Since I began writing regularly in the columns of The Jerusalem Post, I have become somewhat accustomed to receiving feedback on the content, style, subject matter, and even the spelling of my offerings.
Some of the comments received are complimentary and supportive, some are less so and others are downright hostile and abusive. One delightful lady from Santa Monica, California took the time and trouble to write a lengthy diatribe in which, amongst other choice phrases, she described me as a moral degenerate who supports the Nazi Israeli regime and its genocidal leaders – and adds no wonder the world hates Jews.
I guess this kind of response comes with the territory and one gets used to it.
But this week, I received a response which actually shocked me.
It came from a good friend of mine, a highly intelligent man, with many years of experience in the professional and business world, who has spent tens if not hundreds of hours since the beginning of the war traveling up and down the country covering thousands of kilometers delivering goods to bases and generally doing wonderful things for the war effort. I mention this to cement in the reader’s mind that this person could never be thought to be anything but 100% behind our country.
This gentleman (we’ll call him Avraham) commented on the article I wrote last week about kids dressing up as soldiers on Purim and the dichotomy of emotions that this brought about. Readers may remember that there was a photograph of three little children saluting in the uniform of the IDF.
Avraham said to me “Ever since I read your article, I can’t help thinking about young Palestinian children dressed in Hamas outfits with bandannas and brandishing guns.”
It suddenly occurred to me that if Avraham made a connection, then it is likely that many others, especially those not so supportive of our war, will do the same but draw a very different conclusion, and suggest a moral equivalence.
It dawned on me, that this is exactly what has happened over the last six months – much of the world now sees a clear moral equivalence between the horrific, barbaric acts of murder, rape, abuse, hostage taking and ransacking by the Hamas terrorists on October 7, and the IDF’s response to the existential threat Israel faces.
We need to recognize that when discussing such complex and sensitive matters, especially with those antagonistic towards Israel, requires a nuanced understanding of the context, history, and the moral implications involved.
WHILE MUCH of the world attempts to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the responses of Israel, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this inevitably leads to oversimplification and distortion of reality. Let’s examine why. We hear the following:
• Context matters:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply rooted in historical, political, and socioeconomic factors, with both sides having legitimate grievances. Attempting to equate the actions of one party with the other without considering this context ignores the power dynamics, asymmetry, and historical injustices involved. This is a euphemism for “Israel the aggressor against the poor downtrodden Palestinians – context matters.”
• Proportionality of response:
Another sound bite proffered goes like this: While every nation has the right to defend its citizens and borders, the principle of proportionality dictates that the response should be commensurate with the threat posed. The notion of equivalence breaks down when considering the vast difference in scale and intent between terrorist acts and military responses. Another euphemism for the same idea that we are the wicked Goliath and the enemy is poor little David.
What we must point out, no – not point out – we must shout from the rooftops, we must use every possible forum we have available to us, social media, old fashioned print media, personal conversation and advocacy – to make the following points:
• Intent and tactics:
Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by numerous countries and entities due to its use of indiscriminate violence, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks targeting civilians, and the use of human shields. Such tactics deliberately target civilians and violate international humanitarian law.
• Civilian casualties:
The Israeli response involves military operations aimed at targeting militants and infrastructure used for launching attacks. However, due to the densely populated nature of Gaza, civilian casualties can occur despite efforts to minimize them. Hamas’s tactics, including storing weapons in civilian areas and launching attacks from populated areas, hospitals, schools and UN facilities, exacerbate this issue and constitute a moral bankruptcy for which there is no equivalent.
• Intentions for peace:
Israel, as a recognized state, has repeatedly expressed its willingness to engage in negotiations and pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Hamas, on the other hand, has rejected the existence of Israel, continues to advocate for its destruction with horrible violence, thus scuppering any chance of lasting peace in the region.
• Responsibility and accountability:
Holding both parties to the same moral standard disregards the fundamental difference between self-defense and terrorism. While Israel faces scrutiny for its military actions, Hamas evades accountability for its crimes against humanity, including the holding of hostages who, six full months on, have never received a Red Cross visit.
The use of the argument of moral equivalence has many precedents in past history.
Here are a few examples:
• During World War II, some individuals attempted to draw moral equivalence between the actions of Nazi Germany and the Allied powers. They argued that the bombing of civilian populations by both sides, such as the Allied bombing of Dresden and the Axis bombing of London, demonstrated a lack of moral superiority on the part of the Allies. However, such arguments ignore the context of the war, the genocidal policies of the Nazis, and the Allies’ efforts to defeat fascism and restore peace.
• During the Cold War, proponents of détente and appeasement often equated the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union. They argued that both superpowers engaged in imperialistic behavior, supported dictatorships, and violated human rights. However, this moral equivalence failed to acknowledge the fundamental differences between the two systems, with the Soviet Union suppressing dissent and denying basic freedoms to its citizens, witness the 70-year plight of Soviet Jewry, of which we are all too aware.
• Genocide in Rwanda: Some individuals attempted to draw moral equivalence between the Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide and the Tutsi victims. They argued that both ethnic groups were equally responsible for the violence and atrocities committed during the genocide. However, this false equivalence ignored the systematic targeting of Tutsis for extermination, and the role of Hutu extremists in orchestrating the genocide.
These examples demonstrate how moral equivalence arguments can be used to distort reality, justify oppression, and hinder efforts to achieve justice and peace.
They are all spurious and used by bad men to justify bad things.
We must be aware of these tactics and not allowing ourselves and others to be lulled into this web of deceit and lies.
The writer is a rabbi and physician living in Ramat Poleg, Netanya, and is a cofounder of Techelet-Inspiring Judaism.