Justice before peace??

[sebbysteiny]

Introduction to post

 

Please note, if you are bored of my rant, just skip straight to the moral dilemas. This post is probably best for the philosophical.

 

I have been exposed to the middle east problem for quite some time. When one goes to a Palestinian meeting, they will talk about occupation this and occupation that. They will also say things like 'the Palestinians are desparate because of the occupation. If the Israelis really wanted the Palestinian militants to stop attacking Israel, then they should undo the root cause of the Palestinian suffering: the occupation'. By 'occupation', I assume they are talking about the Israeli road blocks and checkpoints and security fence and the general military presence that is making Palestinian life so difficult.

 

So a week later, one starts talking to the zionists. Why don't you end the occupation so that the Palestinians stop attacking you, I go. They go, 'because the Palestinian demands are threefold. 1) Israeli end the roadblocks etc aka the occupation, 2) Israel give the Palestinians all the territory up to the green line including East Jerusalum and 3) that Israel accept the 'right of return'. They then say that the Palestinians will not stop killing Israelis until every one of the all three criteria are met. Whilst, they go, they are prepared, and are in fact happy to end the occupation, and after considerable pain, they are prepared to even accept 2, 3 is an abolute no go. They say that the 'right of return' is simply the demand whereby the decendants of millions of Palestinian refugees from wars 50-60 years ago get Israeli citizenship thus turning Israel into a second Palestinian state. They then say, it is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the state of Israel dressed up in the launguage of 'rights'. The issue, they say, is nothing to do with occupation because they are prepared to end it but only if the Palestinains stop attacking them. Unfortunately, they go, were Israel to end the occupation without the Palestinians agreeing to stop killing Israelis, Palestinians would then kill hundreds of even thousands of innocent Israelis with impunity.

 

So it seems to me that there is hope. The Palestinians main greavence is that they are occupied. Israelis say that they are only too happy to end the occupation in exchange for an end to the killing. Therefore, from what I've heard, Palestinians should agree to stop attacking innocent Israelis in exchange for Israel dismantling the checkpoints etc. Hope.

 

Back to the Palestinian supporters. 'occupation occupation occupation' they go. So I put to them the one question. If Israel were prepared to dismantle every checkpoint and roadblock, would you be prepared to live in peace with it? Suddenly, for the first time, the Palestinians mention that they would not. They explain that they would want a complete withdraw to at least the green line including East Jerusalem. So, q. no. 2. Would you be prepared to live in peace with Israel if they end the occupation AND they withdraw to the green line?? Lo and behold, no. They say they must have 'just peace' or 'refugees rights' too(depending on who you ask). 'What are "refugees rights" or "what is a 'just peace'" I ask. 'The right of every refugee to return home', which included all grandchildren of the original refugees returning to Israel. I asked them, would you really not be prepared to have peace with Israel without the right of return? Afterall, how are the Israelis ever going to accept peace when the bottem line is that the Palestinians must take demographic control of Israel making it 2 states for 1 people: the Palestinians, I ask. Their answer was 'because you can't have peace without justice'.

 

Can't have peace without Justice

 

This was the keystone of the Palestinian side. This is the argument that they have used for effectively making zero comprimises. Any comprimise, they say, is a comprimise on justice and 'you can't have peace without justice'.

 

This was something that the Palestinian supporters just slipped in almost expecting any further questioning to go away because it sounded profound. However, the more I analysed it, the more absurd it sounded.

 

For starters, what is Justice? Justice is merely one sides view of justice. Ask Israelis what Justice is, they have a very different view.

 

So I looked for a time when Justice was the most important principle in resolving a conflict before the sometimes contradictory principal of peace making. I found ww1. When the allies beat Germany they made Germany pay a humiliating settlement. All in the name of Justice, so we were told. However, it was more like victors Justice, or even revenge than actual Justice. Regardless, the Germans were humilitated and most historians are agreed that one big factor that encouraged Germans to vote for the national socialists (NAZI party) and start WW2 was this humiliation. This was justice before peace. Then at the end of WW2, there were no reparations and no signing treaties in embarrassing places. The principal of peace was thus tried over the principal of extracting justice. And it worked. Germany has since recovered and become a leading nation in human rights.

 

Further, if Justice is more important than peace, what is to stop the French from making a claim on England as the English stole England from them. Or what is to stop the Vikings making a claim against England or France for the same reasons. And then surely the Romans now have a claim against all three. WHERE DOES IT END???

 

Clearly, peace comes before justice in most situations. So, I argue, the Palestinians need to give up their notions of Justice. I acknowledge that it might be a 'painful' sacrifice, but who ever said peace making was easy? Instead, they must try to find a formula of sharing the land in which both the Israelis and the Palestians will be able to happily live together and the right of return must be renounced or traded in full when making a settlement.

 

Clearly the same applies to Israel, but unfortunately in my understanding, the Israelis are far more advanced in the concept of comprimise than the Palestinians. However, the Palestinians argue that since Israel 'stole' Palestine Israelis have no rights to anything so they see an Israeli comprimise as merely 'giving back to Palestinians what is rightfully theirs'. Again, this argument is backed up by notions of Justice that require sometimes going into libraries and trouling through books hundreds of years old to extract an historical justice from them, and even then go back or forward another 50 years and you could end up with a very different result.

 

However, I have recently realised that it is not so simple as merely ignoring justice altogether.

 

Finally, the moral dilemas

 

If country A invades country B and steals money and/or kills innocent people and then withdraws back to country A and genuinely asks for peace with country B, what should country B do?

a) pursue justice by invading country A, stealing the same or more money back and/or killing some civilians of country B.

:hihi: pursue a money claim with the United Nations to get some kind of compensation for the money stolen and the civlians killed whereby the money goes to the state.

c) As in b but the money goes straight to those who can prove any loss.

d) Do nothing, swallow the pain and hurt and accept peace for the greater benefit of mankind.

 

Would it make any difference if the invasion was yesturday, last year or last millenium?

Would it make any difference if Country B had invaded Country A and done exactly the same thing?

Would it make any difference if Country A had spent ALL the money and had none spare?

Would it make any difference if every person who suffered from the theft and/or killings, or every person who had committed the killings had died over a decade ago leaving just decendants?

Would it make any difference if instead of stealing from the people, Country A stole a national treasure or stole back a national treasure?

Would it make any difference if instead of a national treasure, it was a secred shrine holy to one or both peoples?

 

Again, the issue is when does the need for peace takes over from the need for Justice in these situations? If anybody has an idea why peace takes over from justice and vice versa in some situations, I would love to know. This has got me really puzzled.

[sebbysteiny]

Well, nobody seems to have answered, but I'm going to give it a go.

 

I think there are two principals involved here working together. Although when analysing individual situations, these two principals appear to fade into one (especially when in situations when one factor dominates so clearly).

 

The principal of peace is valid. The best thing that can possibly happen is for two enemies to stop killing each other and live a future of peace and prosperity. In most situations the right situation is to swallow pride and notions of justice and accept peace. This principal is important from the moment any conflict occurs and slowly grows until the conflict is finally over. It is thus a long term influence on the morality of actions between governments of enemy states.

 

The principal of justice is a short term factor. Immediately after the injustice it is the overwhelming factor and it is very difficult to argue that the victim nation does not have a right to take justice back. However, this is a principal that exists only as a personal connection between the individual victims and the individual purportrators. In this sense, it is a bit like English law. Where a soldier or a regime steals some persons gold and sells it to an innocent third party, it would be morally wrong to take the gold back from the innocent third party. Thus, if the soldier or regime has spent the money from the sale, then, however unjust, there is no action that can be taken to undo the injustice. Perhaps the purpertrators can go to prison, but that will not help the family whose house was plundered and whose parents were shot. Most if the original stolen asset is easily returnable, then it should be returned but where such a return is impossible or would cause any problems, financial compensation is more than sufficient to meet all rights to justice.

 

The answers

 

Country B should try and get money compensating any loss and deaths from the government of country A (since they ordered the invasion and thus are personally responsible) and from the individual soldiers. They could try this via UN, but if it takes an invasion to get justice for the victims by taking back what is there's so be it. Then, Country B should accept peace, however painful. However, trying to extract any form of justice other than financial is plain wrong in all circumstances.

 

However, if time passes, and new governments are installed and the original property has been sold and spent, then Justice cannot be extracted and Country B should just pursue peace.

 

If one has to open up ancient archieves or go to a history library to locate the sons and grandsons of purpertrators, then clearly justice cannot be reached and must be given up. In other words, if the victims are not alive no compensation can be sought.

 

If it was a national treasure that was stolen, again, the army can invade to get it back. However, if time passes, then peace principals take over. In this case, a comprimise arrangement must be reached in which both nations can share the treasure. If it is a holy shrine, the same argument applies.

 

 

How does this affect the Israeli - Palestinian conflict?

 

My original conclusion holds. Here, the justice is not all one sided, but even if it was, the Palestinians have no right to ask for anything other than money to compensate the original refugees who are still alive and can prove a loss for the financial loss they suffered. However, that claim must be directed at the original soldiers who took their houses since most such actions were not government sanctions. If the action was government sanctioned then they could have a claim against the government. Palestinians who fled their houses (as most of them did) and whose abandoned houses were appropriated in a good condition can get the cost of the house back. If the house was destroyed by war, then they can get very little. Either way, the most any Palestinian can get is the value of the property that was taken from them.

 

The right of return, however, does not ask for money, it asks that each Palestinian be made an Israeli citizen. Such action would destroy Israel as a Jewish state and would cause nothing but more bloodshed and war. By the principal of peace, it must be given up. By the principal of Justice, many claims are 60 years old and require breaking into historical archieves to justify. Further, the principal of justice only gives financial compensation which falls well short of their demand. Lastly, most do not have a claim against the government of Israel, so any demand for a state compensation in the form of a passport is not justifiable.

 

The phrase 'every refugee has a right to return "home"' is just melodramitic nonsense. A person does not have an everlasting right to any land when circumstances change and he has been offered sufficient compensation.

 

This isn't new. Every time a new moterway is built, some people are driven from their home by force, but the good of the many outways the individual property right of the individual. In the same way, the highly noble principal of peace outways any direct property rights that the individual held.

 

Conclusion: There is no justifiable reason for the Palestinians not abandoning the 'right of return'.

 

Thoughts?? Personally, I'm quite happy with that reasoning.

[HydrogenBond]

If country A invades country B, as long as country A is in control they don't owe anyone anything. The spoils go to the winner. If they peacefully withdraw, country B should be happy enough with the withdrawal because it is far better than they had during the invasion. If country B begins to complain for compensation, and country A is still the stronger of the two, country A needs to demonstrate to country B it is still stronger and was being merciful and not weak when it withdrew. This will help country B can gain the proper rational perspective for their delicate situation.

 

It is sort of like two salemen, with the better one invading the other's territory. He may totally destroy him in the compeition. Or he may have compassion and stop the invasion after gaining a chunk of the territory. If the weaker saleman begins to bad mouth him and saying it stopped him cold or kicked his butt, instead of keeping his mouth shut, the stronger saleman may decide to take it all to teach him a lesson in humility. With respect an alliance might form that may benefit the weaker of the two.

[sebbysteiny]

Interesting idea Hydrogen bond.

 

When I first read your post, I thought that for you, the strength of the army was the most decisive factor. However, I misunderstood. Infact you were giving a ringing endorsement that Justice must be cast aside to make way for the principal of peace making.

 

What would happen if country A got defeated and retreated to its border, and country B had the option of invading and 'extracting Justice'? What should it do, and what kind of 'Justice' should it seek?

 

I'm not convinced your analogy between a sales man having his territory is invaded appropriate. With a Sale turf war, it is all about allowing competition and a free market which benefits the consumer. If one sales person goes out of busness, he can always get another job.

 

With country A raiding country B, people have their livelihoods and savings stolen and their love ones killed. There is no escaping from this pain and Country B has an absolute obligation to protect it's citizens in the best way it sees fit, and if that means invading country A and taking its possiessions back, so be it. However, I think there is something to what you said as I'll explain.

 

My approach was to separate the principals of peace making and justice and work out what each of them individually requires. Then the solution is just the sum of the two. In other words the issues are entirly separated and independant of each other and should both be satisfied. However, this was with the caveat that Justice can only be financial compensation if the other side objects.

 

However, I wasn't entirely satisfied with that because I thought back to the first world war when the allies put outrageous financial compensation on the loser, Germany. Even if this was Britains genine damages, it caused so much resentment that WW2 became innevitable. Thus, Justice should have given way in its entirety to peace making and Justice appears to directly conflict with peace making and can no longer be treated separately. However, the true 'Justice' extracted against Germany was one sided 'Justice' or even just revenge. The German population lost many people and livelihoods too, but they didn't get a dime.

 

So, how does justice opperate here? Well, it could either mean that neither side pays anything or both nations pay each other. There is no inbetween. This is particularly so since both sides were equally to blame for the conflict.

 

However, since firstly, a war is by its nature almost impossible to acquire direct evidence for every injustice, secondly, forming tribunals analyising every incident to link all victims with the individual purportrator will be an almost impossible and thirdly, most damage will be due to legitimate self defence, it seems Justice must be relinquised altogether.

 

Thus, in a war fought between to countries equally to blame, neither side can expect justice afterwoods and all peace making should be to ensure that violence never returns, not to compensate those that suffered. Such compensation must be raised through taxes in the countries concerned. Thus the apparent contradiction of WW1 is resolved.

 

It therefore follows that when one side declares war on the other, all rights to Justice after the event, no matter what happens, are void.

 

The Palestinians who suffered loss in a war that the Arab side started have no rights to Justice against Israel. Israel should be entitled to Justice from the Arab world since many Jewish communities were wiped out and the Arabs declared the war, but Israeli gains during the war should account for this.

 

 

 

The other way to view this is to see if Justice and peace can directly contradict each other (which I have argued it cannot). In such a case, a states primary duty is to look after its citizens, and, as Hydrogen bond pointed out, and if that state feels it can look after its citizens best by letting go of Justice, then so be it.

 

According to Hydrogen Bond (if I am right), the strength of the Israeli Army means that the Palestinians should be greatful were Israel to retreat and give them land won in war and they should accept such an offer and give up all rights to what they see as Justice, including the right of return.

 

 

On a final note, it seems all roads lead to Rome. No matter how you view this, the right of return must always be given up in its entirety. The debate is whether the Palestinians are entitled to financial compensation (which I argued in my second post) or to nothing, which both I and, if I interpretted him right, Hydrogen Bond argued for in our most recent posts.

 

However, regardless of what the Palestinians are morally entitled to, the Palestinians can still use it as a bargaining chip for extracting a more favourable peace settlement. Nevertheless, I have seen no sign that Palestinians have even contemplated making the necessary comprimise. If anything, it looks like the Palestinians would rather have eternal war than relinquish this demand and so my less than favourable opinion of the Palestinian position remains.

[ronthepon]

Well, to the Country A vs Country B thing, here are my opinions.

 

Obviously it cant be the fault of all the people of country A at blame for initiating the attack.

 

Those who ordered the attack in the first case are to blame and must bear the brunt of the 'justice'.

 

For the compensation, if the country really is un-egoistic for it, may as well turn to UN for directions and hope that the concerned people fill them in. Forcefully taking money back from Country B will be a shame, as it will go on to create a very long-lasting hate period.

 

The condition in which its a national treasure, it should reside with the country with whom it's been for the most amount of time and is best associated with. (Look ant the Koh-i-noor and think)

 

The shrine thing is the toughest one in my opinion.

I guess it should be put in the country in which it holds the most value, and a free channel of tourism and all that should be opened onto it from Country A/B to B/A

[sebbysteiny]

For the compensation, if the country really is un-egoistic for it, may as well turn to UN for directions

 

So we agree that justice, if granted, must take the form of financial compensation only.

 

 

Those who ordered the attack in the first case are to blame and must bear the brunt of the 'justice'.

 

This means that, as I said in my second and third posts, that Justice is something that clings onto the victims and the purpertrators.

 

However, this caused me trouble. My ideas in my second and third posts hinged upon Justice and peace being two separate concepts that must both be satisfied individually. Therefore, if there was a situation where the interests of Justice and the interests of peace directly conflicted in a way that was totally inseparable, then Housten, we have a problem.

 

Unfortunately for me, I've thought of such a situation, and it is a very commonly occuring situation.

 

Country A invades Country B and steals money and kills people. Country A withdraws to its own borders. Thus far, Justice says that Country A's government (who purportrated the injustice) should pay financial compensation to Country B. Previously, I stated that were time to pass and either the purportators of the victims to die, then Justice will have become impossible. This means, as it should, one cannot go back thousands of years to extract Justice (success). Further, Country A cannot invade Country B and kill people to get it's version of 'Justice' because Justice must be financial only (more success). Also, if Country A has spent the money, Justice becomes impossible once again and so Country B can get nothing (more success).

 

However, if Country A promises to withdraw on condition that all claims against Country B are null and void, I have a problem. There now exists a direct conflict between Justice and peace. Country B can now either have one or the other but not both. Thus, one has to reevaluate whether Justice and peace are separate principals or intertwined together or even just two different parts of a deeper more complete principal.

 

If, Justice is separate from peace, then it follows that Country B cannot give up Justice on behalf of its citizens because it does not have the power. Only the victims can do so. Instead, the countries should work out a peace settlement and the victims and purpertrators should work out Justice separately. Indeed, I have heard the Palestinians argue this many times. But this is a nonsensical position because it means that every citizen in Country B must suffer endless war simply because, say, a small but determined group refuse to give up their pusuit of Justice, which, if anything, is a massive injustice to the rest of the population of country B.

 

A countries government must have the right to declare claims for Justice null and void on behalf of its citizens if that state feels it is in the interests of its people and humanity as a whole to get peace instead. Perhaps that state could then pay some kind of compesation through taxes but that is an entirely domestic affair.

 

Therefore the idea that the principals of justice and peace are entirely separate leads to absurdities and must be wrong. However, the original problem doesn't go away. What is, justice, and when does it become more important the peace? My 'lets separate them' idea was a nice try (if I do say so myself) but ultimately wrong.

 

I now can only see two solutions. Firstly, both justice and peace are noble principals but where Justice and peace collide, peace must dominate. This is the 'intertwined' solution. I don't like this because it would mean that any country B who has had horrible crimes committed on it would be morally in the wrong should they turn down a genuine offer for peace to pursue some kind of justice for its people.

 

Alternatively, both peace and justice are both sub arguments of a single more general, deeper and more fundamental argument. The trouble with this is one would have to find what that fundamental argument is.

 

However, I reckon HydrogenBond has found the answer.

 

If they peacefully withdraw, country B should be happy enough with the withdrawal because it is far better than they had during the invasion.

...

With respect an alliance might form that may benefit the weaker of the two.

 

I now believe the more fundamental principal is that the principal of justice AND the principal of peace are both sub arguments to the principal of a nations duty to act in the best interests of its people. Pursuing justice is in the interests of its people because suffering was caused and the only way to alleviate that suffering (other than waiting tens of years for the suffering to pass or the victims to die) is to pursue justice. However, pursuing peace is also in the best interests of its people. It will stop many of its people being killed and robbed, and will give the country to develop economically.

 

Thus, where it is in interests of its people to give up justice, then justice must give way. Where it is the interest of its people to pursue justice rather than make peace (and the only example I can think of that is launching an invasion to get possessions recently stolen back), then so be it.

 

Applying this to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

 

The Israelis will not accept the right of return because it will destroy Israel as a Jewish state. I think it is safe to say it is in the interests of its people that the people of Israel keep control of their own state even if this comes at the expense of peace. The Jewish people in that region love ruling over themselves and will never accept being ruled over by the Palestinians and allowing a government that, say, bans alcahol. Further, the Jewish state is not threatened militarily to the point where it needs to sacrifice its entire identity.

 

The same principal applies to the Palestinians, but it does not effect the right of return.

 

The Palestinians, however, claim the right of return because it is in the interests of what they percieve to be justice. However, they know that getting Israel to accept it is almost impossible. They also know that the suffering of the Palestinians by the war is very severe and unless the Palestinians give it up, there will no peace. Therefore, it is against the interests of their people to refuse peace to pursue 'justice'. Further, all the arguments about justice still apply. A nation that wages war forfeits its right to justice and all compensation must be financial only and not in the form of an Israeli passport. For these two reasons, the right of return must be given up in full.

 

Yet another road that leads to rome. So the problems with the right of return are thus: it goes beyond financial compensation; it is getting to the point whereby it is entirely an historical claim as most victims or purportrators are dead and money spent; the Arab side lost all rights to justice anyway since they invaded Israel and started the war; and most fundamentally, it is not in the interests of their own people to put justice before peace. However, even this is on the very debatable premis that justice does indeed favour the Palestinians.

 

Israel, by contrast, is entitled to reject the right of return because it is in their own peoples interests to control the government that rules them.