The Immoral Equivalent

According to this morning's news reports, someone kidnapped an Arab youth and killed him. It was believed that this was in retaliation for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers. While it's too early to know precisely what happened, if what is now believed to be true was, in fact, the case, the perpetrator was (or the perpetrators were) stupid. I think I understand the grief of the one(s) responsible, but the best construction that can be put on the act is that it resulted from a misplaced desire for revenge – a random act of retaliation – a reaction unmediated by rational thought; the worst construction is that it was a planned execution by a murderer looking for an excuse. Tit-for-tat will not bring back the three who were already murdered. More likely it will instigate further acts of violence and revenge. And the punishment of someone who had nothing to do with the original crime cannot be seen as appropriate retribution for what had happened.

More important than the fact that the revenge was stupid, however, is the fact that it was wrongⁱ and immoral. Neither murder can be justified. Judaism may not believe in turning the other cheek, but it does not accept the concept of murder – irrespective of the reason. Talonic law is understood to refer to monetary penalties rather than any physical act. True, the death penalty exists in the Bible for, among others, murderers, but, with only a single exception,ⁱⁱ it has been outlawed by the Israeli government. Even the go'el ha'dam, the “avenger of blood,” a member of the family of the victim, could only act against a convicted murderer – and that ancient practice is not permitted by Israeli law.

Following the Holocaust, we have adopted a philosophy that tells us that we can “never again” permit the murder of our people. But the responsibility for enforcing this doctrine belongs to the government, not to individuals. We cannot condone murder under any circumstances. We must not sink to the level of those who do. Some see “moral equivalence”ⁱⁱⁱ between the actions of Israel and the terrorists from the surrounding states and entities, but it is an equivalence which ordinarily doesn't exist. In this case however the murders on both sides are inexcusable.

Is there any hope that there can be an end to the conflict taking place in Israel/Palestine? If there is, it is dim. As Bret Stephens put it in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “As for the Palestinians and their inveterate sympathizers in the West, perhaps they should note that a culture that too often openly celebrates martyrdom and murder is not fit for statehood, and that making excuses for that culture only makes it more unfit. Postwar Germany put itself through a process of moral rehabilitation that began with a recognition of what it had done. Palestinians who want a state should do the same.” As long as Palestinian children are taught to hate and to kill Jews,^iv there is little likelihood that the situation will change.^v It seems more likely that they will teach the same philosophy to their children and the conflict will continue.

We are all made in G-d's image. The murder of the Palestinian youth is indefensible. It was wrong and there is no way to defend it. It was immoral.

But acts like this can be expected as long as the teaching of hatred continues.

I        Apologies to Dr. Seuss.

ii       Adolf Eichmann was executed in 1962 for crimes during the Holocaust.

iii        William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” 1906.

iv       And to become “martyrs” in the process.

v        According to WikiPedia, “[Bill] Maher is critical towards organized religion as a whole, but believes that 'all religions are not alike.' Maher says there is something different about Islam, in that 'there is no other religion that is asking for the death' of people who dare to criticize it.”