By Ted Belman (first published in 10/2/04)
I have been having a discussion with a number of pro Israel friends who were concerned that Israel be beyond reproach in their handling of the Palestinians. They wanted Israel to do the “right†thing and that presumably meant limiting collateral damage and telling the truth. I do not know if it went so far as to be against targeted killings. But you get the idea. They wanted this both in order to gain World respect and their own self-respect. And they certainly didn’t want Israel to descend to the level of the Palestinians.
Yes it would be nice, but… Taken to its ultimate conclusion, this is the position of the Left who in general rail against all the methods used to fight terror both in Israel and the US. You know the stuff where there is an inordinate concern, in my opinion, for the rights of the individual at the cost of the collective i.e. defence. They want terror to be treated a matter of law enforcement rather than a matter of war.
I am sure my friends would reject my analysis and argue that they wouldn’t go that far but still wanted Israel to take the high ground. One cannot look at this problem as a case of black and white or moral or immoral. There is a sliding scale here and everyone takes a position on where on the scale they feel comfortable. I for one would argue that there is justification in moving more to the Right and not being overly concerned with being right.
Society has developed laws for crimes against the state and special laws for enemy combatants in times of war. The State can lawfully kill people in times of war. But where there is a paucity of laws is for times like now where it’s neither war nor peace. It is in between. The Israel Supreme Court has recognized the need to define what amount of force is permitted under these circumstances and setting these new norms is a work in progress. Nevertheless Israel must act in advance of the Courts determination. Many would argue that our present situation is really a war so all the rules of war apply. So the question of whether an action is moral or not depends on one’s classification of the conflict. Also the courts don’t operate in a vacuum. It is one thing for them to be critical of targeted killings when Israel alone is resorting to it and it is another thing entirely if the whole world is doing it or even just the US. Once the US and Australia started using wartime norms for fighting terror it became more acceptable for Israel do so. I ask you, is this a question of morality or not? Morality is not absolute. Even the most basic of the commandments, “Thou shalt not kill.†is only a principle that society deviates from when they think it appropriate.
Intrinsic to maintaining law and order in civil society is the respect that the majority of citizens have for that law and order. When that respect is lost you have chaos and anarchy. Let’s take a simple example of the stone throwers. The more Israel tolerates it the more the Palestinians will do it and the more the Palestinians will move from stones to rocks to bombs. In order for Israel to maintain respect for law and order the more they have to instil fear in the Palestinians. The more stone throwers that are killed the less the people will throw stones. If you allow the Palestinians to become encouraged or emboldened the more force will be needed to quell the violence. You can reach a point
Ted,
I agree that
I do not believe however that whereas until now Israel and America have been cautious to engage in proportionate offensive and defensive actions and have been quick to apologize for any miscalculations and even to apologize in circumstances that called for no apology, that they cannot simply reverse gears and be just as quick to tell their detractors to get stuffed, because they have unilaterally changed the morality rules of the game so as to give no advantage to the enemy and if that means mirroring the enemies’ morality, so be it.
To change the rules of the game requires a change of attitude at the leadership level of both America and Israel which is in synch. With that, a concerted effort must then be made for both to gain the support of their people and that entails an educational process on a number of levels.
Care must be taken in such process, if it could ever get off the ground, to never present the case for such change in the Westernized morality of war in such way that may offend the people, but rather get increasing numbers of people on side to see that as distasteful as some action taken may be, it is the only way to protect Israelis and Americans.
During WWII and the cold war, various Western civil liberties were impinged upon or restricted in order for leadership to deal effectively with the threat from Hitler and immediately after the war, the threat from the Soviet empire.
When the wars were over, civil liberties were restored.
Those leftists and liberals who decry the reduction of civil liberties and rights within a democratic society, regardless of the reason for such measures always resort to the slippery slope argument that we Westerners will become like the enemy we are reacting to.
These naysayers and slippery slope fear mongerers have always been proven wrong.
The difference between the dictatorships and theocracies of the Muslim Middle East and the West is that in the Muslim Middle East, restrictions on civil liberties and rights is the norm. To the extent that the West may reduce civil rights and liberties, the West has the proven capacity to restore full rights when the danger has passed.
Bill Narvey makes the point that a certain morality has been imposed on us and we can’t ignore it. He argues,
I wonder. By accepting this leftist morality we are giving them a club to beat us with. Perhaps by ignoring this morality as our enemies do, we will achieve the independence to act we so disparately need. Similarly by being overly concerned with collateral casualties we are strengthening our enemies. They are only as strong as we allow them to be.
The problem is that we have to keep the support of our own people. So we have to educate them to believe in our ways which may offend many. Thus we must talk the talk before walking the walk.
In WW II, we demonized the enemy to make killing it in large numbers acceptable, even desirous. We must begin to demonize the enemy here in order to justify killing it. At the moment we do so with a vary narrow enemy, terrorists. We must enlarge this to countries such as Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia. As Bush said “either you are with us or against us”.
Bill Levinson, in answer to my claim that we don’t want to descend to the level of the Palestinians, says
He has a point there. Morality is a luxury one cannot afford when his life is at stake. In fact we are told to kill someone who comes to kill you. Thus the end of surviving justifies the means of killing.
Morality shouldn’t lead to suicide. If it appears to be then it should be jettisoned. But some will prefer to be killed before killing a child, for instance, I understand this. Such a one couldn’t live with themselves.
The Talmud argues one shouldn’t substitutes someone else’s life for their own.
There is little in your words Ted to disagree on generally speaking, though I cannot agree with your saying “not being overly concerned with being right”. I raise this because the issue of how to measure words and deeds and being able to distinguish right and justified from unjustified and wrong, is not trifling, but substantive.
Whether words and deeds are perceived as being right or wrong has always been a primary consideration for Westerners. When it comes to Israel and the double standard imposed on her, that is a reality Israel can ill afford to ignore.
Do not forget that there is somewhat of a double standard imposed on America by fellow Westerners, especially by the EU and indeed liberal and leftist Americans when it comes to America’s treatment of prisoners taken in the course of battle in Afghanistan. The Bush administration beat itself up pretty bad with acknowledging a mea culpa.
That is so because the Bush administration and indeed most Americans have accepted the standard by which words and deeds are to be measured and judged as right and wrong as imposed on America by liberals and leftists within America and in the EU as well as the similar standard imposed by many in the Muslim world.
American concern with protecting American interests in the Muslim Middle East by not offending or angering that region of the world has been a powerful reason to go along with other nations who also have the same interests in not offending many in the Muslims world, lest they rue their words and deeds in that regard because of some economically painful sanctions an angry Arab oil consortium might inflict upon the West.
We in the West have been dragged by the left and liberals and pushed by our own fears of painful consequences that the Muslim world might cause us if we do not accept their views at least to a significant extent as to what is the right and wrong way to deal with Muslim radicals so as not to offend Islam or Muslim sensibilities, into the fog of moral relativism.
The Bush administration and a large number, perhaps even a majority of Americans have expressed the view that the war raged by Islamic radicalism against Israel is the part and parcel of the same war that is being waged against America. There has been a disconect too often however when the Bush administration’s words as regards Israel’s defensive actions against the Palestinians has approached or even joined the EU’s condemnation of Israel’s actions as being disproportionate.
It would be prudent if Israel, building on the perception that America is fighting the same battle that Israel is, could then get the Bush administration to specifically address with Israel the critically important issue of appearing to be right as regards action taken and to resist apologizing or conceding in the least that action taken was wrong.
It would probably take the joint insights and efforts of both Israel and America to lead the moral relativists away from moral relativism that so clouds perception and judgment towards the moorings that more firmly principled morality brings and thereby redraw the line between right and wrong. That is not a call for moral absolutism which too, has its faults.