New converts flocked to Christianity. Eventually the Empire became Christian.

Today we Americans suppose that when we kill those who are, or may become, terrorists, we reduce the threat of terrorism. But those who are victims of the policies that evoke terrorist responses see those we kill as heroes in the struggle for liberty and justice and, in some cases, God. More and more people are willing to die in any way that terrifies or weakens us.

The saddest instance of this policy is Israel. Israel was founded by Jews who felt that European Jewry had been too obedient, too subservient, too passive in the face of Nazi genocide. They vowed, never again. Their policy would be the opposite. Military strength sufficient to destroy all enemies would be Israel’s deepest commitment. Israel has made every resistance to its existence and expansion costly indeed. It has hoped that fear of ten-fold retaliation will end all attacks upon it.

This policy does not work. In every decade the number and bitterness of Israel’s enemies have grown. So also has their military strength. Even Israel’s friends are withdrawing moral support. She can survive only through weapons and money provided by the United States, and maintaining support here in the long run becomes more problematic. Just for this reason, American Jews become more and more shrill in their defense of Israel’s aggressive actions. Israel’s policy is the saddest because there is now real danger that its consequences for Israel will be terrible indeed.

Is there an alternative? Is the slogan “Give peace a chance” anything more than romantic silliness? Who are we – who am I – to challenge Israel’s policy and American support for it?

We – and I – must take these questions seriously. Our Christian guilt against Jews remains a permanent burden. How can Christians lecture Jews about morality or even wisdom? But how can Christians be silent as we watch what may indeed turn out to be the beginning of the end of the state of Israel?

Israel repeatedly points out that some of her enemies assert that their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. How, they ask, can they even negotiate with those who have this goal? But the other question, the deeper one, is how can they reduce the number of people and groups who have this goal? I submit that they cannot do so by killing them or destroying their homes and fields.

On the other hand, Israelis point out that any sign of weakness on their part only encourages their enemies to declare victory and enables them to become stronger. Sadly, that is true too. As long as Israel puts its faith in the military power to cow all its enemies, any chance these enemies have to claim a victory, however small, will be blown out of proportion in order to build their morale and their momentum.

So, again, is there an alternative? I think there is. Whether it is politically possible in Israel, or in the United States, I do not know. But amazing changes occurred in the twentieth century when the Roman Catholic Church opened itself to the winds of change, when South Africa peacefully overcame apartheid, and when the Soviet Union gave up its aggressive stance toward the West. Perhaps it is possible that Israel might give peace a chance.

Certainly it would take a new kind of leadership both there and here – one that took the long view and believed that winning hearts and minds is better than terrorizing people into submission. What could such leadership do?

It could propose that it is time for an overall settlement setting the stage for fundamentally new relations among the peoples of the Near East. The first stage is already prepared. I refer to the Geneva Accords hammered out by thoughtful and committed Israelis and Palestinians a few years ago. These could be made the basis for a resolution of the Israel/Palestine controversy.

If Israel approached negotiations in a spirit of startling generosity, really seeking to create a viable Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, releasing its political prisoners, allowing some Palestinians to return to their homes while compensating others generously, and giving those Palestinians still in Israel full citizenship there, the number of Palestinians who would sacrifice their lives to inflict pain on Israel would rapidly decrease.

If, in addition, Israel released its Lebanese prisoners and helped financially to rebuild southern Lebanon, the number of Lebanese who would support Hezbollah attacks on Israel would rapidly decrease. If Israel began to spend two-thirds of the money it now spends on armaments to reduce poverty in its Arab neighbors, including, of course, the new Palestinian state, the widespread desire among Arabs to see Israel destroyed would rapidly decrease.

Giving peace a chance would not be a matter of being a little less aggressive in response to provocations. That might indeed seem like weakness. Real peace can only be an expression of justice. For the stronger party to give justice to the weaker, a justice that the weaker cannot force the stronger to give, that is an expression of strength. If Israel can be truly strong, it can recover the worldwide support it is now fast losing and gain genuine friends among its neighbors. Such an Israel could have a security that “taking up the sword” can never give it.

Posted under: Founders