In my book there is a story called “John and Elena.” Elena was a pretty young Lebanese woman, a friend of ours. John was an American Marine from Minnesota. The two of them were the poignant center of my account of an event that shook both Lebanon and America and has not ended even yet.
Monday’s Beirut Daily Star reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Obama administration for an opinion on an issue related to what happened on that sunny day in October, 1983, when 241 young men sent to Lebanon as peacemakers died in an attack on their barracks. In time we all knew that Iran was the power behind the attack, and in 2007 the victims’ families won a court judgment that the Iranian government must pay them $2.65 billion. Of course, Iran did not pay.
Then in July 2014, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Iranian money held in the Citibank of New York should be used to recompense the families. Until now the money has not been paid, because the Bank Markazi, the Iranian central bank, has appealed the ruling. It is this appeal that the Supreme Court must decide to consider or not.
All of this appears to come to a head at a delicate moment in world affairs. Our president is trying desperately to stop Iran’s progress toward the development of nuclear weapons and at the same time avoid another war. Through much debate, both at the negotiating table and in Washington, a framework for agreement has been constructed. And just at this crucial juncture, with the details not decided and nothing sealed, the Supreme Court must decide to take up the case between the American court and the Bank Markazi, or not. If they decline to consider the matter, the money ($1.75 billion), must be handed over to the families of the men who died, who no doubt will be pleased to get something, though not all they were awarded. If the Supreme Court does accept the case….I don’t know what will happen, but apparently the court suspects that the fragile nuclear arms agreement might be affected either way. The Court therefore wants the administration to express itself.
Trying to think about this will make most of us feel thankful that we aren’t in charge. We see that it is right to hold Iran responsible for her actions in the past. That requires remembering. And we know it is right to do all we can to promote good relationships with the people of the world and live in peace now. That involves forgetting.
For me and for others who were personally impacted by the daily events of the Lebanese Civil War, the day’s news constantly reminds of us of things that happened back then. Sometimes the violence just sounds familiar. Often the complicated current event seems rooted in or predicted by the things that happened then.
Right now, as I write, images come back to me: the concrete rubble where shocked and grieved Marines searched for their buddies, the face of the boy soldier who stood in the street with a rifle and answered the question I came to ask, trying to be gentle. Nothing is going to erase those images, nor the pain of those who lost their buddies, brothers, husbands, sons.
How much the past should be allowed to impact the future is always an issue in relationships, whether between individuals or neighbors or nations. I think Jesus addressed that when he said, “If anyone strikes you on the cheek…,” but I admit that sometimes I don’t know how to do that. Maybe we can remember the slap while forgetting the payback.
The pertinent question might be: what does the memory make us want? Revenge? Recompense? Punishment? Or an end to the violent cycle?