Ambiguity is a natural part of life. Rarely is there ever a singular, definitive answer for anything. Justice is no exception. There is not one standard of justice: there are many. The standard can depend on history, on culture, on theology, or a variety of other factors. As different groups come together, though, having different standards of justice becomes a problem. The Oresteia, a three-part play by Aeschylus, and Death in Gaza, a film by James Miller, both showcase a struggle between two different standards of justice and the difficulty in reconciling such dissimilar ideals. Meanwhile, the clashes of conflicting standards of justice yield sadness, anger, despair, and death, thus highlighting the need to reconcile those ideas in some way. Reconciliation, though not portrayed as an easy objective to accomplish, is shown as a worthwhile endeavor. Though difficult to do, mutual acts of compromise are needed to resolve conflicts and create an established and agreeable standard of justice.
In the Oresteia, the conflict over the standard of justice of blood right has the characters struggling to administer proper justice. Clytemnestra’s killing of her husband Agamemnon falls in line with natural, maternal blood right, as she is administering justice unto Agamemnon for killing her daughter and disturbing the sacred bond between mother and child. However, Clytemnestra’s stance on blood right comes into conflict with her son’s stance. Orestes does agree with his mother’s perceived act of justice; instead, he sees it as an act that must be avenged. Orestes administers his own form of justice unto his mother by killing her as she had violated his societal, paternal blood right to his father with her murderous ways. Even the gods view ...
... middle of paper ...
... land-holding faction must be made to allow the other group to have something to make them complacent with the decision. Though surely more simplistic in theory than in reality, if there is hope for peace in the Gaza Strip, compromises must be made by both parties.
In conflicts ranging from the fables of ancient Greece to the wars of the Middle East today, compromise is a necessary part of meaningful reconciliation of different standards of justice. Though difficult, the rewards of establishing a singular standard of justice allow a society to unite behind a single principle and maintain fairness inclusive to all citizens. Not all conflicts of justice follow this model for success, though. Only time will tell if Israel and Palestine will follow the Oresteia and its model for compromise, or if justice in the region will continue to be a deadly, ambiguous concept.
In our democratic societies, rife with vice and disputes over justice, there might have already been similar cases as those of our plays. Perhaps, one had already committed matricide under external pressure(a gun to his/her head, or a beloved one), perhaps one breached the fence of law, in order to achieve goodness(ran a red light to get to his/her dying mother) or even perhaps, someone had unknowingly committed incest with his mother who had been separated at birth. With all these morally perplexing question, how then, can we reason our way through the contested terrain of justice and injustice, equity and inequity? As the Greek plays have provided us, is to encounter with a hard moral dilemma. To start with an opinion, or a conviction about justice just like the Greek playwrights did.
Deep into the first story of “The Oresteia,'; better known as “Agamemnon,'; Cassandra, who has been cursed by Apollo to be a seer who will never be believed, envisions the death of Agamemnon and herself. It is in this vision that she sees an avenger who will come about and bring justice to the murdered victims, “ We will die, but not without some honor from the gods. There will come another to avenge us, born to kill his mother, born his father’s champion. The gods have sworn a monumental oath: as his father lies upon the ground he draws him home with power like a prayer.'; ( Aeschylus. The Oresteia U.S.A.: Penguin, 1975.) This vision proves to be very important when speaking about the innocence of Orestes and his heroism as well. Before the incident even takes place, we know that the gods have destined Orestes to avenge his father’s death. During this period of time, when the gods were on your side, you were doing the right thing! Another way to prove Orestes innocence is through the god of sun, song, and prophecy, better known as Apollo.
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
Athena first addresses Apollo's argument of the superiority of paternity, but she allows compromise by never fully admitting that Clytemnestra's murder was morally justified. Initially, Athena announces, "I approve the male in all things... Therefore I shall not give greater weight to the death of a woman" (Eumenides 737-739). This is Athena's judgment, and it sets Orestes free not on the basis that he acted justly, but on the basis that she can "not give greater weight to the death of a woman." By using litotes, Athena belies sympathy for the female in her seemingly male-favoring judgment. In fact, the victory for Apollo and Orestes is far from complete. Before the judgment, Orestes meets the Erinyes and cries out, "O lord Apollo, see, they multiply; and they drip from their eyes a hateful stream" (Libation Bearers, 1056-1057). The Erinyes, a manifestation of the guilt Orestes feels for his mother, drive Orestes to the brink of sanity and exile him to Athens. Athena's judgment does not morally justify the murder; it only relieves Orestes of his suffering. The fact that Athena never dictates that Orestes acted with justice marks a compromised victory for Apollo and Orestes.
With the continuous conflict occurring between the Arabs and Israelites, his intention were to achieve a peace settlement, with a substantial speech using powerful rhetoric. Sadat utilises biblical allusions as he asserts that justice justice streams from God’s commandments of “...love, sincerity, purity and peace”, striking at the core of what is the most important for humanity. The utilisation of biblical allusion allows the Israeli to realise that they live by the word of God, and the word of God had no saying of having a war between one another. This assists the audience in acknowledging and understanding Sadat’s message of the need to achieve peace and further strengthen the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. Thus, realise that the speech is not to manipulate the Israel audience, but rather come together and overlook their differences with the Egyptians, to achieve peace and save humanity. Furthermore, Sadat’s conviction of his intrinsic passion for peace is made convincing and genuine through the language in which he articulates. Anaphora through the rhetorical question, “how can we achieve permanent peace based on justice?... Why don’t we destroy this barrier together” presents the three central values of unity, peace and justice. Inclusive
“Thus to me the conflict born of ancient bitterness is not a thing new thought upon, but pondered deep in time” she reveals in the play that her husband led himself to this unfortunate fate because of the anger that was brewing deep inside her after the death of her child (Agamemnon 1344-1346). The love a mother has for her child is unrestricted and losing that child can make a women do irrational things, so to call Clytemnestra vile is unjust, taking all the new facts about Agamemnon into consideration. (1399-1411). She shows that he is not the moral man everyone thinks he is and “ No shame, I think, in the death given this man.” (1488-1489). The love she had for him was in their child and when he slaughtered Iphigeneia, he caused her become mad. She confirms that she is content with her actions and decides to “endure all things as they stand now, hard it be” (1535-1536). It will be hard to live with the fact that her family has perished due to the actions of her husband but this is what she has to cope with to avenge her daughter who is nothing but the unconditional love of a
Orestes’ father, Agamemnon, is suffered for the truth of the prophecy, the child is the price: if he kills his child, his country will win the war. Due to this prophecy, Agamemnon is tortured and agonizing between his two important roles: father of his family and father of the country. If he chooses his family and doesn’t kill his child, they will lose the war.
Decisions are difficult, especially between two opposing parties determined to get their way. Most likely, some sort of agreement called a compromise is reached. Compromise, a seemingly perfect concept, can be an essential part of success as it resolves conflicts on both an international or personal level and benefits both sides of any argument. However, if this tool is used incorrectly by means of overuse, underuse, or simply wrong timing, that perfection turns into detriment.
The act of revenge in classical Greek plays and society is a complex issue with unavoidable consequences. In certain instances, it is a more paramount concern than familial ties. When a family member is murdered another family member is expected to seek out and administer revenge. If all parties involved are of the same blood, the revenge is eventually going to wipe out the family. Both Aeschylus, through "The Oresteia Trilogy," and Sophocles, through "Electra," attempt to show the Athenians that revenge is a just act that at times must have no limits on its reach. Orestes and his sister Electra, the children of the slain Agamemnon, struggle on how to avenge their father's death. Although unsure what course of action they must take, both brother and sister are in agreement that revenge must occur. Revenge is a crucial part of Greek plays that gives the characters a sense of honor and their actions a sense of justice.
A possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the two-state solution. The two-state solution would become a peace agreement in which establishes a Palestinian state alongside the current state of Israel (Bourke). In the opinion of the Maghar Druze’s community, peace is the main objective in which the two-state solution could provide. As follows, most Israeli Druze’s would encourage the current peace talks in aim of a two-state agreement. Despite the fact that the two-state solution requires compromise in which it is believed the Palestinian are not able to accommodate. In particular, the Maghar Druze’s do not believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a two-state agreement because of the need for retaliation fo...
The conception of justice associated with the Erinyes is that of the ancient lex talionis - the law of retaliation akin to the biblical 'an eye for an eye'. They are primitive female deities, born of Earth. Their chief function is to hound anyone who murders a blood relative and to seek vengeance for that crime by visiting violent death upon its perpetrator. The Olympian deities are champions of the justice of Zeus, their master. The justice of Zeus is more progressive and discriminating than the lex talionis - it never sees the innocent punished.3 In the Eumenides, Apollo is representative of the newer and younger Olympian deities and he speaks on Orestes behalf at the trial. The trial of Orestes takes place when the fate of Orestes cannot be decided by the conflicting powers. Orestes is guilty of murdering his mother, Clytemnestra; hence the Erinyes are baying for his blood as a just and rightful penalty. ...
Orestes pretends to join Aegisthus in an animal sacrifice but murders the usurper and wins over the king's guards to his side. He parades the severed head to Electra, who is elated but not sated. Orestes balks at the idea of killing Clytemnestra, their mother. Electra sends word that she has given birth. Clytemnestra visits and does a rather convincing job of explaining her side to all the famous events, particularly her wrath at Agamemnon for tricking their daughter Iphigenia to her sacrificial death before the Trojan War. She was also less than pleased that Agamemnon brought back Cassandra as his new slave toy. The Chorus is characteristically idiotic: "Your words are just; yet in your 'justice' there remains / Something repellent. A wife ought in all things to accept / Her husband's judgement, if she is wise. Those who will not / Admit this, fall outside my scope of argument" (141). Electra aligns Clytemnestra with her sister Helen. She accuses her mother of primping before the mirror long before Agamemnon's crimes, obviously for someone else. And Electra claims Clytemnestra's rationalizations do not address the persecution of Orestes and herself. Clytemnestra accepts that Electra favors her father, but as to this business of the new baby?
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.
...ng violated and it must terminate. From this paper, it is clear to see that discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is harmfully justified by Jewish Zionism, the Intifada is not a meaningless attack on the Jews, however, Arabs are quite hypocritical by reciprocating violence, and that the future may or may not hold peace in divided Israel because it, more or less, depends on Arab-Israeli compromises. As it is known, these compromises always tend to include conflicting agendas. Peace, surely, can be reached. It is merely decision regarding which side will initiate and negotiate first. Taking a look at peace talks today, this does not appear to be happening in the near future. It is amazing to bear witness to the incredible amount of violence and hate in a so-called “Holy Land.”