The scenarios…
A little less than a week ago, Iran attacked Israel. Iran said that in the weeks prior, Israel hit their consulate in Damascus, Syria. Seven military officials were killed. Note that Israel neither confirmed nor denied responsibility. Iran retaliated by sending over 300 missiles and drones into the Holy Land.
A little more than 6 months ago, the foreign terrorist organization Hamas assaulted Israel via land, air and sea, resulting in the death of more than 1,200 people, primarily Israeli citizens. Hamas also took more than 240 people hostage, half of whom are estimated to still be in captivity. Hamas said they were retaliating against Israel for their continued occupation, blockade of the Gaza Strip, violence against Palestinians and more.
Allow us a brief pause for definition purposes…
re·tal·i·a·tion | rəˌtalēˈāSH(ə)n | – noun
re·tal·i·ate | rəˈtalēˌāt | – verb
: to return like for like
especially : to get revenge
Notice, no less, how it’s not really “like for like.” Israel arguably kills 7. Iran justifies attempting to kill far more. Wonder how high the next numbers will go, for as we speak, there is little doubt that Israel is contemplating their next move.
So how does this end?
Or better yet…
Who stops first?
I think that’s one of the things that saddens me in a society that seemingly moves increasingly further from Judeo-Christian values. We continually justify retaliation. And we don’t really mean “retaliating.” We mean “making them pay.”
It’s not just in perceived acts of war. We see it in any oppositional arena. Tit for tat isn’t good enough. It’s got to be bigger. And more.
If our opponent is violent, we will be vicious.
If our opponent exaggerates or lies, we can lie even better.
And if they cheat, you bet we can cheat in more devious, slyer ways!
We justify a whole heck of a lot of foolish behavior.
A few years ago I read a fascinating piece from a guest author at West Point, who was a Lieutenant Colonel and expounding upon what he termed “the rhetoric of retaliation.” He spoke of what justifies (and doesn’t) the use of our nation’s military strength against enemies abroad. It was an insightful piece, acknowledging that the rhetoric of retaliation is a dangerous game to play.
One of his fundamental points is that our justification is “never totally free of bias, ambiguity, flawed premises, or unprovable assumptions.”
So let’s step outside those acts of war once more. Let’s step into other perceived oppositional arenas, forums where we feel there’s an “us” and a “them”… You’re either for me or against me… those others stand in my way… only one of us can be right and I’m %$&*#!! sure it’s me!
What bias has entered in?
What flawed premises?
What assumptions have I made that are unprovable?
… and what do I not know because retaliation has been my primary focus?
It’s an honest question.
Respectfully…
AR