Retaliation or revenge?
In February 1944, the Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, spoke in the House of Lords against the policy of the blanket bombing of towns and cities in Germany in the Second World War. What was called ‘terror bombing” was a major weapon for both sides in the war.
The damage done by Allies bombing alone equalled that of the dropping of 270 atomic bombs, destroying millions of homes and killing 400,00 civilians. In three days of bombing on Dresden 3,900 tons of bombs were dropped, leaving 25,000 dead.
In the early days of the war, the German bombing of the U.K (the Blitz) left a million homes destroyed and 40,000 civilians dead.
One of Bell’s objections to the bombing was the targeting of cities with little or no military or industrial connection and resulting in the deliberate killing of civilians. Earlier he had protested the German bombing, calling it barbarian. He used the same language to describe what the Allies were doing.
Was it retaliation or was it revenge? The same question can be asked about Israel’s attack on Gaza.
Retaliation and revenge are both responses to a perceived wrongdoing. Retaliation is more reasoned and calculated, influenced by a desire for fairness and justice. It can be seen as proportional, like for like (eye for an eye), a response in kind, and, therefore, exercised with restraint. Retaliation is usually meted out in a framework of conventions and laws, ensuring balance and justice.
Revenge is more emotional, often driven by anger and a demand for vengeance. It is focused on harming the other, rather than seeking a resolution and restoring relationships. This leads to a cycle of violence and ongoing conflict, making reconciliation and peace almost impossible.
Both Israel and the Palestinians have signed the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. Both conventions have rules about the conduction of war when it occurs.
One concerns the protection of civilians in a conflict, avoiding the use of violence against them, especially actually targeting non-combatants.
There are also regulations about the occupation of the territory of another country, ensuring that the occupants do not gain sovereignty over the land and that the occupation would be temporary and short. There are also rules
trenatmdent about the of the people living there.
In 1947, the United Nation declared that the Palestine of the time be divided between Arabs and Jews. Before boundaries could be put in place, the 1948 war erupted, following which Israel decided the boundaries, taking over most of the land, leaving the Palestine with the West Bank and Gaza. After the 1967 war, Israel assumed occupation of Palestine territory.
The outcome today is that there are about 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank in 250 settlements and Palestinians have restricted movement in their own land and face ongoing hostility. Gaza is described by many as the world’s largest open-air prison. Consequently, you hear arguments that this occupation is unlawful and becoming permanent, especially in light of the annexation policy and practice of Israel.
The current conflict in Gaza did not begin on Oct. 7. Leading up to it are decades of repression, violence and discrimination. Since the 1967 occupation of the Strip, it has been under siege by Israel and often under attack.
In this current conflict over 32,000 Palestinians have been killed in retaliation or revenge for the killing of about 1,200 Jews. According to the U.N., there are 23 Palestinians killed by the Jews to one Jew killed by the Palestinians.
These are some of the accusations made by South Africa’s case to the International Court of Justice that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention. If Israel is declared to have broken international humanitarian laws, would countries supplying arms also be guilty? Although Hebrew scriptures allow for an “eye for an eye” justice, it has limitations and it should be avoided if a less harsh form of punishment can be found.
Even in war, we maintain our humanity, still guided by principles of human rights, still motivated by ideals of justice, peace, freedom and equality for the “enemy”. What we do in war has consequences in time of peace – memories are powerful.
It appears that countries in solidarity with Israel overlook its treatment of Palestinians over the decades. Are they are simply blind to the horror of the engagement or in denial or comfortable with the status quo of hands off? The occasional criticism of Israel is muted by complete inaction.
There seems to be a double standard in laying blame in identifying who are the villain. Russia is rightly blamed by the West for its occupation of Ukraine territories but we don’t hear the same urgent protest against the occupation of Palestinian lands.
While the USA and others support Israel’s right to self-determination and selfdefense, there is not much concern for creating a Palestinian state. At the same time, the USA will always defend Israel, according to Mr. Biden, and it seems no matter what it does.
Both Jews and Palestinians own the same homeland and they are tragically intertwined. Both have suffered exile, truma, humiliation and fear of annihilation. The tragedy will continue until there is a two-state solution. Only then will peace be possible.
In the meantime, we sit on the sidelines, helplessly watching the horror unfold.
The leaders of Western democracies might heed the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed for resisting the rule of Hitler: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Everett Hobbs Conception Bay South