Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated

Or:

Don't be So Open Minded that Your Brains Fall Out

It's considered quite 'sophisticated,' or 'tolerant,' or 'intelligent,' to talk about the "continuing cycle of violence" between Israel and outfits like Hamas.

The idea behind 'open-minded' statements like that is called "moral equivalence." It's the notion that killing innocent people in a house or market is the same, morally, as destroying an ammunition dump and killing its guards in the process.

You probably won't run into that phrase, "moral equivalence," in discussions of international affairs, but it's behind a great deal of what passes for 'open-minded' and 'tolerant' discussions of "Israeli aggression" and "oppression."

" 'Moral equivalence' has been defined as 'defining distinct and conflicting moral behaviors in similar terms.' The principle of moral equivalence is behind statements like ' "all sins are equal in God's eyes," which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil.' " ("Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda" (July 21, 2007))

Moral Equivalence: Your Ticket to a New, Sophisticated, Image

In Iraq, the best and brightest (their opinion) in America equated Abu Ghraib and "Saddam's torture chambers." Never mind that routine rapes, mutilations, and beatings, with the occasional mass murder, was a matter of policy under Saddam: and the Abu Ghraib scandal involved a few perverts with cameras, who got in trouble when their unsanctioned 'fun' was discovered.

My guess is that the self-styled sophisticates are already discussing the Israeli-Hamas conflict in terms of moral equivalence. And I won't be at all surprised if the United Nations Security Council, following Libya's sagacious lead, will do the same.

If you to want fit in with the 'right' sort, and display what passes for worldly wisdom, using moral equivalence as your guiding philosophy will help. I'd rather assume that taking photos of naked prisoners isn't quite the same as attempted genocide, and that bombing a market isn't equivalent to destroying a military facility, but you'll have to make up your own mind.

Related posts:

• "Hamas Facing Logical Consequences: And the Jews Are to Blame"
  (January 3, 2009)
• "Looting in the News: Rape, Pillage, and the America Way"
  (November 24, 2008)
• "Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda"
  (July 21, 2007)
• "Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days"
  (July 13, 2008)

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Hezbollah Springs Samir Kantar, Israel Gets Two Dead Soldiers

The next time you start getting weepy about some poor Palestinian family you saw on television, crying their eyes out because their house is gone, consider this: The odds are pretty good that their house was used by terrorists: as a place to store or fire weapons, as a place to live, or a more-or-less willing shield.

Samir Kantar: Hero, Misunderstood Victim, or Something Else?

Samir Kantar is free. Israel agreed to release him in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, captured by Hezbollah, who just happened to die after that.

You may not recognize the name Samir Kantar, but he's one of the great heroes of the Palestinian response to Israeli occupation.

The Battle of Nahariya

It was April 22, 1979. A crack team of Palestinian fighters made an amphibious landing on the northern shore of Israel, at Nahariya. Facing intense starlight and two Israeli policemen, they penetrated the defenses of a tactical apartment building, and secured prisoners.

Samir Kantar, single-handed, shot the father of a four-year-old girl while she watched. Then, showing bravery above and beyond the call of duty, he "smashed her skull against a rock with his rifle butt, killing her, too."

It's surprising that the Battle of Nahariya isn't more widely recognized and celebrated, but perhaps that's because the Jews control the news. Or, maybe traditional information gatekeepers don't quite know what to do about 'victims of oppression' who act the way Samir Kantar did.

Excuses and Common Sense

Yes, I know:

• Samir Kantar was 16 at the time
• Most Palestinians don't enjoy a prosperous lifestyle
• After Samir got caught (and not killed), allegedly he says he didn't do it.
  • Witnesses say otherwise
    • But they're probably Jews

That doesn't excuse blowing away Danny Haran, and whacking Einat's head against a rock. Not in my opinion.

I also know that the Israeli military has killed people who shouldn't have been killed. I'm not making excuses, but I think it's worth remembering that Israel isn't the group that's been blowing up

• Tactical markets and bus stops
• Strategic schools
• A command-and-control ice cream parlor

(Ice cream parlor? It was near a shopping mall in Petah Tikva. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were proud to call that victory their own.)

The sophisticated thing to do, these days, would be to write as if Hezbollah were pretty much the same as Israel, and that what Hezbollah does is pretty much like what Israel does. The term for that sort of thinking is moral equivalence, "defining distinct and conflicting moral behaviors in similar terms."

I must not be very sophisticated. I think that there is a difference between bulldozing buildings that are used as launching platforms for rockets, and blowing up markets with rockets launched from those buildings.

Terrorists Know: Persistence Pays

I'll give Islamic terrorists credit: they haven't given up on trying to free Samir Kantar. One of the reasons that Abū ‘Abbās,AKA Muhammad Zaidan, AKA Muhammad ‘Abbās, arranged for the taking of the Achille Lauro, back in 1985, was to free Kantar.

Hijacking the Achille Lauro didn't get Kantar out, but at least the Islamic heroes rousing welcome when they took their prize into port.

At least they were able to machine-gun an old Jewish cripple, in a wheelchair. Later, Mr. ‘Abbās explained that the that the military action against Leon Klinghoffer was perfectly reasonable. He "created troubles. He was handicapped but he was inciting and provoking the other passengers. So the decision was made to kill him."

---

About Palestinians: I do have sympathy for these people, who keep picking such outstanding leaders.

I'd have more sympathy for Palestinians as a whole, if their best and bravest warriors weren't quite so proud of glorious victories over groceries, schools, and the occasional four-year-old girl.

Samir Kantar's release in the news:

• "Israeli Cabinet approves Hezbollah prisoner swap"
  Chicago Tribune online edition (June 30, 2008)
• "Israel OKs Hezbollah prisoner deal"
  CNN (June 29, 2008)
• "Lebanese to be freed in swap was sentenced in brutal 1979 attack in Israel's north"
  International Herald Tribune (June 29, 2008)
• "Israeli prisoner swap 'shows Hezbollah's power' "
  gulfnews.com (June 29, 2008)

I've written about a couple of the ideas here before:

• Moral equivalence
  "Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda"
  (July 21, 2007)
• Traditional information gatekeepers
  "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)

YouTube Banned by Pakistan

Pakistan joined the club of countries that have banned YouTube.

The countries, and why they pulled the plug on YouTube:

• Pakistan: a movie trailer for Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders's upcoming film, saying that Islam is fascist and likely to incite violence against women and homosexuals
• Turkey: some video clips insulted, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in someone's opinion.
• Thailand: video clips were offensive to Thailand's revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
• Morocco: someone posted videos that weren't complimentary about how Morocco treated the people of Western Sahara (Morocco's controlled that territory since 1975).

I think I can understand the leadership in these countries, even if I can't approve of their actions. It must be very tempting to silence people who don't agree with you, or who reveal inadequacies in your actions.

At the risk of applying moral equivalence, perhaps Americans shouldn't be very critical of the leaders who banned YouTube. After all, the United States enforces Hate Crime laws.

Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda

Moral equivalence has been all the rage for the last few decades, among the better communities in this country.

"Moral equivalence" has been defined as "defining distinct and conflicting moral behaviors in similar terms." The principle of moral equivalence is behind statements like " 'all sins are equal in God's eyes,' which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil."

Back in the 60s when my on-and-off affair with academia started, I learned that to be considered sensitive and intelligent the more 'sophisticated' cliques, one should believe, or at least say, that the U.S. detention of Japanese Americans (a really dumb policy) was at least as bad as Stalin's purges. Assuming that it was okay at the time to believe that the purges ever took place.

There's a pretty good discussion of moral equivalence as it relates to Amerika in Brandon Crocker's "Moral Equivalence Rides Again in a 2005 American Spectator.

I'm pretty sure that we'll soon be hearing rewrites of Senator Ted Kennedy's wisdom in reference to Abu Ghraib: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." Amazing. I wouldn't have realized that a sustained policy of mass-murder and routine rape, mutilation, and beating of prisoners is equivalent to a few perverts taking obscene pictures.

The occasion for this display of "open-mindedness" will, I think, be yesterday's executive order relating to the treatment of prisoners.

Actions speak louder than words, but words carry weight, too. The executive order is a clear, detailed, massive collection of officialese, and Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. I believe these two quotes will give you the gist of it.

"On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination."

And, "the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:

"(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;

"(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;

"(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code...." And so on.

Someone boiled it down to "don't be cruel."

Now, for what we'll probably be told is the moral equivalent of the U.S. position in the War on Terror (or W** ** T*****, if you're following the British PM's instructions)(see my Opinions, Freedom, and Sharia Law, and Wake Up America's British Prime Minister drops the Phrase "War on Terror".

Here's an official statement by Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, an al Qaeda spokesman, in October of 2001, as translated on BBC: "US interests are spread throughout the world. So, every Muslim should carry out his real role to champion his Islamic nation and religion. Carrying out terrorism against the oppressors is one of the tenets of our religion and Shari'ah."

I suppose I'm too poor, uneducated, and easily led to understand that "carrying out terrorism" and rebuilding sewage plants in Iraq are really the same thing.

A parting thought: Don't be So Open Minded that Your Brains Fall Out.