Print
PDF FormatPeace of the Brave
I must say that I was thoroughly entranced by David Hazony’s article, “Plowshares Into Swords: The Lost Biblical Ideal of Peace” (AZURE 3, Winter 1998). My deep love for Bible certainly helped, but on top of his truly brilliant utilization of the biblical sources, I think Hazony offers a powerful and desperately needed hidush here (in the sense of hadesh yameinu k’kedem, “renew our days as of old”), and his arguments on its behalf are almost military in their efficiency.
Interestingly, about a week prior to the publication of Hazony’s article, I engaged one of my classes at the university in a discussion of the historical significance of the term “Islam,” which is, of course, derived from the same Semitic root as shalom and which primarily denotes “surrender” or “submission” (to God). In the context of this investigation, one of the students called our attention to the biblical usage, “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, proclaim [the opportunity for] shalom to it” (Deuteronomy 20:10), pointing out (as Hazony does) that shalom here—given the context of the surrounding verses—means nothing other than “surrender.” It is ironic that centuries later in the same Middle East, resurgent Islam aspires and strives via jihad to bring about salaam through the submission of all non-Muslims to Muslim political sovereignty, while the leaders and opinion-makers of the resurgent Jewish nationalist entity are simultaneously seeking via ceaseless and unrequited concessions to establish “shalom” specifically through Jewish submission.
Part of the overall conclusion and implication of Hazony’s essay—that the Bible does indeed conceive of peace largely in the manner he describes, and that Israel today needs to rely on overwhelming strength rather than a “new heart” and relatively useless pieces of paper in order to survive and flourish in this region—I agree with vigorously. The other part—the justification and beatification of Pinhas and his ilk and what they stand for, and thereby the vindication and encouragement of all those, past and present, who would act accordingly, brutally butchering thousands of non-combatants in the name of divinely (or otherwise) defined “morality and righteousness”—I can only hope he didn’t intend that. All things considered, however, it was a pure thrill and pleasure to read an article of such an original, stimulating and gutsy nature, especially in the midst of the unabashed mimicry and mediocrity which currently characterizes so much of our intellectual surroundings.
I must also offer a grudging compliment to the journal as a whole, having read in the same sitting the contributions of Ziv Hellman, Avraham Levitt and Evelyn Gordon. You’ve really put together a forum for no-nonsense thought here, and had I the time to be a reader of journals (and I have occasionally browsed through the other pickings out there), I’d unquestionably read Azure over the competing English and Hebrew publications—it’s really high-quality business. Keep raising the level of discourse in Israel!
Ze’ev Maghen
Jerusalem
Confusion of Ends and Means
Ofir Haivry’s anguish about the sorry and confused state of conservatism (“Tony Blair and Other Tory Notions,” AZURE 3, Winter 1998) is more indicative of the problem than a light showing the way to a solution. Haivry carries forth the typical line of reasoning of today’s conservatives which obfuscates the difference between form and content. The political right has lost its way because, like the left, its concern is not with limiting the scope of government and political society, but rather seizing it and using it to further its own pet notions. F.A. Hayek was a liberal in the true and classical sense, and it sufficiently concerned him to clarify this that he wrote an essay entitled “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” This does not discourage Haivry, however, from including Hayek as part of his vaguely defined conservative tradition. Haivry’s values may be beautiful and right, but I want them to reside in the sphere of choice and not in the sphere of government, politics and coercion.
David Hazony’s article “Plowshares Into Swords: The Lost Biblical Ideal of Peace” whets the reader’s appetite for an important investigation into the meaning of the Hebrew word shalom and how this might contrast with the prevalent understanding today of the English word “peace.” Unfortunately, this appetite is soon lost as the discussion rapidly deteriorates into a rambling and unstructured forum for Hazony’s fantasies and sloppy scholarship.
Several paragraphs into the essay, a not so subtle transition is made from an inquiry into the meaning of the biblical “term” shalom to a discussion of the “modern peace idea” and the “biblical peace idea.” Somehow the “modern peace idea” has only two components, both lurking at one end of the political spectrum—absolute pacifism and compromise. Really? One must conclude, given the number of graves filled with the remains of soldiers from wars in this century alone, that either there has been no interest in peace in this century or that perhaps the popular notion of peace might be somewhat broader than Hazony suggests. That is, the operative may be closer to when force is exerted rather than if (as Hazony suggests).
After having begged the initial question about the term “peace” in English (never even bothering to so much as open a dictionary), the understood meaning (conflict avoidance) is then contrasted with the biblical meaning (in the context of war) —“movement toward victory.” Is there a confusion here between ends and means?
However, lurking behind Hazony’s laborious effort seems to be a point with which I would agree. The general understanding of the English translation of shalom—peace—seems to be closer to the Hebrew word shalva—tranquility. In this sense, the existential state lurking behind and associated with shalom is probably closer to what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That is, struggle characterizes life, and tranquility characterizes death.
Bob Borens
Washington, D.C.
Keeping Things in Context
In his article “Plowshares Into Swords: The Lost Biblical Ideal of Peace,” David Hazony performs the all-too-rare service of attempting to understand the meaning of the biblical text without the distortions of meaning that have become so prevalent among Orthodox and non-Orthodox commentators alike (Many of today’s pop-exegetes, for example, insist that Pinhas’ “covenant of peace” was not a reward at all, but a correction for his zealotry—a reading that completely ignores the simple meaning of the text.)
It is instructive that some of Hazony’s most effective points are made simply by including the immediate context around well-known biblical verses. For example, the vision of Isaiah “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares ... and they shall learn war no more” is preceded by “and the transgressors and sinners shall be destroyed together, and deserters of the Eternal shall be annihilated.” Such a reading affirms the consistency throughout the Bible of the peace ideal as Hazony describes it, and wrests these famous verses from the hands of those “peace” activists who for so long have abused them to further their own political ends.
Barak Moore
Efrat
