CLT and the Security Council

For a number of days now it has been reported that the Security Council is attempting to reach agreement on a resolution or series of resolutions dealing with the situation in Lebanon and Israel. While progress on the political front including the insertion of an effective peacekeeping force is welcome, the question must be asked if this is all that the Council, the countries involved, or the UN can achieve.

Back in 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 calling for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, that would live side by side in peace and harmony. That was not only a noble objective; it was also realistic. Almost sixty years later, only one State has been established and the peace and harmony that was sought by the terms of the Resolution remain elusive.

Does CLT have a response to this ongoing crisis that no one, including the UN, has been able to resolve? I will suggest a tentative answer in the affirmative that is based on certain elements of Catholic thought on the international order that have been developed over the past century.

Most if not all of the valiant laboring for peace in this troubled region does not seem to acknowledge the fact that both contingents involved in the conflict fear each other. Fear—particularly the fear of difference—is a compelling driving force that can lead one people, and their respective government, to consider another people as an object—“the other.” The “other” can then be dehumanized and considered inferior. And with dehumanization, the other people easily become targets of organized military actions or terrorism that are disproportionate and indiscriminate and seemingly free of moral considerations.

Diplomacy will and must play a role in terminating the current bloodshed in Israel and Lebanon, but what will direct this diplomacy? I would humbly suggest diplomatic approaches that strive not for those political solutions that will likely preserve advantages that one side will retain over the other; these will only sustain the sense of difference that fuels the fears underlying the conflict. Rather, the diplomats (guided by the Catholic perspective on the international order) should emphasize what can easily bridge the differences—for example, a common hope in the future that the children of today can look forward to a tomorrow in which the present strife is replaced with cooperation where such things as agricultural and industrial trade, cultural exchange, and regional security become routine. This is possible if each side’s fears of the other are put aside. This course is also demonstrative of the common good, which reveals that the destinies of two peoples are inextricably related. Strife for one will inevitably mean strife for the other; but, peace and prosperity for one will ensure the same for the other.

In the meantime, the focus on differences appears to predominate, but this can change if the merits of the alternative supplied by Catholic thought are not only considered but adopted.     RJA sj