Does a love of peace distinguish the Left, or a love of justice?

[Minstrel Boy]

Doesn't calling for peace, while neglecting the injustice which broke the peace (and I'm speaking of any injustice and any peace), usually favour the bully who can enforce his own terms? What does it mean to say "No Justice, No Peace," and is that something you would say?

I'm wondering whether shades of emphasis between justice and peace may actually distinguish leftists from liberals.

"If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine," said Che, which is not quite the same as "Give peace a chance."

[Lerkfish]

1. I dunno. Why does "justice" always involve the bully's rationalization

for bloodshed?

[Ignoramus]

2. without justice peace doesn't occur

A twist is that the controllers of the system of justice can't be given justice, i.e. prisoners can't give justice to the prison system, only the prison system can be just to the prisoners.

[Tom Joad]

3. "If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI.

Not exactly a "crazed" leftist, just common sense.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Amen

[PA Democrat]

4. The problem as I see it is that many people confuse "justice"

with revenge.

[Lerkfish]

9. thanks. that's what I was trying to say.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I think peace is a lot easier to define than justice.

In the peace-vs.-justice field, justice is usually whatever the winners say it is.

[bryant69]

6. The problem of being an adult is distinquishing be tween goods

Or bads. WHen you are a child you are taught a black and white morality, because it fits most of the situations you come to as a kid(although not all, I admit). As an adult, you have to choose between two good things (like Peace and Justice) or between two bad things (any decision involving war). Liberals/Leftists really struggle in an adult way to decide what is the best thing to do.

Republicans, on the other hand, see things as little children.

Bryant
Check it out- -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tom Joad]

7. ML King was very angry at "liberals" who always urged him to be "patient"

Amazingly, those "liberals" were living very comfortable lives, while the poor and African Americans suffered greatly. Some things can't wait, some things should not wait.

[msmcghee]

8. Excellent question for DU Minstrel Boy

Looking through these Lebanon threads it seems to me that many here are not willing to judge aggression when it is their scared cow that is doing the act.

Their side's aggression (Hizbollah) is always seen as just - because those Israeli Fascists are Bush's allies or whatever. They justify that aggression as - what else can they do?

The conundrum is that real peace requires the worldwide condemnation of the initiation of the use of force to settle disputes. Period. It also requires a refusal to revisit past wrongs. That's a never-ending loop that always leads to more revenge and more violence.

But, this is a reality that supposedly peace-loving liberals here at DU are unwilling to face. And it shows me that the left is just as irrational as the right when it comes to war. We choose different sides to bash or support - but we all seem to love to get our war-on.

[Lerkfish]

10. false dichotomy, you're accusing people who disagree with Isreal

as being on the side of Hezbollah.

[Tyler Durden]

13. I don't know why I bother...BUT:

When you play the "Why do you hate ____?" or "If you ain't FUR us, yer AGIN us," with this argument, you just look silly.

NOBODY here loves Hizbollah. NOBODY.

NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY
NOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODYNOBODY

Period.

As for me, I just think you lose the "moral high ground" when your "collateral damage" outweighs your argument. Not that Hizbollah ever had any "moral high ground" in the first place, but the killing of innocents in Lebanon has dashed any high morality the Israelis had gotten back since the LAST time they started killing indiscriminately or let their "lackies" do it for them.

So play your "Why do you hate ______?" game all you want, but YOU know who you sound like without me even telling you.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tyler Durden]

17. Because you aren't LISTENING.

I have said, on numerous occasions, one of them less than 15 minutes ago, that the actions of both sides are reprehensable.

But state-SPONSORED murder is vile beyond mention, and the Israelis have learned nothing over the last 60 years. Now they appear to have learned only more idiocy from the Bush administration's Iraq Adventure.

Pathetic.

Now, next time, read ALL of my posts and read the post in its entirety.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tyler Durden]

26. and you are a fool.

There is enough blame over there to go around.

If you will check the news for 6/14/06, you will see ISRAELI military aggression, which in all likelihood helped to trigger this mess. So they didn't LIKE the results of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. So they starve them out. THESE are your moral creatures?

HOW DARE YOU acuse ME of moral relativism with your MY ISRAEL, ALWAYS RIGHT attitude? Take off the blinders. Heinous crimes are being committed in the middle East, by the UNITED STATES, by HAMAS, by HEZBOLLAH, and by ISRAEL.

"IF THEY HADN'T...THEN THERE WOULDN'T..." What utter and complete baloney. Even a BURGLAR couldn't justify his crimes better than that.

[msmcghee]

29. No, that does not work.

You can't go back to the last imagined atrocity to justify the latest aggression - which is what the Arabs continually do. It's an easy out that can be used to justify any aggression - if that's your purpose.

In this conflict - Hizbollah is the aggressor. Period. If they had not attacked Israel there would be no dead Lebanese children - there would be no dead Israeli children.

You are justifying aggression and making a greater war that will result in many more innocent civilian deaths more likely to happen.

Working for peace requires more than condemning the side you hate. Your puported desire for peace is obviously much weaker than your desire to condemn Israel.

PS - calling me a fool only shows that you have no logical argument to justify your position. So, go for the name calling. That always works great.

[Tyler Durden]

35. I condemn BOTH.

This conflict has gone on for 60 years, and YOUR Moral Relativism ("You are justifying aggression and making a greater war that will result in many more innocent civilian deaths more likely to happen...) is beginning to nauseate me.

You defend "Your Side." I HAVE NO SIDE, except, as stated by Gandhi, Dag Hammarskjold, Yitzak Rabin, Anwar al-Sadat, AND EVERY MURDERED CHILD, FROM THE REFUGEE CAMPS OF LEBANON TO THE KIBBUTZ OF ISRAEL, peace, lasting peace; stop the killing, right now, both sides.

[msmcghee]

36. Good, we agree.

Now, when either side breaks the peace and attacks the other - from this point forward - are you willing to condemn them?

[Lerkfish]

37. what peace exactly?

olmert has declared no ceasefire now or for the foreseeable future.
Are you seeing a peace I am not?

[msmcghee]

39. This will end.

When it does are you willing to condemn whichever side initiates violence aginst the other?

PS - Sorry about getting your name wrong. I was not trying to be snarky. My eyes read Lerk but my brain transposed it to Lurk.

[Lerkfish]

42. yup.

again, since I seem to have to repeat myself constantly, I AM AGAINST VIOLENCE of all kinds. period. I'm a pacifist. So, you may assume I condemn violence from any source.

mmmmkay?

I can, however, be MORE upset at one side than the other if they are committing MORE violence.


mmmmkay?


and I don't care if that bothers you because its how I view violence: I hate one dead child, and I hate 8 dead children 8 times as much.

[msmcghee]

43. OK - I hate violence too. But here's the problem.

First, let me say that I respect your opinion. I don't like to have negative feelings toward anyone at DU (well, almost anyone) but I consider you a good person - who I happen to disagree with about a couple of things. Since I think you are a reasonable person I will attempt here to make a logical case for my position. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I'm saying this is how it looks to me. If you still think I'm wrong please enlighten me as this is important to me ethically and I don't want to be wrong about it.

So here's my case, as I see it:

You hate violence - I hate violence. But, violence is like bigotry. I hate bigotry too. But, strictly speaking that makes me a bigot - against bigotry - doesn't it?

I think this is the kind of conundrum that we face when it comes to violence. We can't prevent violence in the future if we are not willing to use violence, when necessary (or fully support those who do), against those who initiate it.

I don't think you would say that our fathers (perhaps grandfathers in your case) were bad people for waging war against Germany and Japan - and waging that war with ferocious violence that ended up killing many innocent civilians. Although I sincerely regret that those civilians died I am ever grateful to my father that he and others like him helped to kill many Germans and Japanese - so that the allies won the war.

That is a morally justified position because Japan and Germany initiated violence against us. They attacked us. That forces us into the position of being ruthless killers - and to show no quarter - in order to assure our own survival. That's what people who start wars by attacking others cause to happen. When a people are fighting for their survival they do not have the luxury of metering the level of violence against their attackers. To do so is to gamble with the lives of their own families.

Just as the sacrifices that were made by my father and many others who did not come home from that war were a supremely noble sacrifice in the cause of the best kind of morality - defending your family and nation from outside attack - the acts of aggression that forced us into that position are the worst form of human depravity IMO. Those acts were ultimately responsible for millions of innocent deaths. The fact that at least half of those deaths were caused by people on our side does not diminish the nobility of their actions in the least.

In this case, there was a tenuous truce. Israel was even putting up with occasional rockets from across the Lebanese border. Then Hizbollah decided to aggravate things. They kidnapped an Israeli soldier and kept him hostage. And they greatly increased the number of missiles coming in to Israel.

This was a clear act of aggression during a time of tenuous peace - an act of war that Hizbollah calculated would induce a response from Israel. It was an act of war that Hizbollah had been preparing for since Israel left Lebanon after the last time they had to go in and clean out terrorists along the border who were firing missiles into Israel. This time Hizbollah had several years to bring in thousands of missiles and store them among the towns and settlements in S. Lebanon. I'd remind you that those missiles have one purpose. To kill civilians. They are almost worthless against fortified military positions.

In my opinion, to prevent certain war and threats in the future, it is now absolutely necessary for Israel to eliminate those missiles and to kill any Hizbollah it can find - even if some innocent Lebanese are killed in the process. To do less is to condone the initiation of violence generally in world affairs - and is to reward Hizbollah for this intiation of violence against Israel in this case. To do less is the same as Israel saying - go ahead and kill a few Israeli civilians every week with your missiles - we won't do anything because we are afraid of world opinion.

I think that is immoral and I think it immoral to condemn Israel for defending herself in this way. Questions about Israeli tactics and how many civilians are being killed are beside the point. Civilians are always killed in war. Israel is not trying to kill civilians, obviously. They could do that easily in any city or town in Lebanon if that was their purpose. Israel is worrying about civilians who may be in the way - but is not moderating what is necessary to eliminate Hizbollah and their missiles. We can not expect Israel to do other than that. You would not do less if someone was firing missiles at your children.

If Hizbollah had not attacked Israel there would be no Israeli bombs falling on Lebanon right now. There would be no dead Lebanese children.

Even if Israel sat there and let them fire the missiles and did nothing - there would still be dead Israeli children from those missiles.

We must condemn the aggressor - the initiator of violence if we ever hope to prevent the initiation of violence in the future.

It is the initiation of violence that causes war. The violent defense against that intitiation - and the condemnation of those acts of war by the whole world - is what prevents wars in the future.

The defense against that violence - however violent - is moral as long as no civilains are targeted on purpose - and should be supported by all thinking people who love peace. To do less is to give Hizbollah a PR victory that will make them more likely to intitiate violence in the future. That will directly result in more dead Lebanese and Israeli children. I don't want that. I know you don't want that.

When Lebanon says look at all the dead Lebanese civilians from the hands of the IDF - I say, if you are so concerned about the dead civilains, perhaps you should not have provided safe haven for terrorists and their missiles to attack a heavily armed foreign nation from within your borders - while hiding among that civilian population.

Please tell me where I am wrong about this.

[catmother]

44. great post. my dad and most of my uncles served in WWII.

i was born 10/9/41 -- 2 months before Pearl Harbor.

[Lerkfish]

47. your entire post

is predicated on the assumption that blame is the determinate for objecting to violence. Further, your post is based on the assumption that Isreal is blameless. You use the example of Japan and Germany attacking america unprovoked, which justified our fighting back.
first of all, Pearl Harbor was not entirely unprovoked. We already had a military presence in the region, else there would be no ships to attack. We WERE a threat. Yes, we were a threat to a bad regime, but for them to view us as a threat is not unreasonable.
Did Pearl Harbor justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You may think YES, but I think NO. The atomic bomb that was dropped intentionally targeted civilian populations in a disproportionate way.

sound familiar?

I'm surprised you chose that example.

I"m not going to come around to your way of thinking because I am against violence, period. I don't care who started it, end it. ONly if you cease hostilities, can you find a way to resolve the differences. It isn't because I don't understand your arguments, I do, its because I reject the underlying premise.
I do not believe that anything justifies the deaths of innocents. You can RATIONALIZE it, say its "inevitable" or "avoidable" or whatever. That does not justify it, because you cannot make just what is inherently unjust.

I also disagree with your premise that peace can be bought with war. Has this worked, ever? Has it worked in the Middle East? No. War cannot broker peace. It can, at best, crush your enemy to the point they can't fight back. That' is not a peace. That is hegemony. And the survivors remember and wait to gather strength to start the fight all over again. And then, they have greater impetus to exact revenge.

make no mistake, this campaign is all about revenge, on both sides. And also make no mistake, this did not start with the captured IDF soldiers. You conveniently forget the Isreali govt. assassination of a certain leader several months prior. But even so, THAT act was not the first volley, either. There have been attacks against Isreal and oppresion of palestinians by Isreal since I've been in short pants.

It no longer matters who STARTS the violence. It matters that the violence is STOPPED. If the goal is vengeance, it will never stop , because both sides will always see vengeance that needs to be addressed.

Its all nice and everything that you think Isreal is working to achieve peace here, contrary to their obvious actions. But the fact remains, its obviously revenge rather than peace they are seeking. And as long as that goal is in their hearts and in the hearts of their enemies, there will never be peace.

I reject your peace argument of words by pointing to Isreal's actions, as they have not only lied about a ceasefire, but they are now EXPANDING their hostilities.


words, words, words cannot buy back a dead child. Actions speak louder.

[Lerkfish]

25. that's a hateful and false accusation of me.

I've explained how people mistook my criticism of Condi rice and the neocons to be about Isreal...HOWEVER, I have also spoken out against Hezbollah and against the US in Iraq, its just that AT THE MOMENT, Israel is slaughtering lebanese 3-5 times faster than Hezbollah is.

If you had bothered to really understand my position, I'm against violence ON ALL SIDES, I'm just more disappointed in Isreal, because I believed better of them, up until now.

I'm really tired of being labeled an antisemite because you need a target.

and its "lerkfish, not lurkfish.

[Tyler Durden]

28. All people without valid arguments resort to demonizing opposition.

"WHY DO YOU HATE ISRAEL???"

GOD DAMN IT but I'm sick of that bullshit. I hate NO ONE (with the posible exception of my ex-wife, but even THAT will pass AGAIN). To the person who challenges my MORALISM and SENSE OF JUSTICE because I don't agree with them, I say, you and yours belong with the Pig Bush and HIS deniers and demonizers.

[msmcghee]

38. I have never called anyone an anti-semite. n/t

[Lerkfish]

40. LOL!

no, not in so many words I suppose.

ok. time to move on to more productive discourse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Israel is fighting injustice with injustice. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

27. EXACTLY.

GEE, why don't we sit here and debate the RELATIVE evils committed by these two bands of non-caring and brutal individuals.

HEY, let's play HAIL ISRAEL! HAIL HEZBOLLAH! Who STINKETH the MOST? Same argument made in defense of the TRIANGLE in trading Rum and Gold in Ghana for SLAVES for Molasses for RUM.

[Tyler Durden]

11. Not recently.

Depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose.

[johnaries]

14. There is a difference between Justice and Revenge.

Justice and Peace certainly do not exclude each other. Frankly, Justice is much more likely in Peace.

[femmedem]

15. My local activist group changed their name a few years ago.

They went from being "The SeCT Peace Network" to the SeCT Peace and Justice Network." I thought this was a good decision.

Peace is more than an absence of war, and violence doesn't always come in the form of a bomb or a bullet. Sometimes violence comes in the form of starvation, of poverty, of persistent and pervasive denial of human rights.

That's what "no justice, no peace" means to me.

[LWolf]

19. Semantics.

There is no peace without justice, no justice without peace. I don't see dividing them into separate entities as anything but a semantics argument.

Justice does not have to mean violence or aggression.

[BeTheChange]

20. Neither..

It's their desire to end injustice.

People rarely agree on what justice actually is. But I think it's universal for democrats to wish to end all forms of injustice. That is why the two party system worked for awhile. Both sides wanted good. They just differed on how to accomplish the goal. So half the time half of them would be represented.. and the other half would be represented the rest of the time :)

See, now I dont know what Democrats are really about. They seem to want "Justice" more then they want to end the injustice. Let's stop degrading Laura Bush, regardless of how bad her outfit is. So what if the Bush twins are strippers? So what if Bush is an idiot meglomaniac. How far does a person usually get by stating the obvious? They just become more and more beligerant. Lets stop juding religious folks with smug social superiority.. and lets do alot more focusing on ending injustice. Real, tangible ways to end injustice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Good question. It fully depends on the definition of "left".

I'm on the justice side, but the problem with that is people often take a very short term view of what constitutes justice.

[Quantess]

23. A love of rational, reasonable, sensible thinking.

Appreciation of all walks of life. Human rights. Protecting the earth for future generations.
The best interests of the people, not the ruling class.

Peace and justice both fit in there, but they don't define the Left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Violence that kills innocents is unjust on it's face.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Tyler Durden]

30. and in its heart, to its core.

Jahweh or Allah, Jew or Arab, Israel or Hezbollah.

You both have much evil to account for, no matter what your motivation.

[seemslikeadream]

31. He who knows the right thing and do it not.....

He who knows the right thing
And do it not
Shall be spanked with many stripes,



Marcus Garvey's words come to pass,
Marcus Garvey's words come to pass,

Ain't got no food to eat,
Ain't got no money to spend, wo-oo-oo
Ain't got no food to eat,
Ain't got no money to spend, woo-oo-oo

Come, little one and let me do what i can do for you
And you and you alone
Come, little one, come wo-oo-oo
Let me do all i can do for you and you alone, woo-oo-oo

He who knows the right thing
And do it not
Shall be spanked with many stripes,

Weeping and wailing and moaning,
You've got yourself to blame, I tell you.
Do right do right do right do right do right,
Do right do right do right do right do right
Tell ya to do right, woo-oo-oo
Beg ya to do right, woo -oo- oo

Where is bagawire, he's nowhere to be found
He can't be found
First betrayer who gave away Marcus Garvey
Son of satan, first prophesy,
hold 'em Marcus hold 'em
prohey fulfilled
Catch them, Garvey old

Prophesy fullfilled
Catch them Garvey, catch them woo-oo-oo
Hold them Marcus, hold them woo-oo-oo
Marcus garvey, marcus woo-oo-oo



WAR

Until the philosophy,
Which holds one race superior
And another inferior,
Is finally and permanently
Discredited and abandoned,
Everywhere is war.

WAR

Until there is no longer first class
Or second class citizens of any nation.
Until the color of a man's skin,
Is of no more significance than
The color of his eyes,
I've got to say "war".

WAR

That until the basic human rights,
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race,
I'll say "war"

Until that day the dream of lasting peace,
World-citizenship and the rule of
International morality will remain
Just a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never obtained.
And everywhere is war.

Until the ignoble and unhappy regime
Which holds all of us through,
Child-abuse, yeah, child-abuse yeah,
Sub-human bondage has been toppled,
Utterly destroyed,
Everywhere is war.

War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south,
There is war,
And the rumors of war.

Until that day,
the african continent will know no peace
There is no continent,
Which will know peace.

Children, children.

Fight!

We find it necessary.
We know we will win.
We have confidence in the victory
Of good over evil
Of good over evil

Fight the real enemy!

[Xithras]

32. No Justice. No Peace.

Peace without justice is a fools bargain. It never lasts, and it only benefits the oppressor. War to bring justice is the only war I support.

[EFerrari]

33. Good question, MB. n/t

[Solly Mack]

34. I'm on the side of seeking justice

which isn't the same as "give peace a chance, I agree

Without justice, there will never be peace...not a true peace anyway...maybe periods of time, even long periods of time, where people stew over injustices that were not addressed....but sooner or later, all that anger over injustices not addressed will boil over...

Governments broker peace by telling one aggrieved party to suck it up all the time...without ever really addressing the wrongs committed...well, that's not peace is it?

and it's not peace because justice wasn't the goal

People feel unfairness acutely...they feel the injustice of it all deeply...and they don't forget.

It's so easy to say the past is the past..and people should just forget harm done in the past...but when an injustice isn't addressed, if steps are not taken to make it right when the pain of injustice is fresh...there will be no peace...there will be no forgiving...there is no real "moving on"...resentment lingers...it grows. And people, all people , resent when an injustice done to them isn't recognized, isn't addressed....like it or not "their pain IS real" and must be addressed...even if you, personally, don't think the other persons grievances are legitimate.

Government doesn't care about how "the people" - "feel"...and that is a grave mistake. Cause what they all too often "feel" are the injustices done to them. Sure, governments pay lip-service to the pain of others...but it's just lip service, because justice is never the goal...which means peace is never the goal.

and this does not apply just to current events...it can be applied to the whole of history

but that's just how I see things...

[slackmaster]

41. Neither

The Left doesn't have a monopoly on placing high value on peace and justice.

The difference between the Left and the Right is opinion about what means are best employed to achieve peace and justice.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Even the little girl understand "no justice, no peace."

They're two sides of the same coin, you can have one without the other.

If somebody feels justice is denied, they're going to act violently.

If there's a war going on, there's no chance for justice.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Kaballah is neither left nor right wing. It has two paths,Justice and Love

both of which can lead to the same goal. There is a Christian form of the Kaballah, which is described in the writings of William Blake. Eastern writings such as those of Lao Tsu and the Buddhists also deal with similar themes of seeming opposites leading to the same conclusion or being the same thing.


Basically, there are two kinds of people. One type thinks that we are born innocent and loving and society corrupts us (LOVE). The other thinks that we are born selfish and violent and society keeps us in check (JUSTICE). Most people are some mixture of these two types but there are people who lean more to one extreme than the other. On the political left, you will find more LOVE types, but there are plenty of JUSTICE types who want to see corporate criminals punished and who believe that all men are secretly rapists and who believe that pornagraphy degrades women. On the political right you will find more JUSTICE types, but there are also libertarians who believe that we are all better off left alone.

Many arguments that can not be settled will, if analyzed, be found to boil down to a conflict between JUSTICE and LOVE. Since these are both valid points of view, this means that the argument will never be settled and should be abandonned.