Reflections on a peace event

EUGENE KAELLIS SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN

At the urging of a dear friend I attended at the Canadian Memorial Centre for Peace an event largely devoted to establishing a favorable rapport between Israelis and Palestinians. The major aspect of the event, which was part of the Peace it Together program, was the welcoming of Israeli and Palestinian youngsters to Vancouver after they had shared a summer camp together in British Columbia, singing, dancing and making friends with one another. (See Sept. 17 Cover Story, "Peacing it together in B.C.")

Religion played a big role in the celebration. There were invocations delivered by a woman from a local synagogue, a Catholic education representative (not from the diocese or any parish) and a message from a local imam (who was supposed to show up but couldn't make it). Each representative recited from his or her own scripture. Following this were various messages, couched in religious context, delivered by some campers: an Israeli youth and two Palestinian youths, one Muslim, one Christian.

What the organizers may not have appreciated is that introducing a religious dimension into a geopolitical conflict doesn't improve matters, especially when militant elements on both sides are justifying their positions on a scriptural basis. The conflict has already been dangerously theologized, taking it out of the realm of realpolitik and heating it up with holy missions. Moreover, as everyone, especially those who have attended countless interfaith dialogues (as I have), has experienced, the representative of whatever religion will strive to identify his or her faith as peaceful, loving and compassionate. Yet, most people know the bloody history of religious rivalries and that scriptures collectively constitute the world's biggest and oldest smorgasbord; you can pick whatever you like.

But the problems with this celebration didn't end there. Each of the youngsters stated what his or her objective was. They all spoke for peace, naturally. The Palestinians usually mentioned Palestine, as did some of the Israeli youngsters. None of them, believe it or not, mentioned Israel! If that isn't a prima facie expression of the "victim mode," you'd have to show me a better one.

The audience, about 75, consisted mostly of women, many of whom I recognized as being Jewish. From appearance I would say middle class (as presumably were the campers), evidently articulate and almost certainly well educated. And unquestionably, indisputably, well intentioned. If these people, I thought, were in charge of the world, it would die, not by fire, not by ice, but under a smothering blanket of warm, syrupy compassion, and among the first to perish would be some of the exuders themselves.

Everything starts with one individual. Right? Of course, but the logic and ethics that are associated with one person change qualitatively, not only quantitatively, when they are applied to an aggregate: a group with actual or perceived common identity or interests – a nation, gender, religion, race, ethnicity or class. Which is why efforts, such as this one, lack relevance and authenticity. Being personally ethical, it turns out, is among the easiest tasks one can imagine. I have been a vegan for about 25 years. I became one for health reasons but my occasional frisson of self-righteousness is a collateral benefit, especially when I imagine that the admissions jury for heaven is composed of farm animals.

Those attending and participating in the peace event were people you would cherish as neighbors. You could count on their being courteous, considerate, thoughtful and accommodating. If their dogs pooped on your lawn, they would clean it up, apologize and chastise the animal (gently, of course). The atmosphere was therefore reminiscent of the peace and disarmament marches I had participated in during the '60s – joyful, hopeful and determined. Good!

But let us not confuse personal ethical dilemmas with social ethical dilemmas otherwise we shall slip into the rigorous but simplistic notions of St. Augustine, who was so certain of an eternity next to Jesus as his reward for (a largely postponed) life of virtue that he proclaimed he would never, never lie under any circumstances, regardless of whether his telling the truth would endanger someone. Good for him. Bad for innocent people fleeing tyranny.

It's easy to be absolute. It's a lot more difficult to come to an ethical conclusion when you are informed, responsible and have read history. That's where uncertainty and existential angst creep into the picture.

With few exceptions (I among them), people left the meeting seemingly feeling good, expressing hope. I'm sure they would have labelled me a cynic or a grouch if I had expressed my feelings.

I was reminded of an incident described by someone who was allegedly a witness. During the struggle for the independence of India, a number of Gandhi followers lay down on railway tracks in front of a station platform. Of course, had they done so in Nazi Germany, they would have been shot immediately, something Gandhi, with his absolutist ethics never understood when opining about how Jews ought to have behaved in the face of Nazi murderers. The British, being benighted imperialists but not Nazis, simply lined up their troops, unshouldered their rifles and proceeded to pee on the demonstrators who, disgraced, scattered. If there was ever an example of situational ethics, that was it.

We are not individuals making ethical decisions for ourselves only. Every time we make a thoughtful and responsible judgment that affects our aggregate, if it has not been preceded by thorough study, the application of a critical wisdom, a great deal of inner agonizing and moral anguish, chances are it is far too facile and almost assuredly worthless.

I don't know what my purpose is in life, but I rather doubt that it is to "feel good" about myself. I like to think it is more elevated and responsible than that. So, Kierkegaard, move over.

Dr. Eugene Kaellis is a retired academic living in New Westminster.

^TOP