Intentions Do Make a Difference
Writing in the LA Times, Adam Shatz, literary editor of The Nation, tries to assert a moral equivalency between the accidental civilian deaths of Lebanese civilians and the Israelis who are killed each year by terrorism:
If Israeli assertions are true that these killings of scores of civilians were unintentional, does that mean that Israel can claim the high ground in its battle with Hezbollah and Hamas? Is Israel's "accidental" violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber who steps into a pizzeria seeking to kill civilians? Or a Hezbollah guerrilla firing a Katyusha in the direction of a Haifa residential neighborhood? In short, do Israel's declared intentions make a difference?
Shatz believes they don't -- a statement of stunning moral obtuseness. But even the law recognizes that the perpetrators of "accidental" violence are less culpable than those who inflict it deliberately, hence the distinction between first degree murder and, say, manslaughter. Moreover, to argue that Israelis -- who warn civilians to leave the areas where they are going to bomb and seek to avoid civilian casualties, even at added risk to their own soldiers -- are essentially indistinguishable from Hezbollah terrorists who deliberately hide among women and children (the better to shield their own hides by exploiting the scruples of their opponents, scuples that they themselves lack) is hardly even a serious argument.
Rarely is either side in a conflict perfect. Real ugliness and evil can be perpetrated by both sides. But it's hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence could fail to grasp the very real differences between those who mourn the deaths of innocents -- and seek to avoid them -- and those who deliberately try to inflict civilian casualties among their enemies, while demonstrating perfect willingness to use their own women and children as human shields.
If Israeli assertions are true that these killings of scores of civilians were unintentional, does that mean that Israel can claim the high ground in its battle with Hezbollah and Hamas? Is Israel's "accidental" violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber who steps into a pizzeria seeking to kill civilians? Or a Hezbollah guerrilla firing a Katyusha in the direction of a Haifa residential neighborhood? In short, do Israel's declared intentions make a difference?
Shatz believes they don't -- a statement of stunning moral obtuseness. But even the law recognizes that the perpetrators of "accidental" violence are less culpable than those who inflict it deliberately, hence the distinction between first degree murder and, say, manslaughter. Moreover, to argue that Israelis -- who warn civilians to leave the areas where they are going to bomb and seek to avoid civilian casualties, even at added risk to their own soldiers -- are essentially indistinguishable from Hezbollah terrorists who deliberately hide among women and children (the better to shield their own hides by exploiting the scruples of their opponents, scuples that they themselves lack) is hardly even a serious argument.
Rarely is either side in a conflict perfect. Real ugliness and evil can be perpetrated by both sides. But it's hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence could fail to grasp the very real differences between those who mourn the deaths of innocents -- and seek to avoid them -- and those who deliberately try to inflict civilian casualties among their enemies, while demonstrating perfect willingness to use their own women and children as human shields.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:31 AM
5 Comments:
Shatz argues that Israel should attack only “key” Hezbollah positions and pursue diplomacy. How can Israel negotiate with terrorist groups and nations who want to destroy it? Why would Israel leave some rocket launching sites intact, putting its own citizens at risk?
Hezbollah is trying to kill Israeli civilians, by launching rockets from civilian areas in Lebanon. Israel’s survival depends on it defending itself, by protecting its soldiers and civilians.
Israel is on the moral high ground, or at least higher than that of the terrorists.
Carol -
This may beyond the purview of your blog, but morality is necessarily a function of the environment that spawns it.
For example, if we all lived in a climate of 80 degrees minimum and often 115 degrees or higher, we would not consider it immoral to do with considerably less clothing than we do, scanty clothing which (for most of us where we live) would otherwise be considered immorally scanty. The environment dictates as much.
So what does this environment say? It says to the Israelis that if they don't retaliate, they may well be destroyed. It is entirely moral for them to retaliate, however harsh the result.
The problem at the Times (pick one) is that the editors assume "moral relativity" means "relative to one's own whim." It doesn't and never has. It means, "relative to the environment," which in Israel's case has been foisted upon it.
house of sin: point taken, but analogy doesn't hold agua.
Isn't it hot in the Middle East? Then why do the women have to wear burkas and only bathe once a year? Ah...the environment is such that they'll get beaten by their manly masters if they don't obey...
Prager has an excellent column on a closely related topic "World Opinion".
I was using the term "environment" loosely. Cultural influence - yes, calculated, systematic, and indefensible purging of women's rights - is responsible for the burka.
Post a Comment
<< Home