Congressional Elections are a Sign of Democracy's Health

We could, with more than sufficient justification, spend the remainder of our miserable lives profoundly lamenting war.  This wouldn't even seem inappropriate. Any human being who is troubled by murder has a high probability of being a decent person, even if they are grumpy. I propose yet another option: leaving the role of resignation to those who have retired from the work of creating the world.

It is naive to think that creation is a finished task. There is almost everything still to be done, especially regarding the consolidation of peace among peoples.  This text may contain more or less than the necessary elements for clear support. Therefore, I anticipate and assure you that I am open to discussing it. I will avoid references and share only what lives within me.

The lynching of the innocent Jesus is, without a doubt, a testament to love. It is from this founding act of peace that the wheel of violence has spun in emptiness for two millennia. If, within us humans, there was a need to lacerate a body for the execution of a rite of passage, that desire was fulfilled. If Western civilization is founded on this act, and it is, then we can progress to the consciousness arising from this act: "What have we done?"

I have little or no desire, in fact none, to subject my reason to the religious interpretations of religious texts. In my conception of God, it is not even in his nature to promote small things or to privilege small groups. With this, I hope to have made explicit my conclusion that, regardless of religious perspective, if the human sacrifice of Christ is present, then we cannot—under any amendment—condone murder. This is, here, a sociological and historical issue more than a mystical one.

The Abrahamic schism between Jews and Muslims is also a sociological and historical issue, though not solely that. Father Abraham, what have you done? To delegate this civilizational question entirely to the realm of religion is tantamount to abdicating civilizational progress as a whole. One hundred percent of viewpoints on war founded on individual transcendence are invalid for a peace solution.

For us Christians, smoking that pipe has left our mouths askew. So many sermons and songs mentioning Israel, destined to occupy a certain origin of our faith, that now, when a country with the same name is at the center of a geopolitical dispute, we are tempted to solve the interpretation based on promises from our religion.

If the Bible holds any validity for Catholics and Protestants, in particular—and it does—I recommend a careful reading of the Book of Hebrews—my favorite, both for its excellent literary quality and its contribution to faith.  Essentially, the text addresses the human system of violence containment that has failed miserably and presents a perspective of spiritual elevation through which every religious system unravels from a final sacrifice. This is when the ethnic, regional god of the Old Testament Israelites puts his universal plan into action. With the ethnic god, the ineffective methods of resolving human suffering also die, replaced by love.

This issue must be considered when constructing a Brazilian interpretation of the war in the Middle East. The influence of our religious beliefs on the political public sphere became even more noticeable in the last two presidential elections. If we want to make even minimal progress on the peace agenda, we must be able to redirect our individual emotions to more appropriate compartments. In this step, that which is undeniably transcendental must be subjected to a test of relevance: Does my perspective lead to murder? If so, that perspective should be accepted, respected internally, but disregarded for rational and public justification. One does not dialogue with murder. "Shall you kill?" "You shall not kill." End of discussion.

The guilt arising from murder, a problem we try to solve through submission to the divine plan of grace and other civilizational resources, may be nonexistent depending on the context in which death occurs. In wars, the murderer is integrated into an artificial mass formation, i.e., the army. In this adhesion to the army, the individual renounces his individual moral standard, which is replaced by the morality of the group. In this case, he can kill at will, without questioning why on earth he is doing it. Masses are dangerous formations, and their advantages, such as folklore, are nothing compared to their damage.

We have been steeped in violence for at least thirty-nine years, since I came into the world. To avoid losing sensitivity, I began to account for death using the International System of Units. In my calculations, we have had to bury approximately ninety-eight metric tons of human flesh provided by Hamas to the world. Competitively, Israel was even more generous in its banquet, serving us 450 metric tons of corpses—many still unburied. Complete solutions for the future of humanity, which resided in these people, have been reduced to rampant depression, when the brain turns off the light.

The stones of Passeio Público know that the nationalist and religious origins of the war quickly transformed into big business. Now, market rules prevail.  This was never about a weakened United Nations. It is the negotiating ability of nations that is weakened, making diplomacy our barometer. The pathetic US veto of Brazil's resolution proposing humanitarian aid, followed by the pathetic offering of a new resolution by the same United States, led to the veto by Russia and China. The Israeli ambassador called for the resignation of the UN Secretary-General. We have the United States and Israel conversing only between themselves, while the rest of the world watches in stunned silence.

The basic constitution of a public sphere is formed by private individuals discussing based on reason. Rebellion is not reason. Submission is not reason. Intuition is not reason. Impulse is not reason. It is too early to estimate a date, but not to affirm that, in the face of such a humiliating defeat, global diplomacy will have to evolve its communicative and deliberative practices. We will have to elevate individuals above us who embody our trust in problem-solving—intelligent, ethical, and above all, creative leaders in their proposals.

Does Israel have the right to defend itself? No, it has the duty. Is Hamas a harmless confection? It doesn't seem different from a Rio militia, except for the planning, better weapons, and an ancestral grievance. Are they equivalent institutions?  Regarding formal constitution, no. But in the decrepit character of murder, their results are not different, except for the sheer volume of bloodshed.

History records that Jews have been the object of irresponsible hatred perpetuated by numerous institutions. This hatred has manifested itself in different ways. Although it reached its apex in the Holocaust, it developed in more sophisticated—dare we say civilized—ways without losing its characteristic hatred. The creation of a state for this people, far from being mere acquiescence by the international community, does not hide the true purpose of countries keeping Jews away from their territories.

From the perspective of contemporary philosophy, the struggle for recognition lamentably culminates in the Jew. Exterminations targeting Black people, unrestrained foreigners, and all manner of unsubmissive individuals symbolically converge on the Jew. This interpretation is shared by authors who arrived at it independently. However, the Jew of the Bible, the Holocaust, and comedy is not the contemporary Israeli authority. This authority lacks unanimity even among Israelis themselves, let alone within the international community. Furthermore, an Israeli born in modern Israel is not necessarily Jewish.

If we have the liberty to question the historical content of the Pentateuch and other Jewish compendia—and we do—we can quickly arrive at the observation that their approaches disproportionately favor a messianic people who self-identify as chosen by God to rule over their brethren.  Broadly and specifically, a fundamentalist Jew, similar to a fundamentalist Muslim, believes they are licensed to do as they please, because God not only authorizes but commands it. The entire salvific work that culminates, for Christians, in the death of Christ holds no validity for these fundamentalists; thus, for them, the wheel of violence revolves around their own special navel.  While we shouldn't constrain another's religious belief—and we shouldn't—if that belief transgresses the civilizational code, we could at least count on the other's adherence to a discussion of the civilizational code.

The current Israeli government has the outward appearance of a state: it has a prime minister, elections, but its actions demonstrate that it is not a sufficiently developed democracy in its interactions with the world. This manifests as a refusal of dialogue.  It is necessary to observe the emotional aspects of the relationship between Israel and the world. Even if the motivations intrinsically linked to the ethnic god and the practice of territorial conquest ordained by that god have been superseded, the emotional vestiges of these experiences remain. It is understandable, though lamentable, that present-day Israel is connected to the belligerence of its historical past.

As for Palestine, it is the new Jew—considering the philosophy of recognition mentioned earlier. Taken to its extreme, the idea that the abused has an immense potential to become the abuser could apply to a group, or even to mass behavior. Ten years from now, when I recall this war, unless something even worse surprises me, the image in my mind will be that of a Palestinian mother screaming that her children were hungry when they were murdered. The Palestinian people are subalternized in many ways and by many interests.  Information about this people, presented in this article, is available as an annex on the YouTube channel Outras Terras Filmes (http://outrasterras.com.br).

Could the murders of Bruno and Dom be circumstantial? They could. Could the arrests be a charade orchestrated by organized crime? They could. Everything “could” be, has the potential to be. Even what we wouldn't want. But what we cannot do, President Bolsonaro, is instill cowardice in the Brazilian people.

I was barbarized — and it takes a great deal of barbarity to shock me, I'm a "serene pessimist" — upon hearing a little old lady, who is all love and service, ask: "But what were [the dead] doing in the Amazon?". Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I understand, from Bolsonarista friends (of which I have many, and true friends at that), that the "average Brazilian", in their interpretation, is the one who asks these things. But, Mr. President, you are not an average Brazilian. You are the President of the Republic. For another four years?

I am often skeptical of the common grudges against you — this is a fact. I do not hate you, I don't even have a reason to (I am a scrutinized journalist), but I oppose any presidential action that is not in the direction of undoing closures with bloodshed.

Researchers cannot be blamed for researching. Moreover, it is "just and necessary" that they do so. I still don't understand why journalism (even if riddled with flaws of a basic, lexical, and syntactical nature) cannot serve a government (even so).

The deaths of these men lead me to a scenario where the lights go out, silence falls, and a band of amputees comes to grab our ankles to decide whether we will be devoured by their diseases. The wicked plant horrible warts on our faces.

Who will oppose a brilliant investigation? Who will oppose a rigorous punishment for the murderers or those who ordered the killings? Who will oppose a government that dismantles the incivility of human exploitation? Who will be offended by a "no!" to the market of souls?

President Bolsonaro, we have our differences, because I am much worse than you in practically every matter, but I invite you to give me governmental and social proof of what a "nation" is, after all. Make me itch to be nationalist.