The ends justify the means. You’ve heard this many times and sometimes you agree with it if you’re really emotionally involved with the issue and sometimes you disagree if you believe certain societal norms have been exceeded in applying the means. Certainly, in today’s world the best example of this would be the situation in the Middle East with the Israelis using any and all means to dismantle the “Ring of Fire” Iran has constructed around them. Too many deaths, too many civilian deaths, too many children dying, too much destruction, too much power accruing to the Israelis, cry those who believe the means cannot be countenanced. On the opposite shore of the impassable river are those who point out that the means of killing children, taking hostages for human shields, bombarding the cities of Israel with rockets from Lebanon and ballistic/cruise missiles from Yemen and Iran are only being answered in kind. It is, they say, a tit for tat. Genocide shouts one side. Self-defense shouts the other.
I could tell you where I come down on this argument and I could explain with what I believe is a rational argument, but those of you standing across the river from me will never accede to my position nor, I’m afraid, I to yours. You believe in the idealism of your position and I believe in the real politick position of mine. Your position is based upon how you believe humans should respond, mine is predicated upon how I have observed humans to respond.
Perhaps the first thing either of us should consider is whether there is a permanent solution to this problem and to be perfectly honest: I don’t see one. On one side you have a group of actors calling for the destruction of the other side and on that other side you have an actor saying we will not give up our right to exist. Can you objectively find a common ground without one or the other completely giving up their position? The answer is no. Can you project downline the intentions of the external actors in the conflict. Yes, you can, and if you are objective and honest with yourself, you will discover that the downline consequences of one side are far preferable to world peace and stability than if the other side prevails.
Thus, you must predicate your response on what is best for the future and the many, rather than what is best for this particular moment in time. Look to history for the failures occasioned by emotion that downline only ignited further, more horrendous, conflicts. When the conflict ends is the time for being magnanimous, not while the very existence of a people lies in the balance. If you think you can change human nature you might as well believe you can control the world’s climate.
The same situation exists in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Suffering wouldn’t stop if Ukraine gave up the fight today for its infrastructure has been so damaged it will require decades to replace it. For Vladimir IV (Vladimir Lenin having been Vladimir III) Tsar of all the Russians, the ends will justify the means and make no mistake should he prevail there durance vile will be rained down upon the Ukrainians for resisting what was rightfully his to take.
But back to the Middle East, make no mistake the October 07, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was orchestrated by and on behalf of Iran to torpedo the planned agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It had nothing to do with the issue of Palestine, which was used as a cover for the attack. Once again, I urge you to separate emotion from fact and realize that your emotions are being manipulated by a group of people who know what they are doing, and a colluding media that revels in stage managed conflict that attracts viewers and readers.
Good points made