God Refined; Parts 3 and 4: Our Tools for Change and Application of Principles

God Refined
Part 3: Our Tools for Change
Bob Kezer © 1 August 2006
Revised 7 February 2007
ISBN: 978-0-6151-3810-7
$12.95 + p&h at
http://stores.lulu.com/bobkezer

Part 3
Our Tools for Change

When God forgives us it is our Creator’s acceptance of our faith in divine mercy: this allows us to enter the spiritual kingdom. Our mistakes vanish: they are not held over our head as an imposition of guilt. Divine forgiveness is inevitable. Never is penance or sacrifice demanded.

No one is perfect: we will all require forgiveness. As we better understand God, we repent our mistakes: we acknowledge going against divine will, offer apology for doing so, and commit to acting better next time. After confession we should feel no guilt: doing so shows a lack of faith in God’s mercy.

Our capacity to receive God’s forgiveness is created in our souls when we forgive others: the love God offers us, we must pass on. Our Creator forgives us even before we ask for it, but we only experience this in our personal relationship with God when we in turn forgive. This is not an option for those who chose eternal life, but a requirement. Cessation of existence does not happen because God refuses to forgive us, but because we refuse to accept our Creator’s mercy on faith.

To forgive is divine, a manifestation of God’s love: hate, anger, and revenge are human emotions, the demonstration of mortal fear. Our relationship with our Creator is similar to us with our children: what mother has ever needed to forgive a 3 year-old child for their mistakes? Having to do so would be ridiculous. How could they not know that their child’s errors are nothing more than part of the learning process, even if the child does not understand, confess, or repent? With God it is the same.

To forgive is to transcend our emotions: it requires an understanding of our unity, our divine nature, and our personal relationship with God. Forgiving moves us closer to God: holding our grudges reverses the process. Love advances our spiritual self-worth: hate destroys us. The more love in the world, the better for everyone: the more fear, the worse off everyone’s plight. Again, it is in the giving that we receive.

We achieve our highest state when we love everyone as our Creator would have us do: from this stems our best conduct. The more intimate our understanding of others, the easier it is for us to love them, which is to have already forgiven: in this way we model God. To not forgive others shows the degree of a person’s spiritual immaturity – their inability to be God-like.

Our journey is to perfection: along the way, all vestiges of our mortal selves must be replaced with the attributes of divinity. This transformation requires intention – a commitment to remaining grounded in love-based action. Change is often slow: knowing how we should act and doing so are not the same. Spiritual evolution is a function of choice, the repetition of which defines its degree.

Each time we decide not to forgive, it becomes harder for us to do so the next time: we reinforce the energy pattern defined by our emotions. Like a person in a canoe being swept into ever-faster water, our ability to reverse course and paddle back upstream continues to diminish.

The weight of these decisions is relative to the person’s understanding. Not forgiving others out of ignorance – or being taught God does not forgive– is one level of misconduct: the willful transgression of our Creator’s law – knowing that to forgive is divine and then refusing to do so – carries much greater consequence.

Forgiveness requires knowledge of our progressive nature. Failure is the foundation of success: only through making wrong choices do we find the correct path. Knowing we are all in this together – one human family bound by the love of our Creator – releases us to forgive others as we would want them to forgive us: to not do so is selfish.

Our unified nature means that when someone hurts another, everyone is hurt. The side of fear gains weight: that of love loses strength. The brunt of the harm is born by the person, but through our collective consciousness we are all affected. No one can escape the suffering that is life today for more people than not.

Forgiveness is an act of love, a choice to act divine. The more we forgive others, the more we increase the quantity of love in our world: we offset the momentum of fear. The past harm done on our planet has hurt all of us: we continue to suffer the effects of it today. This bank of horror is the fulcrum that will allow us to leverage more love into our world.

People often do bad things believing their actions are correct. Their intentions do not reduce the wrongness of the act, but they do mitigate the spiritual consequences. Those who have been taught that God desires us to kill people who believe differently, are – as they best understand it – still doing God’s will. Their loyalty to our Creator is not the problem, but rather their understanding of God’s attributes.

We forgive others because God wants us to forgive them: this is our Creator’s will. God wants everyone to achieve eternal life. To forgive another person is to increase the divinity in their lives: it improves their chances – as well as ours – of accepting God’s gift. To not forgive someone is to decrease the love they experience: it reduces their ability – and ours – of choosing God’s will next time.

Forgiving others does not mean they get off for the harm they have caused. Not everyone chooses eternal life, but we need to pray that everyone does: those who do will at some point realize the mistakes they have made. For any of us who in truth wish to abide by God’s will, knowing we have not is punishment enough.

The effect on the world’s balance of love and fear that stems from any act of forgiveness is proportional to the harm experienced by the person. Someone who suffers the direct consequences of another person’s actions must reach for a much higher level of character than someone hurt within the collective whole. Still, all forgiveness adds to the love on the planet: it demonstrates our spiritual intention. This changes us.

Our universe is accessible by the spiritual at any point in the continuum. For God, there is no time – our past, present, and future are one: all human history is condensed into one instant, that creative manifestation that contained within itself all of the stuff of the material realms. This knowledge gives us insight into how we overcome the fear that has built up over the ages.

Most people love within the current scope of their lives: they forgive, or not, people within the time span they live. This limits to a great extent the love that can be generated through forgiveness: there is only so much that can happen to any one of us that requires forgiving. Staying current with forgiveness works for us, but it does not allow our world to catch up: the downward trend continues.

The people from the past are as much a part of God’s family as we are. We may feel separated from them or from God, but our Creator never feels this. Hating people from before adds to the negativity on the planet: it works against us. Forgiving those from the past, however, does just the opposite: it adds to the weight of love changing our world.

Forgiving others for the harm they caused someone else strengthens our ability to forgive those who harm us: when the pain is personal, it is difficult to achieve a balanced perspective. Forgiving people of the past who have brought our world its horror gives us the space to contemplate with greater clarity. Distance allows us to learn more about the necessity of making mistakes: we become more aware of our own failings and more tolerant of others.

Forgiveness is one of the greatest spiritual tools we can use to affect the overall balance of love and fear in the world. We can each choose to be part of the solution. When we forgive the people who have harmed us in person, we improve ourselves: we overwhelm fear with love. This makes us a force for transformation on the planet.

We increase this process as we learn to forgive those who have harmed us as part of the collective whole, offseting the fear being generated in the world today. Finally, by going further and forgiving those from humanity’s past, we start to break down the accumulation of fear collected over the ages.

Every bad act that has happened in our history can be a focal point for bringing more love to the planet. Fear remains in time, but love is eternal: the more we give, the more we receive. Only love generates more than it takes. An act that hurt a thousand people in the past can be used by many more now, and in the future, as a continual source for bringing more love into the world.

From love and forgiveness stem good will. This means basing our decisions on the unified nature of humanity – past, present, and future.

Residing in love we work to develop good relationships with all people: we give others the benefit of the doubt. We treat them with the respect, dignity, and tolerance that we know our Creator would have us treat them. We do this without expectation of reward.

Good will implies a cheerful attitude: it is based in loving-kindness. This is something that we want to do, not a duty we perform. It is not just our actions that are important, but how we go about them.

This is a way of being: a willingness to live with faith that we are all siblings of the same loving Creator. We remain open, ready, and wanting to find ways that bring us closer to the others in our lives: we search for these opportunities rather than just waiting for them to happen.

As we experience the truth resulting from our individual efforts, we become stronger. Other avenues offering greater participation outside of our normal spheres of influence become more apparent. The philosophy of good will spreads through all areas of our lives: we apply loving consideration to all of our decisions.

As members of the institutions directing our world, we have an obligation to participate. Those we elect need to have demonstrated a commitment to the principles of good will. No one lives their lives without making mistakes. We want leaders who have learned life’s lessons through experience.

Our world is first for the common person, not that fraction of a percentage who has been gifted with so much more. Our leaders must be of us: those who have demonstrated a commitment to character in their lives, and who then offer themselves for a limited term of public office.

Politics is supposed to be a service, not a profession: allowing it to become one has corrupted our governments. The United States today is not what our founders envisioned, but rather what they fought against.

Inconsistency between what our leaders say before elections, and what they do after, must carry consequences. Transparency is an absolute requirement, not a choice for those in office.

Elected officials must be held accountable: clear, direct, and unambiguous communication should be expected. Campaign expenses need to be limited, debates open to all candidates, and the process paid for with public funds: personal fortunes can no longer be a ticket to political power.

Good will is an active process: it comes from intention. We must craft today the world we want tomorrow. What has more influence on this than how we raise our children? If we do not want them thinking war is okay, we should not buy them plastic guns to act it out.

The law of cause and effect can seldom be broken. Using violence to control our children develops fear-based personalities: love never hits, shouts, or withdraws itself. Do as I say, not as I do, is the way of the past: our children have memories and the right to critique their upbringing.

The more we integrate compassion, tolerance, and fairness into our children’s education, the greater their chance of reversing the historic effects of fear. Non-violent means of conflict resolution have to be emphasized.

Our past needs to be understood in terms of how power has been achieved, and who has had to bear the brunt of the price. Good will means teaching empathy for the billions of souls that have suffered our world’s journey.

Competition has its place, but not at the expense of fair play: sports must reflect our goal of higher character, not war without weapons. Athletic ability should be encouraged, not worshiped: it is the least of our attributes. Professionals unwilling to recognize, embrace, and employ their status as role models should not be supported: with fame comes obligation.

Fear-based societies allow people to fall through the social web of support needed to care for those of lesser abilities. “I’ve got mine, now you get yours,” is today’s mantra. In many ways we are like a family that outcasts its slower children. Not only do we not assist many of these people, we make life even more difficult for them.

Those of good will could never restrict assisting the hungry, isolate the poor in ghettos, or make criminals of those homeless. To foster good will is to break down the constructs separating us from one another: the degree of charity in a community reflects its spiritual maturity.

Human dignity is what is important, not a person’s ability to succeed in an ever harsher world: love never turns its back to any who suffer. Living wage must replace minimum wage. Life is our right regardless of our social status: financial success is not a function of spiritual worth.

We create good will through how we spend our money: little else offers such power to so many people who feel without it. Currency has been described as spiritual energy brought into physical form: where we direct it carries consequences. Many times these are our more difficult decisions: we have been taught for so long that the bottom line is what is most important.

Some argue we should make our money first – only being concerned if it is legal rather than responsible – and then donate as we wish: justification replaces reason. People invest in companies with bad environmental records for better returns, and then donate to the groups cleaning up their mess.

Business for the sake of business must cease: to end right, we must start right and remain that way throughout the process. Who wants to get rich selling crack to kids on the one hand, and then donating to a recovery center on the other?

Owning stock means having equity in the company. This is an investment, not savings: ownership carries responsibility.

There are those companies that support life on our planet through their products, their environmental practices, and how they treat their employees: then there are those that do otherwise. Good will requires we know where our money is going and how it is being spent.

Resources are unevenly distributed across our world: we require a global economic system. To date, the wealthy nations have set the game against those less developed. This unfairness drives the poverty in the world: it increases the distance between the rich and the poor. Power based in fear, greed, and corruption never relinquishes itself: for it, exercising good will is not an option.

Supporting our local communities is also important. We are obligated to buy, work, and participate where we live to the best extent we can. Viewing everything in terms of cost is selfish: it reduces us to an economic model and steals our ability to choose love over fear. Our neighbors deserve our business before big national chains: the slight increase in expense buys the social capital bonding the community.

Good will dictates our interaction with the planet. We are expected to be fair. We are to share our world with those people living now, as well as our future generations: parents do not have a greater right to the world’s resources than their children.

Business interests have promoted unsustainable consumerism in the quest for profit: they have hooked our population on this, its most deadly drug. To survive we must reverse the trend: mainlining capitalism has almost killed us.

Most people need much less: life is about our relationships, not our possessions. The fewer things we want, the less we have to work: we have more time for family, friends, and community. Buying less reduces our debt, the slavery of our times. This is the most direct way we can limit our personal draw on the planet’s resources.

Next in importance is reusing what we have: care for our property was once considered responsible. Buying second hand reduces our footprint even further. Recycling, for all of its worth, remains the least of the environmental trilogy.

Our world is at a point of crisis, but we have options: the future does not have to be dictated by the past. Love, if exercised, will always prevail over fear. The warmongers among us are few. With trust, courage, and new global leadership we can guide our world to a higher state of being – one that will allow us to usher in the era of peace. The choice is ours: every decision counts. Regardless of the outcome, we, the common people, are responsible.

God Refined
Part 4: Application of Principles
Bob Kezer © 1 August 2006
Revised 27 February 2007
ISBN: 978-0-6151-3810-7
$12.95 + p&h at
http://stores.lulu.com/bobkezer

Part 4
Application of Principles: The Arab-Israeli Conflict

The conflict between Israel and neighboring Muslims continues to threaten global security, while the Palestinians remain without hope, homes, or country. Achieving a lasting peace will require different approaches than those used to date: all sides bear fault. While resolution must occur based on today’s borders, clarity regarding the past is essential.

The consequences of further war in the Middle East are not acceptable. The international community deserves resolution, and if necessary, the right to direct the process. To not allow third party intervention is to put the lesser before the greater – the desires of a few before the future of the rest. Our planet must adapt to survive: anarchy as world order no longer works.

This proposal is not a detailed plan for peace, but rather an exploration into the environment required for non-violence. It is the people who are being hurt, not their leaders, and until the issues are addressed at their level little progress can be envisioned. Governments maneuver to sign treaties based on power relationships, but lasting peace only resides in the hearts of the citizens.

Problems of great complexity are best addressed when broken down to their most basic construct. The people with the least in the society – those without hope, education, or employment – have to relate to and contribute to the process. When they who have borne the steepest price over the years – and who continue to suffer today – come to terms with the past, then peace will have meaning, but not before.

Peace is an effect, not a cause: the result of love-based actions not fear inspired reactions. Hate, anger, and intolerance – the emotions that fuel the cycles of revenge – must be replaced with trust, empathy, and compassion – the feelings that lead to forgiveness. People are expected to admit their mistakes and apologize, as well as stop any harm they continue to cause. When sincere, an apology must be accepted, and the anger dropped: we all make mistakes and if we ever expect to be forgiven ourselves – either by God or our peers – then we in turn have an obligation to forgive.

This ability involves personal growth; ascending from the animal to the divine. While the greatest of our race have forgiven others even as they persecuted them, this level of conduct is beyond most people. To expect a person born and raised under oppression to develop this attribute quickly is unreasonable. Patience must be exercised. Everyone deserves the time to develop: it is why we are here. Even so, some people will never forgive. They will, though, eventually die off – only that of love has eternal reality.

Over time, good will fosters greater trust. While those who initiated the process may continue to struggle with their emotions, the next generation growing into a different environment finds cooperation easier: peace, not war, is our natural state. When the cycles of revenge have been broken, love – the only self-perpetuating energy we know – begins its healing affect. For the first time, non-violence becomes possible.

Most people lack the facts leading up to the Middle East conflict, and are afraid to ask for them. Emotions continue to dominate the issue, not critical reasoning. Any slip of the tongue draws tremendous criticism: those who enter the debate are often the target of accusations and character assassination. Many other people feel the problem is so huge, complex, and mired in religious dogma that it can never be resolved.

Reconciliation first requires an historical understanding of the events – and if needed, addressing those past actions: attempting to stop this critical review shows fear of fault. Clarity is essential: lack of transparency often means manipulation of the process and breeds distrust. While obscurity helps maintain the status quo, it will not lead to peace.

No longer is questioning the correctness of how Israel became a state synonymous with disputing the country’s right to exist. While this may have been the case when the original occupation happened, time has intervened: most Israelis today were not part of the events that happened in 1948. Tying these two concepts together – especially in a world where some people continue to call for the destruction of Israel – leaves the truth compromised and undermines Israeli security.

The reason’s given to justify the original partition of Palestine need to be examined, and determination made as to their validity under international law. We know the Jews were the original aggressors: was this right, and if not, what should they do to make up for it? Only through review can appropriate responses – actions necessary to appease the people who have borne the brunt of the conflict – be mandated. World federalism is required: from this point peace can evolve.

The ancient record is one of historical fact intertwined with religious dogma. The Jewish claim is that God gave them Palestine, and many of their faith have interpreted this as meaning for eternity. Christianity shares this history, and many of their faith believe the return of the Jewish people to Palestine foretells the second coming of Christ.

Control of the Holy Land shifted back and forth over the centuries until 70 CE, when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and the Jews were dispersed into Europe. Over the centuries they suffered under varying degrees of oppression. By the mid 1800’s some in the Jewish community felt Europeans would never accept them, and that they needed to create their own homeland, whether in Palestine or elsewhere: this movement became known as Zionism.

The early 1900’s saw Palestine under British control. In 1917 Zionist leaders persuaded Britain to issue the Balfour Declaration. This document stated British support for making Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. President Woodrow Wilson supported this declaration, even though it was counter to the principle of national self-determination that he, the next year, said was necessary for a just and stable world order.

In 1919 a group known as the King-Crane Commission was sent to the Middle East to determine the desires of the local people. It was found that the Zionist plan to retake Palestine would result in the complete displacement of all of the non-Jewish inhabitants in the region. The commission informed Wilson this was in violation of the Palestinian’s right to determine their own political agenda. Regardless, Wilson gave his nod to the League of Nations: Britain began to implement the Balfour Declaration and immigration into Palestine began.

After Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, many Jews fled. Their options were limited: the United States would only allow about 8,500 German Jews to enter the country a year, and other Western powers also limited Jewish immigration. This situation stirred Zionists from the U.S., Europe, and Middle East to petition Britain to allow more Jews to immigrate to Palestine: they did.

This caused problems for those already living in the region. The Arabs protested for several years against the Balfour Declaration, and eventually the British government acquiesced: they issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Jewish immigration to Palestine was to be restricted, and then in a few years, end all together.

Stopping Jewish immigration to Palestine occurred just as the persecution in Germany became more intense. This fueled the conflict between the Zionists and British forces in the Middle East. Defying British restrictions, thousands of Jews were smuggled into the region. The Zionists mounted an insurgency and attacks on British targets killed civilian and military personal alike. According to the British then, and under our world’s definition today, this was terrorism.

At the end of World War II Britain continued to oppose the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The Zionists redirected their efforts and began applying pressure on Washington to achieve their goals. Another commission was sent to the Middle East to search for a solution. The result was the Morrison-Grady Plan: it called for Palestine to be divided into semiautonomous Arab and Jewish regions tied together under one State. Jews and Arabs would then collaborate on further Jewish immigration.

This was a reasonable effort, but both sides rejected the plan. The Zionists they did not want to share Palestine, they claimed the rights to all, or at least most, of the land. They insisted on unrestricted Jewish immigration, and wanted their new state to be “racially” pure: only Jewish.

The Arabs felt Palestine was a part of their region: that it should either be its own Palestinian state or attached to an existing Arab country. They felt they were being asked to relinquish their historic lands to foreigners – that for others to have a home, they would have to give up theirs.

In 1947 Britain turned the matter over to the new United Nations: yet another commission was formed. This time the recommendation was to split Palestine into two separate states: Jewish and Palestinian. The Zionists agreed to the plan, but with reservations: they wanted more land than they were being offered.

The Arabs and Palestinians still did not agree to the partition. The plan meant that thousands of people would have to be removed from their homes and off land that had been in their families for hundreds of years. They also complained that the split was unequal: that the Jews were to receive over half of Palestine, yet they represented only a third of the population.

To implement this plan, the United Nations needed the support of the United States. President Harry Truman was advised by the State Department not to agree. Instead, Truman told our ambassador to the U.N. to approve the partition. White House advisors supporting the Zionist movement then began to apply economic pressure on other nations and forced them to vote for the plan. Because of these efforts the U.N. proposal was approved, just barely, in November 1947.

War broke out between Jews and Palestinians. By the first part of 1948, the Jewish side had the advantage. Truman, after being convinced by the State Department that the war was destroying our relationships with the Arabs, decided he had made a mistake and called for the U.N. partition to end. As an alternative, he offered a U.N. trusteeship over Palestine, but this idea was not adopted.

In May 1948 Israel declared itself: minutes later Truman recognized the new state. Again, he acted against strong advice, this time by his Secretary of State, George Marshall. The Arab nations responded to the Jewish occupation by sending their armies to assist the Palestinians: they were defeated. Israeli forces took not only the land allotted them under the U.N. partition, but over 50% more. In the process over 748,000 people lost their homes and became refugees.

Within several months, the United Nations passed resolution 194, which stated that repatriation was supposed to be offered to all Palestinians who wanted to return to their homes and who agreed to live in peace. The Jews refused. Truman disagreed with this stance, and for a couple of years worked to persuade the Israelis to allow the Palestinians to return: they would not, nor would Israel agree to give back any of the extra land they took in the occupation. Because of this, the Arab nations refused to make peace or to recognize Israel as a legitimate state.

Since claiming statehood many conflicts have ensued. In 1956 Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt in the Suez War. President Dwight D. Eisenhower forced an end to the attack and made Israeli forces withdraw. A U.N. peacekeeping force was deployed to the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. This gave Israel greater security and they regained the ability to use the Strait of Tiran, which they felt was vital to their strategic interests.

Then in 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt requested that the U.N. remove its security forces. This allowed Nasser to replace them with Egyptian forces. Under pressure from the rest of the Arab community, he again blockaded Israeli shipping in the Strait of Tiran. King Hussein of Jordan supported Nasser and placed his army under Egyptian control should war erupt. The Arabs knew the use of the strait was tied to Israeli survival, and that they would fight over the blockade.

These events caused the Israeli population to worry about an Arab invasion, and pressure was on the government to act. On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. They overran the Sinai Peninsula, occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and seized the Golan Heights. President Johnson, unlike Eisenhower in 1956, called for a cease-fire in place rather than forcing Israel to withdraw. The invasion tripled the land under Israeli control: these areas became known as the Occupied Territories.

In response, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 242, which refuted a country’s right to take terrain through war. It detailed a land for peace agreement whereby Arab nations had to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and Israel had to pull out of the regions it had just seized. The three nations involved, Egypt, Israel, and Jordan agreed to this, but it was not definitive enough and resulted in no land returned to the Arabs.

The forty years since have seen more conflicts, infitadas, and various proposals for peace. For many moderates, it is the area taken in 1967 rather than the original occupation that is on the table. Yet, as time and events eventually grandfathered to Israel the original ground taken, it may be that the Arabs will have to compromise more on the Territories. Regardless, it is the events to this point that define the central issues, and from which reconciliation can begin.

The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on the Jewish belief that God gave them the land: to take it, they had to kill the original inhabitants – the Canaanites. Divine favor, though, is not admissible in a secular world order. While people can believe as they wish, no one else has any obligation to their beliefs other than respecting the right of the person to hold them. A billion plus Christians may support the Jewish claim to Palestine, but for over five billion other people occupying the planet, it means little. No one’s scripture holds precedence over another’s.

There is confusion about this in the United States government. In May 2006 the Jewish Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the U.S. Congress and spoke of Israel’s “eternal and historic right to this entire land.” He went on to speak of having to give up parts of “our promised land,” and to have to “relinquish part of our dream” because of an “inhumane” enemy. He received enthusiastic applause. Coming from a government founded on the principle of separation between church and state, this was inappropriate. It also shows the United States lacks the impartiality required to meditate this conflict.

Claims of having God’s favor, and desires to have a “racially” pure Israel (modern genetics invalidate the concept of race – there are ethnicities, but only the human race) are prejudicial, and whether ethnic, social, or religious, prejudice has resulted in many of humanity’s worse atrocities. The only hope we have of eventually removing religious antagonism is agreeing to teach that all faiths are equal under a single Supreme Being. Anything else fuels the fires of hatred, and can no longer be considered acceptable by the international community.

Democracy is more than just a voting process: the definition includes equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment for all citizens – not just those of a particular religion. To consider being Israeli synonymous with being Jewish; to structure the laws of the society to keep the citizenship of one faith; and for the leaders to claim the country has divine favor justifying its very existence, makes Israel a theocracy, not a democratic society. Governing by divine authority abrogates justice: secular law is fundamental for peace.

Some Rabbis, understanding the problems associated with any group claiming divine favor, explain that rather than God actually giving Palestine to the Jews it is more a case of the Jewish people having a close affinity for the land throughout history. This feeling is understandable: Palestine is the seat of their religion, and for some, the entire essence of their being. Still, how does this justify invading the territory 1900 years later and taking the land from those inhabiting it then?

If this was correct, then our world has many claims to territory more valid than those of the Jewish people. Does anyone really want to argue that the Jews – after almost two millenniums away from their land – had a stronger attachment to Palestine than the Native Americans surviving today have for theirs, including the indigenous Hawaiians whose islands were stolen only a century ago? Attempts to regain past glories are holding all of us back: solving today’s problem’s will require sacrifice by many, but with compassion, cooperation, and remaining current we can negotiate the process.

Otherwise, we are expecting people today to pay for the acts of their ancestors. We know that parent’s crimes should not be imposed upon their children: this is no different. If we wish to live in peace, the cycle of retribution must end so forgiveness can begin. Our world now – it’s peoples, cultures, and borders – takes first precedence. To let the past dictate the future is to condemn humanity to more of the same. We have the right to evolve: it is time we understood our obligation to mature. Only in this way will our race reach a level of conduct where peace can result.

This concept is key to Israel’s survival: the State has legitimacy, if for no other reason, than because of age. Regardless of the correctness concerning how Israel came to be, and whether or not Israel ever sincerely addresses those issues, the Jewish people living there today have an unconditional right to their country. But while this refutes those who call for Israel’s destruction or whom refuse to recognize the State’s existence, it does not mean those unjustly imposed upon by Israel today do not have legitimate grounds for self-defense.

Some people have justified the original occupation as compensation to the Jews for the genocide enacted against them by the Nazis. The horror of what occurred in the Holocaust is beyond description – or debate. It is easy to sympathize with those who felt they were helping the Jewish people by partitioning Palestine and allowing them to create their own home. Still, this does not justify taking land from people who had nothing to do with persecuting the Jews in World War ll.

If anyone should have paid for the Holocaust, it was the Germans – direct punishment for crimes committed. Judaism had shown the ability to adapt through the ages. They understood that the essence of their faith was in their hearts, not an ancient temple: regaining the actual territory in Palestine was not essential to the practice of their religion. Would not our world, especially the Israeli and Palestinian people, be better off if Israel had become a part of Europe – a sovereign nation surrounded by allies – rather than one that can only survive through military might?

While the justifications made for past actions need to be examined today, this is to aid us in making better decisions now, not to correct mistakes from before. Still, if the premise used to justify the original aggression was wrong, then that argument can no longer be used: otherwise, the truth remains obscured. Our world needs this region at peace: the question is not Israel’s legitimacy – that is unquestionable at this point – but rather, what it will take for both an Israeli and a Palestinian state to flourish together?

To achieve relative peace, Israel has several options: kill all enemies within range, which will continue to create even more; build walls, man the barricades, and live in a state of siege, as they have done since the beginning; or finally, do what we as individuals must when we wish to resolve interpersonal conflicts – admit to past mistakes, offer a sincere apology, and commit to the good will necessary to repair the relationship. As simple as this may sound, true peace will never happen otherwise.

The cycles of violence will not stop until one side decides to no longer participate, and then follows through with the commitment necessary to hold the moral ground. Any successful effort at peace must be meaningful to the average person on the street, both Jew and Palestinian: they are those whom will be expected to implement the agreements made by their leaders. Each side must feel they are being treated with dignity, fairness, and justice, or the process will collapse.

This requires the Israeli government to admit that the invasion of Palestine in 1948 was wrong, and to offer a sincere apology for the harm caused to the Palestinian people. Compensation needs to be offered as warranted. This is only fair – the Jews have a nation at the expense of the Palestinians developing theirs: to not offer compensation is to not recognize the equality of all people, and this bias will sabotage any chance for peace.

Compromise on both sides regarding borders will be required: Israel has justifiable security concerns, and the Palestinians need borders that allow them to develop their state with similar potential to Israel. Consensus must be achieved: without full agreement there will not be abidance. Once decided, Israel must then provide the development assistance necessary for the Palestinians to create a viable economy as they so chose. Given the part played by the United States in creating this crisis, it is reasonable that they also be expected to contribute aid to this process.

Will these actions by Israel stop the violence immediately? Of course not: there are fanatics on both sides who will never agree to peace. It will, though, condition the environment for it to result in the future. For the Israelis to expect the Palestinians to forgive and forget – without first admitting to being the original aggressors – is to humiliate them, and no matter what agreements the governments make, there will always remain resentment.

Repentance gives Israel the moral ground, and places the duty on the other sides to reciprocate. People respect those who own up to their mistakes and who work to correct them. Our world is demanding peace, and most people understand this will take sacrifice on everyone’s part. Those continuing to advocate violence against Israel will lose support from their own people, and from the other countries that today see Israel as an occupying force. Eventually, reconciliation will occur: time will work its wonders.

Stopping the cycle of revenge is critical. This means that while Israel has the right to defend its citizens, it can no longer return strike for strike. Doing so is retribution – punishment – not defense. It is the way of the past, not a strategy for the future. As with personal confrontations, self-defense ends when the harm being caused is stopped: the rule of law does not allow us the right to go further. Subsequent determination of guilt and any punishment to be imposed is then levied by those whom our society has delegated to the job.

For a just world order, the same is required. Only that force necessary to stop further aggression can be warranted by any nation. Third party intervention is necessary for justice: it is the only way to insure that the concerns of all parties are fairly addressed. The international community bears the responsibility to adjudicate disputes between countries, and if necessary, enforce its determinations. If the Israelis want lasting peace, this is not an option, but a requirement.

While the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Muslims posses our world great risk, it can also teach us our way forward: it is in our most difficult times that we find our highest character and learn our most valuable lessons. All sides have fault, but the burden has not been shared equally – the Palestinian people continue to pay the most horrific price, and reducing this suffering must take priority.

Peace requires new leaders willing to relinquish the past, accept today’s realities, and work together for the benefit of all parties. This conflict does not have to lead to Armageddon: with trust, courage, and good will, the course can be changed. That choice, though, ultimately rests with people and whom they choose to follow.