morality – About Things That Matter

This past week, the world held its breath as South Africa’s top legal team pressed its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawyers argued that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide by prosecuting its war against the people of Gaza.

On Thursday, the South Africans made their case in exquisite detail. It cited chapter and verse proving, the lawyers said, that Israel not only committed acts of genocide, but that according to its leaders’ own admissions, Israel did so with full genocidal intent.

On Friday the Israeli defense team gave their reply. It basically held that all of Israel’s actions including the deaths of 30,000 Palestinians (at least half of them children and women) are justified by the Hamas attacks of October 7^th, 2023.

Final resolution of the case may take months or even years. Now however, we await the court’s preliminary directives.

Whatever those judgments and injunctions might be, the very fact that the world was forced to listen to the South African case against Israel represented a victory for the Palestinians and an education for the world at large – especially for the United States. That’s because the U.S. mainstream media (MSM) has largely excluded the Palestinian viewpoint from public awareness. In fact, to give sympathetic voice to the Palestinian perspective has been all but criminalized here.

Accordingly, since October 7^th, Americans have been subjected to nonstop Israeli propaganda that presents the conflict in Gaza as though it began on October 7^th — as though it was initiated without provocation by blood thirsty terrorists driven by irrational anti-Semitism.

So understood, that scenario gives to Israel the right to overlook international law and to follow a “morality” of revenge, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. It is a “morality” completely supported by the United States.

The argument here is that such morality can have only highly disastrous effects.

To show what I mean, allow me to (1) summarize the case so eloquently argued by the South African legal team, (2) lay out Israel’s exceptionalist morality, (3) put the entire case in historical perspective, (4) apply Israel’s logic to that case, and (5) conclude with specific recommendations about legal responses to Israel’s policies.

South Africa’s Case

The case of the South African legal team was argued convincingly. It was founded on international law. The argument implied and/or specifically held that:

Illegal occupiers enjoy no right to self-defense.
Neither does any regime practicing apartheid. Apartheid is a war crime.
On the contrary, it is the illegally occupied who have the right of self-defense against their occupiers and any system of apartheid. That right includes taking up arms against the perpetrators in question.
No provocation, no matter how egregious justifies direct attacks on civilians.
In all cases, any response to terroristic attacks must observe the principle of proportionality. That is, Article 51 Section 6 of the UN Charter states that revenge attacks against civilian populations are strictly forbidden.
So are forced relocations of entire populations, deprivation of food and water to civilian populations, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, schools, refugee camps, places of worship, and members of the press.

By ignoring such legal restrictions, the South African lawyers argued, Israel is guilty of genocide defined in law as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” The lawyers bolstered their case with statements from Zionists all the way from soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to the country’s prime minister declaring their genocidal intentions.

Israel’s Syllogism of Genocide

In reply to the accusations just cited, Israeli lawyers laid out their case arguing that Israel’s right to self-defense justified all the actions listed by the South African barristers. The Israeli case and exceptionalist “morality” implies the quasi-syllogism immediately below:

Following unprovoked violent attacks on civilians by an enemy, the right to retaliate in self-defense overrides all moral principles and international law.

a) More specifically, it exempts the offended from all legal strictures against killing civilians including babies, infants, children, women, and the elderly in any way connected with attacks by the enemy in question.

b) In such cases, ethnic cleansing and genocide become morally justifiable.

2. But on October 7^th, 2023, the Palestinian terrorist organization called Hamas violently attacked Israeli civilians near the Gaza border resulting in the deaths of more than 1000 Israelis (including many civilians) with over 2500 wounded.

3. Hence, according to the above-stated moral principle, Israel’s right to retaliate in self-defense overrides all other moral principles and international law. It exempts Israel from any legal strictures against killing civilians including babies, infants, children, women, and the elderly in any way connected with attacks by the enemy in question.

Such moral reasoning apparently makes sense to the political leaders of Israel and to most Israeli citizens. It also has been embraced by the political class of the United States, by its mainstream media (MSM), and by many U.S. citizens. For them, Israel’s right to self-defense reduces any talk of genocide (and of ceasefire) to anti-Semitism.

Arguably, this is because the relevant reasoning processes of those just mentioned begin on October 7^th, 2023. Hamas struck first, they argue. It is therefore responsible for the violence now directed against it. Hamas has only itself to blame.

Historical Perspective

However, following Israeli logic, the situation changes, if the one’s thinking begins not on October 7^th, 2023, but more than 100 years ago. That’s when European Jews supported by Great Britain committed what Pakistan’s UN envoy Munir Akram called the “original sin” in Palestine.

It was in 1917 that Great Britain exercising illegal imperial power issued its infamous Balfour Declaration. Without moral right and absent consultation of the indigenous of Palestine, the decree created a national home for Jewish Europeans from Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and other countries where they had a long history subjected to anti-Semitic pogroms and persecutions.

Of course, the indigenous of Palestine experienced the arrival of European settler colonists with the same sort of resentment and sporadic resistance that Native Americans experienced when white conquerors from Europe arrived on the shores of Abya Yala. The latter came with their religious prejudices too, every bit as strong as those of Zionist fundamentalists. Like the latter (as recalled by Enrique Dussel in his Invention of the Americas) the settler colonialists from Europe considered the indigenous “human animals.” As sub-humans, they automatically forfeited their resources to the civilized new arrivals with their “holy Catholic faith.” It granted them rights to the “new world” ratified by the pope himself, the very representative of God on earth.

Palestinian resentment and resistance were compounded in 1948, when following the horrors of Hitler’s Holocaust, European Jews flooded Palestine. The settler colonists destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages, stole the homes of their inhabitants, committed more than 70 massacres, and killed more than 15,000 Palestinians in the process.

It’s no wonder that the Palestinians remember the sequence of events as The Nakba (the Catastrophe). It’s also no wonder that Palestinians aided by key elements of the Arab world fought two wars of resistance in 1967 and 1973 as well as implementing two major campaigns of largely peaceful resistance (Intifadas) against the settler colonists from 1987-1993 and from 2000-2005.

To all this, Israel responded with overwhelming violence taking thousands of Palestinian lives. The most recent non-violent campaign, the Palestinian’s “Great March of Return” in 2018 saw 214 protestors (including 46 children) killed by Israeli sniper fire. More than 36,100 (including almost 9000 children) were also wounded. Virtually none of this received due attention in the U.S. MSM.

Noam Chomsky summarizes the atrocities just described using the Israeli phrase “mowing the lawn.” That refers to the Israeli practice (at least since 2005) of periodically invading, bombing, and imprisoning (often without charge) thousands of Palestinian civilians. Chomsky enumerates the steps as follows:

A truce accord between Israel and Hamas is established.
Hamas lives up to it.
Israel violates it.
Israel escalates the violation.
This elicits a Hamas response.
The reaction provides a pretext for what Israel calls “mowing the lawn” – i.e. one of its major periodic attacks on Palestinians.
Then comes the western propaganda: “Poor Israel is attacked by rockets. What can it do? They must defend themselves.”

If Hamas Followed Israel’s Moral Logic

Keeping in mind the history just recounted as well as Israel’s “moral” logic about self-defense and dispensation from observing international law and prohibitions against revenge, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, Hamas was perfectly within its rights to perpetrate its acts of violence on October 7^th. In fact, those acts compared to Israel’s can be characterized as restrained and moderate.

In any case, following Israel’s logic, here’s how Hamas’ quasi-syllogism might run:

Following violent attacks on civilians by an enemy, the right to retaliate in self-defense overrides all moral principles and international law.

b) In such cases, ethnic cleansing and genocide become morally justifiable.

2. But for the past 100 years and more, Israel has violently attacked Palestinians resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians with many other thousands wounded and maimed.

a) Hence, according to Israeli “moral principles,” Hamas’ right to retaliate in self-defense overrides all moral principles and international law.

b) More specifically, it exempts Hamas from any legal strictures against killing civilians including babies, infants, children, women, and the elderly in any way connected with attacks by the enemy in question.

3. And so, Hamas can claim the moral right to ethnically cleanse Israel of its entire population and to commit acts of genocide against it.

Conclusion

Of course, the point here is not to argue for the genocide of anyone. It is only to underline the absurdity and danger of Israel’s (and the United States’) blatant disregard of international law and common-sense morality.

It is also to make the point that Israel’s logic cuts both ways. If its attacks on Gazans are justified by Palestinian atrocities, Palestinian attacks on Israel are even more justifiable. That is, it might be argued that the Palestinians as victims of Israel’s “original sin” and repeated atrocities over the last 100 years have much more right to revenge than their colonial occupiers.

In any case, if Israel and its U.S. enablers are found guilty of genocide by the ICJ, the country’s leadership, and its weapons suppliers (including the U.S. President and Secretary of State) should be placed under arrest.

So should those identified as responsible for the planning and execution of Israel’s particularly egregious war crimes. All should be tried following the example of the post-World War II trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. Those convicted should be executed or given lengthy prison sentences as were the German war criminals found guilty during the Tribunal held from 1945-1948.

The New York Times recently published an article called “The Moral Case for Drones.” It was authored by one if its national security reporters, Scott Shane. As the title indicates, the piece’s intention was to argue that U.S. drone policy is indeed morally defensible. However the article refused to address the really difficult moral issues. It concentrated instead on providing a rather obvious response to the question whether the use of drones avoids the wholesale slaughter of civilians that has been associated with modern warfare since the U.S. Civil War.

Of course it does! Is there anyone who would argue that carefully calibrated drone use would be worse than the direct targeting of civilians that occurred in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? However by focusing on the “lesser of two evils” approach and resolving it in favor of drones, Mr. Shane’s article leaves inattentive readers with the impression that drone policy is somehow moral and humane.

But what about those other questions?

For instance, nowhere in the article does Mr. Shane even gesture towards the basic moral issue (not to mention its constitutional counterpart) of whether or not the President of the United States actually possesses the authority to order extrajudicial assassinations by drone or any other means. If the President claims that authority, do we accord that same right to any head of state — even if he or she decides that Mr. Obama himself is an international outlaw?

But that’s not the only issue the Times article chooses to ignore. In fact, it begins by bracketing a whole host of moral questions about drone use. Mr. Shane opens by saying:

“For streamlined, unmanned aircraft, drones carry a lot of baggage these days, along with their Hellfire missiles. Some people find the very notion of killer robots deeply disturbing. Their lethal operations inside sovereign countries that are not at war with the United States raise contentious legal questions. They have become a radicalizing force in some Muslim countries. And proliferation will inevitably put them in the hands of odious regimes.”

At the outset, then, the Times author mentions some of the real issues only to set them aside. What about remote control assassinations? What are the moral implications of human agents making life and death decisions safely sequestered in air conditioned locations thousands of miles from the kill zone? Does it make a moral difference that justification comes from questionable sources, or that such justification is frequently circumstantial, based on hearsay, and often amounts to guilt by association? Is it a moral issue that the executioners’ decisions might be erroneously or casually made since they are immediately based on information provided by devices resembling video game screens?

Similarly removed from moral analysis is the fact that lethal operations inside sovereign countries not at war with the United States are not only “contentious” (as the article admits), but clearly contravene international law, not to mention the U.N. Charter. Is it possible to make a “moral case” in such a context? Wouldn’t that be like waxing eloquent about the moral case for face-to-face Mafia hits rather than spraying restaurants with machine gun fire? Like their drone equivalents, such hits successfully avoid all that messy collateral damage. However both types of extra-judicial killings are the work of “professionals” who immorally place themselves above the law.

Moreover, in an essay that will make that argument that drones diminish civilian casualties, Mr. Shane’s piece from the beginning chooses not to consider whether in the final tally, drones actually increase civilian casualties. Are the civilian deaths caused by such terrorists not to be calculated? Similarly what about the casualties caused by making drone technology available to those “odious regimes?” Their leaders find the United States similarly “odious.” Will the civilian casualties they cause seem thankfully minor when representatives of those particular agents fly their drones into the Sears Tower in Chicago?

Choosing not to consider such questions is like asking Mrs. Lincoln, “Apart from the assassination, what did you think of the play?”

However such incomplete and inconsiderate “moral analysis” also leads to the conclusion that United States drone policy is (as one of the article’s quoted experts says) “not only ethically permissible but might also be ethically obligatory because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.”

It’s the type of incomplete and deceptive moral analysis that would do Mafia ethicists proud.

Tag: morality

Following Zionist Logic, Hamas Has the Moral Right to Commit Genocide against Israel

The New York Times on Drones: In Defense of Mafia Face-to-Face Hits