Since
the escalation of Hamas missile strikes against Israel began on November 14,
there have been three basic kinds of reactions -- moral clarity, moral fog, and
moral hypocrisy.
Moral
clarity distinguishes between the aggressor and the victim, the arsonist and the
fireman, and includes the courage to say so.
U.S.
President Barack Obama has been among them.
On
November 18, he stated firmly: "And there's no country on earth that would
tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. So we
are fully supportive of Israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on
people's homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians. And we will
continue to support Israel's right to defend itself."
So
has Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "We have been
concerned obviously for some time about the presence of a terrorist group,
Hamas, in charge in the Gaza Strip... [W]e support Israel's right to defend
itself against such terrorist attacks..."
Add
to the list German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David
Cameron, and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, among others.
But
then there are those who quickly descended into a moral fog. They couldn't -- or
simply wouldn't -- allow themselves to leave the 50-yard line.
Their
words were so exquisitely crafted that they managed to achieve perfect moral
balance, or equivalence, between Israel and Hamas.
For
them, there is no distinction between a democratic nation, Israel, that left
Gaza to its own destiny in 2005 and seeks only one goal -- a peaceful border --
and Hamas, a jihadist group that is on the terrorism lists of the U.S. and
European Union.
For
them, the Hamas
Covenant, dripping with venom for Israel and Jews, proclaiming the virtues
of death in the service of jihad, and extolling the vision of Shari'a-based
rule, is irrelevant to the discussion.
And
for them, the fact that Gaza has become an arms magnet, as weapons flow in from
the likes of Iran and Sudan, doesn't prompt any obvious conclusions.
No,
for those opting to live on the 50-yard line, the important thing is not to risk
making moral choices, but rather to see it all as some extended face-off between
the Hatfields and McCoys.
Here
are two examples of many from the world of diplomacy:
On
November 18, India, a country that knows a thing or two about being the target
of jihadist-inspired violence against civilians, nonetheless declared: "We are deeply concerned at the steep escalation of
violence between Israel and Palestine, focused around Gaza, that threatens the
peace and security of that region."
And
the Swedish foreign minister also walked the morally neutral tightrope: "We need to appeal to
both sides to cease all attacks both against and from Gaza as soon as
possible."
In
the media, meanwhile, how many headlines have revolved around antiseptic wording
like "Hamas-Israel spiral of violence," or "Hamas-Israel conflict
escalates"?
And
how about the November 16 front page of the New
York Times, which displayed two photographs of equal size -- the first of the funeral in
Gaza City of Ahmed al-Jabari, the Hamas military commander, and, just below, the
funeral of Mira Scharf, an Israeli mother killed by Hamas?
In
the same spirit, would equal and abutting space have been given to photos of the
funerals of Osama Bin Laden and one of his victims?
Then
there is the third reaction -- moral hypocrisy.
Among
the several candidates, the runner-up has to be Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly
Churkin.
As
the death toll in Syria exceeds 37,000, Russia continues to block
meaningful action by the UN Security Council. Still, Ambassador Churkin found
the time Monday evening to spearhead a proposed Security Council resolution on
the Gaza conflict that included no reference to Hamas' rocket attacks against
Israel.
Yet,
without any hint of embarrassment or sheepishness, Churkin had the nerve to
criticize the U.S. and its allies who objected to the text, saying: "Unfortunately it looked like a little bit of a
filibustering attempt. Maybe I am mistaken, maybe it's just a laid-back attitude
in a situation where we cannot afford procrastination."
Alas,
despite Ambassador Churkin's valiant efforts, the hands-down winner in this
category is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
He
has abandoned the longstanding ties between Turkey and Israel, just as he has
dismantled the secular tradition of Atatürk in his effort to lead a new wave of
political Islam.
That,
in turn, has led Turkey, a NATO member no less, to champion Hamas, an avowedly
anti-Western group.
Erdogan
has branded Israel a "terrorist state" for having the audacity to
defend itself against a group that seeks its destruction. He has vociferously
denounced Israel's use of military force, while never condemning the hundreds of
missile attacks against Israel this year alone.
Yet
the very same Erdogan has shown no hesitation to go after the PKK, the Kurdish
group that seeks not Turkey's annihilation, but greater rights and freedoms for
the Kurdish minority. In taking on the PKK, Erdogan has repeatedly unleashed the
full power of the Turkish military, and has not hesitated to cross international borders in pursuit.
An
International Crisis Group expert wrote this month: "Erdogan's response so far [against the
Kurdish insurgency] has been a new round of inflexible rhetoric, a military-only
strategy on the ground, and a public denial that anyone was on a hunger strike
at all [when more than 600 Kurdish prisoners in Turkish prisons are on exactly
that]."
Yet
Erdogan has the audacity to assail Israel mercilessly for merely exercising its
right to defend itself against those who would destroy it.
If
nothing else, this latest Hamas assault on Israel provides an opportunity to
sort out the who's who of moral clarity, moral fog, and moral hypocrisy. To say
the least, the picture is mixed.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου