A Plea For Humility
Discover more from All Facts Matter
A Plea For Humility
As We Confront Crisis In The World, We Do Well To Confront Also Our Own Limitations
The ongoing orgy of violence between Israel and Hamas is by any measure an humanitarian catastrophe. People have died, people continue to die, and there is nothing about these deaths that is even remotely “okay”.
War is Hell, and it is also barbaric. Whether we take the side of Israel or whether we take the side of Hamas, or whether we look with horror on the tribulations being inflicted on the Palestinian Arabs as a result of this renewed war between Israel and Hamas, there is no escaping this reality.
Neither is there any escaping our own inability to end the wars waged by others. No matter how earnestly we ourselves may desire peace, that desire cannot prevent the choices of others for war.
While I believe we can and should always work for peace among all men, we should also be mindful that our actions, no matter how well-intentioned, can facilitate and enable war. Motivations aside, when we act, if we are not careful we run serious risk of making matters much worse.
The recent revelations in HonestReporting of how western journalists were “embedded” with Hamas when they launched their October 7th attacks upon Israel are disturbing, and they are a telling example of how, at the very least, innocent carelessness can produce evil consequence.
While we are generally prone to applaud journalists who travel into war zones to bring back stories of such conflicts, what HonestReporting has detailed about the conduct of journalists for the Associated Press, the New York Times, and CNN lies somewhere between deeply disturbing.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.
What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.
Nor is this idle speculation. We know from the stories carried on the AP service as well as other news outlets that journalists were present when the Kibbutzim Kfar Azza and Be’eri were attacked by Hamas terrorists.
Consider these images, which we are told within the story are of Hamas terrorists in the process of abducting Israeli civilians.
These are not the social media postings made by the Hamas terrorists such as has been documented on
. These are the work of “professional journalists” who were actually present when these abductions took place.HonestReporting asks a simple question: how did these reporters come to be there at the very moment these atrocities were occuring? As they point out, it is not simply a question of reporters documenting important events.
Let’s be clear: News agencies may claim that these people were just doing their job. Documenting war crimes, unfortunately, may be part of it. But it’s not that simple.
It is now obvious that Hamas had planned its October 7 attack on Israel for a very long time: its scale, its brutal aims and its massive documentation have been prepared for months, if not years. Everything was taken into account — the deployments, the timing, as well as the use of bodycams and mobile phone videos for sharing the atrocities.
Is it conceivable to assume that “journalists” just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?
The actions of the relevant media outlets in the immediate aftermath of HonestReporting breaking this story casts even more doubt on the role the journalists played on October 7.
REACTIONS UPDATE: After publication of this article, a spokeswoman for the Associated Press quoted by the Daily Wire denied any advance knowledge of the attack, although HonestReporting did not make such accusation. “The Associated Press had no knowledge of the Oct. 7 attacks before they happened,” said Nicole Meir. “The role of the AP is to gather information on breaking news events around the world, wherever they happen, even when those events are horrific and cause mass casualties. AP uses images taken by freelancers around the world, including in Gaza.”
According to Ynet News, CNN has decided to suspend ties with Eslaiah despite not finding “any reason to doubt the journalistic accuracy of the work he has done for us.”
Despite the denials of evil intent by these media outlets, we are nevertheless left with the two eternally awkward questions: What did the media know about Hamas’ plans, and when did they know it?
Even if we ascribe the most innocent of motives to the journalists who captured these images, that they were merely there reporting on an unfolding story, we cannot escape at least the intimation that their presence was a part of Hamas’ overall strategy. For the reporters to have been right there at the right place at just the right time is quite possibly—perhaps even probably—a deliberate effort on the part of Hamas to magnify the impact of their attack.
As HonestReporting points out, if this is the case, then the journalists, intentionally or not, breached that ephemeral boundary between covering a story and being part of the story. The most charitable explanation we have is that the journalists were duped by Hamas into providing a platform to publicize their barbarities. The least charitable explanation is that these journalists wanted to publicize Hamas’ barbarities. Somewhere in between is the possibility that the journalists were so focused on their own journalistic ambitions they simply didn’t care whether Hamas was being empowered by their actions or not.
Should the journalists have paused to consider the possibility they were being used by Hamas to further Hamas’ agenda? Should the journalists have notified the Israelis and then refused to give Hamas the publicity the terror organization craved? Did the journalists notify the Israelis before proceeding to cover the attack anyway? I certainly do not have the answers to these questions, yet I know these questions must be asked.
Yet we are faced with more than just this one breach of a journalistic boundary. Politicians and even ordinary citizens the world over are taking sides, expressing support either for Israel or Hamas or the Palestinian Arabs apart from Hamas. In the recent Republican Presidential Debate, the candidates were asked by moderator Lester Holt what they would as President tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the conflict. The response was in every instance some flavor of Ron DeSantis’ “finish the job”.
However, a question arises. On what basis does the United States or any nation presume to tell Israel what should be its conduct within any war fought by Israel? How is it appropriate as a matter of US policy for the US to tell any nation how it should wage war?
By the same token, how is it appropriate for the US (or any nation) to tell Israel how it should not wage war? Yet this is exactly what a group calling itself the “Biden Alumni for Peace and Justice” are tasking the United States to do.
We write to you as alumni of your 2020 presidential campaign. We fought tirelessly to organize millions of Americans to cast their votes for you. Like you, we believe in the dignity and value of every human life and the need for moral courage from our country’s leadership. We implore you, President Biden, to live that moral courage right now by stepping up to be a leader we can be proud of in the face of injustice. As President of the United States, you have significant influence in this perilous moment — you must call for a ceasefire, hostage exchange, and de-escalation, and take concrete steps to address the conditions of occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing at the root of the horrific violence we are witnessing now.
Would most Americans approve of the People’s Republic Of China telling the United States how we should handle our own military affairs? Do not many of the same Americans who champion telling the Israelis to “finish the job” also chafe at the notion of the International Criminal Court exercising jurisdiction over US foreign policy?
This is not to say that we should be silent in the face of evil conduct by anyone. We can—and we should—speak out when Israel commits war crimes against the Palestinian Arabs.
Likewise, we can—and we should—speak out when Hamas commits war crimes, not only against the Israelis but also against the Palestinian Arabs.
It is to say that we should acknowledge that, when we take sides in such a conflict, we run the risk of perpetuating that conflict. If we rationalize Hamas, if we excuse Hamas, if we legitimize Hamas, we run the risk of encouraging Hamas to continue on its bloody path of genocide. Likewise, if we tell Israel to “finish the job”, we are excusing and legitimizing the inevitable deaths of thousands of civilian Palestinian Arabs.
If we encourage either side in that or any war, we potentially perpetuate that same war. Even if we justify our stance as being for the sake of peace, we must always be mindful that such an intention does not guarantee that our actions will actually promote peace and not war.
Separately I have argued that, in the Middle East and elsewhere, mankind has sown a wind of war, and is now reaping a whirlwind of perpetual war.
We are witnessing this unfold in Israel and Gaza even now. No matter what predicates are deployed to form the casus belli on either side, the reality of the present day is that Israel and Hamas have chosen war over peace, and are using prior acts on both sides as justification for their current actions. There is no avoiding this reality.
If we encourage either side in this choice, how can we expect either side to eventually choose peace? More importantly, how can we hope to persuade both sides to jointly choose peace?
If there is to be any hope for bringing this bloodshed to a quick and lasting resolution, we must have the honesty and integrity to acknowledge that if we choose a side—either side—we are choosing war and not peace. If we stand with Israel or if we stand with Hamas, or if we choose the Palestinian Arabs apart from Hamas, we are choosing war and not peace.
To choose peace means choosing an end to the violence. It does not mean choosing one side’s violence over the other.
To choose peace means we must have the humility to understand that we are not Israel, we are not Hamas, we are not the Palestinian Arabs. We are outsiders to these events, onlookers and ultimately bystanders only. We cannot choose what Israel must do, nor can we choose what the Palestinian Arabs must do. We do not control Israel any more than we control Hamas.
To choose peace means we must have the integrity to call evil actions evil, regardless of who commits them. We must not rationalize or excuse evil conduct, no matter whose it is. If Israel does wrong, we must say that Israel has done wrong. If Hamas has done wrong, we must say that Hamas has done wrong. We must hold all sides to account for all that they do.
If we hold Israel to account but not Hamas or the Palestinian Arabs, we are not choosing peace. If we hold Hamas to account and not Israel we are not choosing peace.
In this or any war, if we choose sides we are not ever on the side of peace. If we truly wish to end war, we must stand on the side of peace.
For myself, I stand on the side of peace. This might not be a popular choice. I believe it is the right choice.
A Plea For Humility
“We” have absolutely no control over or blame for these atrocities. Our only responsibility is to pray for God’s will to be done. And it will be. The powers that be do not care what we think about their plans. Sure, vote for the least violent candidates, the least dictatorial candidates. But our immediate job is to live our own lives in submission to God’s will, loving others and sharing the gospel until Jesus returns. If every single rational and compassionate person protested this war, they would still do it. They aren’t rational or compassionate. They are working out a plan. Pray for peace and prepare for war.
Part of the whole dilemma of choosing war or peace is that you can’t tell the best path except in hindsight. So it comes down to: strive adamantly for peace, keep a cool head, but accept the reality that you may not be able to completely avoid war forever. It may be thrust upon you, and then it becomes a stark matter of the opponent’s survival or yours.
Mr. kust has shown himself to be well-educated in military history, and he’s also a former Marine. I think he’s well aware of how perilously close we are to a serious world conflict, with all its horrors, and he wants to avoid that. Don’t you?
After WW2, Winston Churchill wrote a six-volume history of the war - which won the Pulitzer Prize - entitled, “The Second World War”. In volume one (“The Gathering Storm”) he explains the causes of the war. There were several, but one cause was that, as a result of the atrocities of WW1, the people of Europe were determined to never do that again. It was to be peace at ANY cost, no matter what. Hitler exploited that mindset. First he took back the Rhinelands that had been ceded to France after WW1, and most Europeans made excuses for him - they were German lands for years, German people still live there, sure it was wrong of Hitler to violate the terms of Versailles, but we’re not going to go to WAR over it! And Hitler kept on with that strategy - taking over Austria, invading Czechoslovakia, then finally Poland. Historians have debated: WHEN exactly should the rest of Europe have challenged him militarily ? In hindsight, France probably should have declared war at the invasion of Czechoslovakia, because they had a treaty regarding that. But it’s only in hindsight that a war decision becomes clear enough! Since war is truly hell, let’s keep our heads and avoid it until .....we can’t.