The Cycle of Eternal Conflict: The Killing of Ismail Haniyeh and the Path of Nonviolence
The Cycle of Violence: An Ethical Challenge
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran has exacerbated the already fragile situation in the Middle East. As retaliations are anticipated, the region faces the real possibility of spiraling into a broader conflict. This assassination, like others before it, plays into a narrative deeply entrenched in the region’s theological and cultural psyche—a narrative that frames the conflict as endless, cyclical, and beyond resolution.
From a faith based and Hindu perspective, this mythologizing of violence as an eternal feature of the Middle East presents a significant challenge. It creates a deterministic worldview in which violence is seen as divinely ordained or inevitable, thus perpetuating a cycle that leads to more suffering and instability. The assassination of Haniyeh is not just a political act; it is a reaffirmation of this destructive theological narrative, one that history shows will lead to further violence rather than resolution.
Hindu Ethics and the Sanctity of Life
Hindu ethics, with its emphasis on dharma (righteous conduct), offers a profound critique of assassination and other forms of violence. The Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata, two of Hinduism’s most important texts, stress the importance of upholding the sanctity of life and acting with moral integrity, even in times of conflict.
Assassination, from this theological perspective, is a violation of dharma. It is an act of adharma (unrighteousness) that undermines the moral fabric of society. Hindu teachings emphasize that true victory comes not from the destruction of enemies but from adherence to righteous principles that honor the dignity of all beings. In the case of Haniyeh’s assassination, Hindu ethics would condemn this act as morally indefensible, as it perpetuates a cycle of violence that devalues human life.
Gandhian Nonviolence: A Model for Breaking the Cycle
Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of ahimsa, or nonviolence, is deeply rooted in Hindu theology and offers a powerful model for breaking free from the cycle of violence. Gandhi understood that violence begets violence, creating an endless loop of retribution that only deepens divisions and prolongs suffering. For Gandhi, ahimsa was not merely a passive avoidance of violence but an active force for good—a way to confront injustice and transform relationships without resorting to the same destructive tactics that perpetuate conflict.
Gandhi’s vision of nonviolence was informed by his deep theological convictions. He believed that all life is interconnected and that the divine resides in every being. Therefore, to harm another is to harm oneself and to violate the sacred order of the universe. In the context of the Middle East, where violence is often seen as inevitable, Gandhian nonviolence challenges this fatalistic view. It calls on us to reject assassination and other forms of violence as means to achieve political goals and instead to embrace a vision of conflict resolution that is rooted in respect for life and the pursuit of justice through peaceful means.
Reflections on the History of Cyclical Violence
The history of the Middle East is often narrated as one of perpetual conflict, where each act of violence is seen as part of an unending cycle. This perspective, however, ignores the theological and ethical dimensions of these conflicts, which are not predetermined by history but shaped by the choices of individuals and societies.
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, while a significant and tragic event, is not an inescapable consequence of the region’s past; it is a choice, one that perpetuates the cycle of violence rather than breaking it. From a theological standpoint, this cycle of violence is not an eternal curse but a challenge to be overcome through the application of moral and ethical principles.
Ahimsa: A Path to Peace
Breaking free from the cycle of violence requires a fundamental shift in how we understand and respond to conflict. Ahimsa, as articulated by Gandhi and rooted in Hindu theology, offers a way out of the deterministic moral and ethical structures that have long dominated the region’s political landscape. It challenges the idea that violence is the only path to security and instead proposes a model of conflict resolution based on empathy, dialogue, and mutual respect.
In this theological vision, ahimsa is not just a strategy but a sacred duty—an expression of our deepest spiritual values. Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence was not about passivity or submission; it was about actively confronting injustice in a way that seeks to transform rather than destroy. This approach is particularly relevant in the Middle East, where the cycles of violence have often been fueled by a zero-sum mentality, where the defeat of one side is seen as the only path to victory for the other.
Lessons for a World in Conflict
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is a stark reminder of the dangers of viewing conflict as an inevitable and unresolvable part of the human condition. While this act of violence fits into a long history of cyclical violence in the Middle East, it also provides an opportunity to reflect on the theological and ethical choices that perpetuate or break these cycles.
By embracing the principles of Hindu ethics and Gandhian nonviolence, we can begin to envision a way out of the deterministic structures that have long defined this conflict. Ahimsa offers a theological path forward, one that rejects the fatalism of endless conflict and instead seeks to create a world where peace is not just a distant ideal but a lived reality. In this vision, the cycle of violence is not an eternal curse but a challenge to be overcome through the power of nonviolence and the unwavering commitment to justice for all.