Friday, July 25, 2014

Mo' Better Morality?

“There is not a more moral army than the IDF...” - Benyamin Netanyahu

Our prime minister's statement is not really his original idea. It reflects a notion that has long been assumed and stated openly here in Israel. The Israel Defense Forces incorporated the notion of 'purity of arms' and many other moral values into its ethical doctrine. The notion that we are no less moral, if not more moral, than any other army and other nation is widely accepted by Israelis and Jews around the world as well as by some notable non-Jews.

But is it true? Are we more moral than other armies? Than other countries? Than our enemies?

It's a funny thing about morals-- who gets to decide what is moral and what is not? You might say that killing is immoral. But what would you say about killing someone who is actively attempting to kill you? Or executing a serial murderer?

One of the reasons that languages have various names for the act of ending human life is because we make moral distinctions between those acts based largely on intent. So we have words like kill, murder, assassinate, execute, to name just a few in English.

Israel's self image as a moral state with a moral army has to be understood as Israel's attempt to live up to its own values. This is all it should mean. We as a state and a people determine our values, no one else.

We in Israel tend to get upset when we are constantly criticized for the way we handle ourselves in war (also the way we handle people over the Green Line generally-- I will discuss that in another blog). We cry that we are being judged by a 'double standard.'

But how can we complain when we have created the double standard ourselves? If we claim to be more moral than others, can we be surprised when others attack us for, as they see it, not living up to that standard?

I assume that Hamas also sees itself as moral operators in the world with a moral army. Their morality, however, assumes that killing Jews and wiping out the state of Israel are supreme moral values. They are not shy about this; they express this aspiration clearly in their own covenant and in frequent statements to their own people. They even have cute (brrrr) shows for children teaching these values.

By their standards, our attempts to preserve human life, both ours and the lives of our enemies, far from being moral, may be perceived as just being stupid. Hamas leaders say openly to their own people that they desire death more than we desire life.

It should not be important to us that we are more moral than anyone else. It is not possible simply because no absolute standard for morality exists. It is like spouses asking each other who loves the other more. How do you measure?

What is vital is for us to examine our own values, to know them and discuss them and to adhere to them.

What is vital is that we are true to ourselves.

Check out my other blog, too. 

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Never Again, Again and Again

When studying Talmud, one is forced to think about and articulate one's assumptions and the consequences of any given point at any given stage of consideration. The Gemara has a phrase in Aramaic that sums up the latter nicely: למאי נפקא מינה? Loosely translated it means: What is the practical difference?

To put these points another way: 1)What were you thinking? 2) And therefore what?

In much of the political and religious discourse I have observed, and here in Israel those are not always separate things, I have sensed that the writers have not asked these most fundamental questions of themselves.

I will start with a phrase that is often uttered here, particularly around Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) and that is “Never Again.”

Broadly speaking, this phrase has been interpreted in two similar, but distinct ways. One way is: Never again we will as Jews allow the Jewish people to be slaughtered. The other way is: We, as Jews, who were victims of the Holocaust cannot allow the suffering of others and we, as Jews, cannot be the instrument of others' suffering.

Again, in a broad sense, the political right has adopted the first interpretation while the political left has adopted the second.

To my mind, both interpretations are valid and important and both should be taken as true. However, because they are distinct, it is worth understanding the implications of each individually and how we might adopt them both.

If I understand the phrase to indicate that the sole lesson of the Holocaust was to make certain that Jews would never again be led to slaughter, what does that say about my relation to other people in the world? Does it matter to me as a Jew that other genocides take place? Does being concerned only about my people preclude me from being concerned about others?

On the other hand, if the lesson of the Holocaust is to make certain that we are not the instrument of the suffering of others, regardless of who is under threat, can that also come at the expense of my own survival or, at least, at the expense of my own wellbeing?

These different mindsets play out here in attitudes regarding our ongoing conflict with the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular.

When the nascent state of Israel was under attack (even before the formal declaration of independence), the consensus was reflexive: We must defend ourselves- we will not allow another Holocaust to happen to the Jews. This was obvious to the Jewish inhabitants of Israel at the time and they banded together to fight off their would be destroyers. There wasn't time to consider what the consequences would be if we won, only what the consequences would be if we lost. We had to win militarily or to be annihilated. That was the specific threat enunciated by Arab leaders bent on our collective destruction. Peaceful resistance was not an option.

We said 'never again will Jews be led to slaughter.'

Upon our victory, we found that we had incorporated a sizable non-Jewish minority into our new country, most of them Arab. Despite our Declaration of Independence which held that all would be treated equally and granted equal rights, we put the Arab population under military rule. We were worried about a fifth column within our midst. We had to set aside our ideals in order to insure our own survival.

Military rule was not lifted and full rights were not granted until 1966. Even since then, while much progress has been made, the Israeli Arab population continues to suffer discrimination.

Did we overreact? Hard to say, even in hindsight.  But once again we said 'never again.'

Moreover, since 1967, we found ourselves in charge of territories with an Arab population. Thus began the so called 'occupation' which has continued to this day.

While Israel tried to negotiate land for peace almost immediately after the war, we were met with the rejection of the Arab League which said “"no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...”

So we said 'never again.'

Whatever your opinion is on this situation, however, we know that this Arab population, which came to be known as the Palestinians, suffers at our hand. Maybe their lives are objectively better than in other Arab countries, maybe we have done much to improve their situation. But we also know that they suffer in various ways.

And here is the other 'never again.'

I have often heard activists from the left quote the verse from the Torah ואהבת לרעך כמוך (You shall love your neighbor as yourself) as proof that we must treat the Palestinians as we would want to be treated. This is an argument to 'end the occupation.'

However, this simple phrase assumes that if we are to treat others well, we must first love ourselves. If I don't love myself and treat myself properly, what good will it do to my neighbors to treat them in the same fashion?

On every airplane flight, we are told that in the event of loss of oxygen to the cabin that we are to put on an oxygen mask. If we are traveling with a child, we are to put ours on first and then the child's. Why? Because if we don't insure our own survival, we put the survival of our child at risk much more than if we put on their mask first and then pass out.

If we don't insure our own survival, we cannot be certain that anyone else will. As Hillel said: אם אין אני לי מי לי? If I am not for myself who is for me? 

Some on the left will say that we are all human beings, all equally deserving of fair and just treatment.

This is so. However, would any of us put the life of a stranger ahead of the life of our own children? If one claims to love everyone, for practical purposes, they love no one.

If you love yourself, you can love your family. You can then love your community and your people. Beyond that, yes, you can love others. But for your own sake and your own survival, you prioritize.

Hillel continues, though, and says: וכשאני לעצמי מה אני? And when I am for myself alone, what am I?

If we understand that 'never again' means to preserve only our own lives and wellbeing, what are we? Reality stares us in the face daily: Four million Arabs in the territories. We cannot simply ignore them and assume we will be 'just fine.' We have 47 years of recent history to attest to the contrary. We cannot just wish our neighbors away.

We Israelis have an obligation first and foremost to ourselves, including our non-Jewish citizenry. We have a long way to go to make our society truly Jewish and democratic with equal rights enjoyed by all. But the first duty we have is to protect our lives and wellbeing.

Only then can we love our neighbors as ourselves. 

Check out my other blog on topics of Jewish learning.