Waging War On Hatred

[Guest guest]

Date; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:47:18 +1000

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

 

Waging War On Hatred

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

October 15, 2004

 

 

MEDIA ALERT: WAGING WAR ON HATRED

 

Sutasoma, The Brighton Bomber, And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 

" Violence is the means, as all dictators have known, whereby the few

dominate and exploit the many. Non-violence is the means by which the

many can reclaim their rights and advance their interests. " (Jonathan

Schell)

 

 

The Terror Of The World

 

Prince Sutasoma was renowned for his wisdom and compassion, the 4th

century poet Aryasura tells us. The prince was busily distributing alms

one day, as usual, when the man-eating giant, Kalmashapada, crashed

through the city gates scattering the guards to the four winds. The

monster was a fearsome sight to behold:

 

" Stinking garments hung loose around his waist, and a diadem of bark

crowned his filthy, dust-covered hair, which hung matted around his face.

A thick and dishevelled beard shrouded his face like darkness. His eyes

were swollen with tremendous and awesome wrath, as he brandished his

sword and shield. " (Aryasura, The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing,

1983, p.314)

 

It is no accident that Kalmashapada is described as " the Terror of the

World " – he is clearly intended as the embodiment of all that is

murderous, cynical and cruel in human nature.

 

Unafraid, Sutasoma called out, " Why are you tormenting these poor

people? Come here! " Whereupon the monster saw and seized the prince, and

carried him off to his forest lair to be roasted and eaten – the

dismal fate that had already befallen 99 other princes.

 

The monster's stronghold was a hell-hole – it was My Lai four hours

after Charlie Company had arrived; it was Latifiyah after al-Zarqawi had

done his work: bones of slain men lay tossed on the stinking ground

still wet with blood, the leaves of nearby trees were tinged red by

the smoke of funeral pyres.

 

Imprisoned in this place and recalling a promised gift of charity that

he would now be unable to keep, tears welled in the eyes of the

altruistic prince. Noticing this apparent display of self-pity,

Kalmashapada

responded with the cynicism that fuelled much of his brutality:

 

" Stop your crying! You are renowned the world over for your many

virtues, and yet as soon as you are in my power you begin to cry. How

true it

is: `Constancy collapses in the face of calamity!' "

 

Sutasoma explained the cause of his sadness and made the extraordinary

request that he be released so that he might keep his promise, after

which he would certainly return for the monster to kill and eat him.

The latter laughed bitterly:

 

" Do you expect me to believe such nonsense? It goes beyond belief!

Who, once released from the jaws of Death, would willingly return there? "

 

Sutasoma assured him that his promise and his respect for truth

certainly guaranteed his return. Assuming this to be mere artifice,

Kalmashapada was, we are told, greatly irritated. But anyway, on an

arrogant

whim, as a kind of sport, the man-eater decided to agree to the

prince's request:

 

" Well, then, go ahead. We will see your great truthfulness in action,

we will see how you keep your promises. We will see your great

righteousness. "

 

And yet Sutasoma +did+ return, and not merely to keep his promise but

in hope of actually helping the monster who " deserves only pity, who is

immersed in the mire of wicked habits... and has no one left to

protect him " .

 

On catching sight of the returning prince, the ogre was so astonished

that not even his cruel nature could prevent him from thinking:

 

" Ah! Ah! Wonder of wonders! Truly a miracle! The truthfulness of this

prince exceeds the most that could be expected of gods or kings. To me,

a man as cruel as Death, he returns of his own free will, without fear

or anxiety. What constancy! "

 

Intrigued, Kalmashapada questioned Sutasoma to discover what on earth

his reasoning and motives might be. He quickly discovered that Sutasoma

was authentic, that he was utterly sincere in his fearless commitment

to charity, truth and compassion for the benefit of all. At this

realisation, Aryasura tells us, the ugliness of the monster's own

conduct was

suddenly revealed to him as by a " mirror of Truth " - tears welled up in

his eyes, the very hairs of his body stood on end. Looking with

reverence on the prince, he exclaimed:

 

" Beware! May evil be averted! O foremost of princes, may those who wish

evil on beings such as you wilfully swallow the poison of Halahala. "

 

 

 

 

I Killed Your Father

 

The above is far more than just a fable, it is a profound teaching,

with awesome implications for our own time. It tells us that cruelty,

cynicism, brutality and violence of even the most outrageous kinds really

can be subdued by selfless compassion and reason, that these really do

have the power to dispel the 'Terror of the World'.

 

Aryasura argues that altruism and concern for others have the power to

" regenerate hearts burned black by the fires of hatred, transmuting

them into the gold of tenderness and faith " . A result that no amount of

bitterness, bullets, beheadings, or B-52s could ever hope to achieve.

 

Some would have us believe that it is wrong to negotiate with " evil

doers " , that some human beings are so inherently wicked and irrational

that thoughts of discussion, understanding and compassion are absurd,

even

treasonous. This is the philosophy of greedy manipulation and permanent

war, not peace. The anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:

 

" The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on

the wickedness and weakness of human nature. " (Quoted Howard Zinn, The

Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press, 1997, p.610)

 

This week, twenty years after the Brighton bomb that killed five people

in the Grand Hotel, the IRA man responsible, Pat Magee, and Jo Berry,

the daughter of one of the victims, came together to discuss their

meetings in the aftermath of the atrocity. Berry said:

 

" The year before I met Pat I did a lot of raging. I was ready, if it

was right, to meet Pat. I wanted to hear his story. Why he planted the

bomb, what had happened before and after. To meet each other as human

beings. " (Simon Fanshawe, `I killed your father,' The Guardian, October

13, 2004)

 

Magee described to Berry the fear he felt when meeting her for the fist

time:

 

" I certainly was scared, I'll tell you that... I had this political hat

on my head... the need to explain. But then I had to confront something

that I have to confront every time I meet you and perhaps more so now

because of where we are and the day it is, and that is that I am sitting

with someone whose father I killed. Here in Brighton. Twenty years

after your father's death. I do not shirk my responsibilities for

that. It

was an IRA action, but whatever the political justification for it, I

was part of it and I killed your father. And every time I meet you that

is at the forefront of my mind. It is full of profundity and it's

shattering. Quite honestly, there's no hiding to be done behind politics.

The rehearsed arguments and the line might be sincere, but it's

inappropriate. We were communicating as two human beings. "

 

Berry replied:

 

" That political hat came off and I think, Patrick, you took your

glasses off; there was a tear. And you said, `I have never met anyone so

open, with such dignity' - is that what you said? You said to me, `I want

to hear your anger, I want to hear your pain.' And that is when I knew

that we were going on a journey. That this was not going to be one

meeting. And as you say, we were meeting as two human beings. My need to

meet you matched your need to meet me. I did not expect that because I

heard from other ex-prisoners who said to me, `Jo, you may need to meet

Patrick, but he doesn't need to meet you.' "

 

Berry and Magee were asked what they had got out of the meetings. Berry

said:

 

" When Pat talks about the other choices not being there, not just in

Ireland but around the world, that helps me understand why people resort

to violence. It makes my passion stronger to find other choices. That

is what this is about. Nothing is going to bring my dad back. Caring for

Pat makes it easier to get some of my humanity back. "

 

Magee said:

 

" The big lesson is that if you see people as human beings, how can you

possibly hurt them? Then you think of all the barriers to that simple

relationship occurring - political, social, economic. When people are

marginalised or excluded they are left only with their anger. So do

everything to remove the blocks and let people be human with each other.

That's the lesson from my meeting Jo. "

 

 

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict – Violence Or Non-Violence?

 

Last month, Rabbi Michael Lerner's Tikkun magazine described how the

recent formation of a non-violence campaign in Palestine had been spurred

by the visit of the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, generating impassioned

debate in both the Israeli and Palestinian peace movement about the

effectiveness of non-violence. Tikkun presented an article by journalist

Uri Avnery, `How Are You, Non-Violence?', that discussed different sides

of the argument being expressed in Palestine.

 

In his article, Avnery imagines a debate between two young

Palestinians: Yussuf and Hassan.

 

Yussuf believes the armed intifada has failed.

 

Hassan disagrees, arguing that without armed resistance the world would

long since have forgotten the Palestinian cause.

 

Yussuf claims that a six month lull in suicide attacks brought genuine

progress - the International Court has declared the Israeli's `security

wall' illegal and the UN General Assembly has confirmed this with a

huge majority. All of Europe voted in the Palestinian's favour, he says.

Palestinians are winning in the arena of world public opinion, Israel

may even be subject to sanctions. Hassan rejects this utterly:

 

" We have achieved nothing. On the contrary, the Israeli generals boast

that they have defeated us with their targeted assassinations,

incursions into our territories and all the other acts of oppression.

And all

this time they have been enlarging the settlements, putting up new

'outposts' and continuing to build the racist wall... Because of the

lull in

suicide attacks, the Israeli economy is reviving. Tourism to Israel,

that had stopped altogether because of our actions, is starting up again.

If the Israelis feel comfortable and are no longer afraid of suicide

bombers, why should they talk with us? Why should they give back any

territories? Why should they stop enlarging the settlements? They

don't give a damn. " (Avnery, `How Are You, Non-Violence?', September

4, 2004,

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article320.html)

 

Yussuf responds: " We have to win international public opinion. We can

do this only by non-violence. I admire the martyrs who are ready to die

for our people. I am proud that we have such heroes. But they don't

get us anywhere. They only provide Sharon with pretexts to oppress us

even more. "

 

Hassan: " As if Sharon needs pretexts! He wants to break us, and world

public opinion will not lift a finger for us. The treacherous Arab

leaders will not do anything for us, either. Only our heroes will save

us. "

 

Avnery comments that this kind of debate is now going on everywhere in

Palestinian society, perhaps in every Palestinian family. The Yussufs

have no success in convincing the Hassans.

 

Avnery argues that Palestinian violence is the predictable result of

Israel cutting off every other available option. He argues that it is

possible to put an end to violence only if Palestinians are offered a

non-violent way of achieving freedom and justice.

 

Tikkun then comments on this debate and on Avnery's article as a whole.

It rejects Avnery's suggestion that " We've tried non-violence and it

has failed " , arguing that a demonstration is not non-violent when its

participants `only' throw rocks at the Israeli Defence Force. It may be

`less violent' but it's not non-violent. Tikkun then proposes a

remarkable, strategic argument for non-violence:

 

" Every oppressor gets locked into their position as oppressor in part

out of fear that should they remove their boot from the neck of the

oppressed, the oppressed will jump up and do to the oppressor the same

horrific things that they oppressor has done to the oppressed. If you

want

to get the oppressor to lift the boot, you must convince the oppressor

that he/it/they will NOT face this reversal in which the oppressor

becomes the oppressed. And that is no easy sales job, because

understandably the oppressed have lots of anger, and that anger is

felt by the

oppressor who feels the need to strengthen their hold on the neck of the

oppressed - for self-protection. " (`Violence or Non-Violence Debate in

Israel/Palestine,'

September 4, 2004. www.tikkun.org)

 

The major strategic goal of the oppressed, in this case, then, must be

to convince the oppressor that the oppressed have been able " to retain

a sense of the humanity of the oppressor, and have decided not to

return `eye-for-eye' vengeance should they be in a position to do so " .

The

commitment to non-violence is one of the most powerful ways to convey

that message.

 

We recall the effect of Sutasoma's fearlessness and compassion in

undermining Kalmashapada's cynicism, and in reviving his compassion

and humanity.

 

We recall, also, the moment when Pat Magee said to Jo Berry: " I have

never met anyone so open, with such dignity... I want to hear your

anger, I want to hear your pain. "

 

Tikkun point out that if conveying a humane message is the goal of

non-violence, then non-violence must be total. If we want to convince an

oppressor that we recognise their humanity and do not intend to wreak

revenge on them, we cannot be partially or tactically non-violent: the

non-violence must be persistent, determined, and principled:

 

" That is the kind of non-violence employed by Martin Luther King that

thawed through the consciousness of racists in the South and the kind

of non-violence used by Nelson Mandela in South Africa. "

 

Rabbi Michael Lerner argues that there is an important distinction to

be made: the difference between what is right and fair, on the one hand,

and what is likely to achieve results, on the other. He argues that it

is +not+ fair to ask an oppressed group to take on the burden of

convincing the oppressor that the oppressed continue to see the

oppressors as human beings deserving of respect and compassion:

 

" NOT FAIR. But, IT IS SMART. "

 

 

Write to us at Media Lens:

Email: editor

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

 

Please consider donating to Media Lens:

http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

 

This media alert will shortly be archived at:

http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html