Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, in that I was just the same way, thinking I had all the answers. I guess it is true that the older you get and the more you learn, the more you realize what you don’t know and how much more others around you do know. When you’re young, you know it all and others know nothing.

A sword right out of the forge thinks it is complete and ready, not realizing that it needs sharpening. “Why should I be exposed to grinding; I’ve been constructed by the master blacksmith and sharpening would only scratch my finish.” Only after seeing what war is like does a sword realize that there are more important things than a shiny finish–a sharp edge, for one.

I guess the older we get, our finishes get worn off, but our edges are sharp.

I think you are right about the National response versus the individual response. Maybe my “agressive” response is because that’s what I’d *like* to do, but can’t because I’m *supposed* to turn the other cheek. So, I live vicariously through an agressive government. Maybe?

Should government involvement be different than individual involvement? If so, should we work against the government just because the two methods are different? Is the role of the government, in part, to help those individuals who are all turning cheeks (I just had a vision of Mel Gibson in Braveheart with all the soldiers mooning the English armies, lol)? That’s always been my strongest reason why abortion should be made illegal; the government should be protecting those who can’t help themselves. So we as individuals work from a position of meekness while the government protects our ability to do just that. If that is the case, then I would support a nation’s position to be agressive while supporting a Christian’s role of nonviolence. Is that contradictory?

In the mean time, please know that I would hate for you to stop responding to other posts based on the latest exchange on Chad’s blog. It is a rare thing, to find someone who differs from you on a few things, yet has the desire to learn why, and fulfills that desire in a similar way to your own.

gee, that sure was a wordy way of saying, thanks for being iron for me.

Consider the savvy (thanks, Captain Sparrow) student that knows how to break all the rules, but only once each. So he could go all the way through the year, receiving only minor penalties, though he has actually been breaking rules about every third day (thanks, Mac Powell). Would this be a responsible way for us to handle this child, or should we do something different? In other words, maybe we should consider his pattern of behavior. Sure, this is the first time he has tore the cover off his textbook, so maybe we should go easy on him. Maybe we should try to talk with him about respect of property or dialogue with him about channeling his negative energy on something positive? No, we would all say that would be a waste of time. But we have had administrators that are willing to be played in this way. They are very well meaning, hoping and wishing for the best. But that is what this student is depending upon; he is relying on the compassion of system to get his way. What he needs is a suspension with the warning that one more rule broken and he will be expelled.

The Palestinians have been warned several times. They are obviously not paying attention to the warnings. Their very core belief says Israel should not exist. So, since Israel has done the warnings, and they have done some suspensions, maybe it is time for the expulsion?

But wait a minute! How can we as a school system that is supposed to teach children actually support a policy that would remove children from that education? Well, obviously, it is not the goal to expell every child. But sometimes we get children that are very difficult to work with. In fact, near impossible to work with if the only thing the school is willing to do is wrist slapping.

Violence and war are never the end goal. But I would propose, which I more-or-less proposed in my last post that you didn’t quite address, that the pattern has been established. This “student” has committed himself to a pattern of behavior that includes mixing up his behavior well enough to confuse well meaning “administrators” into thinking that one more warning and slap on the wrist will be the key to reforming him.

What does expelling a student accomplish, in an environment that should include keeping the students enrolled and learning?

1. It removes the student from the rest of the population so his negative influence can be minimized, keeping students that are on the light side from moving to the dark side (thanks, George Lucas).

2. It shows other little Vaders that this behavior will be dealt with strongly, completely, and in a timely fashion, and if you wish to stay in school and spend time with the other students you better put down you light sabre.

In response to your question, “what GOOD things do you think violence will bring out in this situation?” I would propose those two things above. If Israel were “allowed” and encouraged to defend herself properly by the UN, and the offending nations were told, “Well, you were warned. Can’t you play nice? Then these things won’t happen, right?” maybe that would lead to a more peaceful area. Allowing for some absolutes in the world (Israel absolutely can coexist with a new Arab/Muslim nation) can then lead to a tolerance for others (let’s tolerate each other’s religions and learn how to exist together, something that has transcended everything else that has been done in this region of the world). And remembering that these absolutes will be absolutely enforced *on both sides* by the world community.

Pretty good benefits. Not the ideal, and in the New Heavens and New Earth, there will be neither violence nor wars. But until then, we may have to use a club to do our reasoning. Yes, this is providing we have attempted all non-violent reasoning. But again, I have proposed that Israel has been-there, done-that, got the t-shirt. Maybe the idealistic administrators that make up the UN-led coalition against expulsions have had the wool pulled over their eyes for too long, and they need to be reminded that, for the betterment of all students, *sometimes* you need to get rid of the bad ones for the sake of the good ones.

I am not suggesting a policy of appeasement. That’s the way the world handled Germany before WW2, and of course it didn’t work. And although Germany was clearly in the wrong, the Allies from WW1 are partly to blame, because we put such heavy demands on Germany AFTER they surrendered. This fostered an atmosphere of hopelessness and frustration, so of course the people would be looking for someone to restore what was once the strength of Germany. In many ways, we set ourselves up for WWII. So we’re not always able to say that the blame lays just on one side.

As far as the military response goes, here’s the thing…I don’t see where Israel really tried to prevent violence in this case at all. Did they go to the UN to help? Did they come to the US for counsel? They’ve got allies, ask them for advice! And violence, all though perhaps necessary at times (to me, the jury’s still out on that one), should always be the last resort. What must be done in Israel to reach the last resort? At this point, anything! Sanctions! Embargos! Cut-off of financial aid and international standing. The Hezbollah is out of Lebanon, but Lebanon hasn’t done a whole lot to stop them. If you put sanctions on Lebanon, that might motivate them to take care of the Hezbollah problem. We’ve got to try other things before violence, because violence is not going to help much anyway. Violence is a response to this situation, but it’s not going to make it any better. Now they are ticking off even more radicals, and now the radicals have a open opportunity to use weapons. Maybe an open war is just what the terrorists want. Now Israel’s playing their game.

Just out of curiousity Ben, what GOOD things do you think violence will bring out in this situation? (This is an actual question, not retorical I know you are a good thinker, and I just want to pick your brain. Not your nose. )

I wonder if Israel did indeed learn something from Germany’s reign of the late 1930’s, as they started to take over the world one nation at a time. The nations of the world decided to take a “diplomatic” course, hoping that Hitler would be satisfied with the next take over. And the next. And the next.

I wonder if you realize that there is no diplomacy with a group of people whose sole purpose is to rid the world of infidels, starting with the nation of Israel. They may be delayed in their tactics for a time, but they always come back. They haven’t yet learned to be tolerant of their neighbors; to simply “play nice” in the sandbox of the Middle East. Israel has given them land, moved their people out of areas for the Palestinian people. But they simply won’t stay content.

I think back to the movie “Independence Day” when the President of the US is talking with the captured alien and he asks, “What do you want us to do?” The alien calmly responds, “die.”

Taking all this into consideration, and realizing that the UN certainly has been no friend of Israel in years past, not to mention the present (blaming Israel for the predicament in Gaza, when Gaza clearly provoked Israel by kidnapping and refusing to return an Israeli soldier), why would Israel not use a military response? What hope is there in negotiating with the Alien race that wishes to destroy the world? What hope is there in negotiating with people like this?

With the crap that Israel has been putting up with for years, when you say they should use “violence as a last resort,”…

…what must be done in Israel to reach the last resort?

Ben–Thank you for your input.  The problem I have with Israel’s attacks is twofold: First, war should ALWAYS be a last resort. If Israel would have involved the U.N., we could set up sanctions and embargos, and pushed for pressure on Lebanon from the global community. (Palestine’s Hamas government is a good example of having non-violent pressure put on them–pretty much everyone withdrew financial support for them, and now they can’t pay their city workers, so there is trash and sewage piling up. Pretty soon, their people will become dissatisfided and decide that if they want help, they are going to have to behave according to global standards.)
  Secondly, Israeli attacks only makes the problem worse: Lebanon kidnaps Israeli troops. Israel gets mad and attacks. Lebanon gets mad at Israel and attacks back. Hatred is bred between Israelis and the Lebanese. Generations will grow up with an instilled dislike for each other, making the probability much higher for violence in the future. So now thousands of people could die. That doesn’t sound like a successful plan to me–it sounds like Israel may be out for revenge more than anything. The desire for revenge has a very blinding effect on those who are controlled by it.

I’ve never seen a war of revenge where the country that is being attacked says, “Wow. Maybe we were wrong. Your attacks have opened our eyes.” No. Usually what happens is the other country fights back and, although they may later be forced to surrender, hatred is bred under the surface, causing years of tension and possibly more violence. Hopefully Israel’s PM will try to be a man of peace, only using violence as a last resort.  That’s just my take.