Oct 14, 2023·edited Oct 14, 2023Liked by Arnold Kling
I guess I lean a little amoral - because my first thought was - how can Israel respond to this in a way that moves the needle on its precarity, that gets it out of the path-dependent rut so that this *particular* situation doesn't replay on an endless loop until demographics turn the tide in the Arabs' favor and do the work of eliminationism (an outcome, it should be noted, the left doesn't mind)?
For all its "idealism" the left seems very content with the status quo in a lot of dimensions. I guess this can always be cast as adherence to morality, but it has a grim dystopian character that feels off.
“You say you condemn atrocities but you will get off the train should Israel not live up to your expectations for moral conduct during war. You were never on the train.”
Should Israel not live up to any expectations for moral conduct? Would you not look to any objective moral judge in such an emotionally heated moment?
The answer is clearly yes, but the implication here is that Israel ought to get to choose the moral standard for its own conduct and no one will get to second guess whether its actions are right because of its conduct.
I do think that is wrong, and it is permissible to say I condemn, but you need to conduct yourselves in a morally permissible fashion.
Do we not get to reevaluate the US’s invasion of Iraq with hindsight and look at all of the civilian casualties and consider that the US may have been wrong?
I will be rooting for Israel to eradicate Hamas, “but” I hope with hindsight that the cost will not end up being too high.
Only in the postmodern world do we expect normal citizens to try to judge events from an abstract and removed perspective of a neutral observer. Not even God in the Bible is a neutral observer. He takes sides all the time. Our judges are not expected to be neutral observers; many if not most legal standards look to prevailing social standards to make a determination within certain objective parameters. Even when you select an arbitrator in America, you pick from a panel of judges and compromise with opposing counsel on the judge who looks to be some combination of reasonable and not unacceptably likely to be partial to one side's interests or another.
Now, we DO ask students to take the John Rawls type perspective when they write their essays, to imagine themselves free of any of their personal associations and to judge a matter accordingly. But we do not ask anyone who is expected to make any decision of consequence to evince such neutrality: rather, the reverse, we demand absolute partiality in the form of fiduciary duties and the like! We even cast suspicion on even the hint of anything less than unconflicted partiality for one's interests when we select leaders to the point of criminal and civil penalties. In the real world, we shrink from throwing ourselves to true impartiality. No one wins elections by promising to be fair and impartial for one's own voters. No: you win by promising to provide unfair rewards to your voters and to punish your non-voters.
What's fascinating is to watch a lot of purported "Online Utilitarians" drop all pretense of any commitment to - or apparent felt to need to even fake explaining - some kind of consequentialist moral calculus, and instead go straight to nakedly tribalistic deontology that conveniently shrinks the circle of humanistic concern just small enough to exclude the outgroup.
That is, the default attitude for most of human history, "Anything we do to get rid of cockroaches is ok because they have no rights and their very existence is irksome to us."
But since they can't get away with that (at least, not everywhere, not yet) it is only barely veiled by the obvious hypocrisy of an appeal to """universal principles""".
I'm judging these events from the perspective of a neutral observer because I'm American. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I wish everyone involved the best (except the murderers and slavers) but ultimately this is a conflict between two tribes I'm not part of over a land I've never been to.
Israel should live up to consistent lessons of moral conduct. Not ones inconsistently applied by its enemies. Beyond that, I don't know that there is a clear moral response.
No, Professor Kling is spot on. He's not saying Israel shouldn't conduct itself morally.
Perhaps a simpler way of making his point is to say that the "outside observers" who are "condemn, but" are not only inconsistently applying a morality, they're active participants to the conflict who have no moral standing to complain.
To be blunt, the global left and the Arab countries have worked hard to keep the Palestinians embittered, impoverished, and stoked up with a radical fervor. Condemnation from them is like Henry II condemning the knights who murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or the guys who express outrage when the pit bull they bred and trained for its brutality is put down after it repeatedly attacks people.
Reread his post. His criticism wasn’t leveled at only hypocritical people on the left or those who already have a stake in what’s going on. It’s to anyone who might offer a “but.”
My concern is that like many reactions from the pro-Israel camp, of which I normally consider myself in that camp (is this also a bad “but”?), my concern is that the point seems to be attempting to stake out the terms of what will be acceptable criticism of Israel in advance.
I’m not sure anyone but God gets to reserve that right.
I've reread his post several times now and I don't agree with your concern.
What I do agree with is that it wasn't leveled at generic groups of people. It was quite plainly leveled at YOU.
For most people, this is deeply uncomfortable, because, in the sense Charles Pick describes, most of us have been taught a wholly abstract sort of morality. One that doesn't like to dirty its hands much, to be honest. And thus, it's a morality that's well suited to clamming up when the guy at the student rally you went to starts screaming "Death to Israel!"
For most people, who mostly only engage in shallow morality, it hurts to have it pointed out just how shallow it is. Kling isn't saying no one can moralize. He's rightly questioning us as to whether we are engaging in true moral reasoning, or if our morality is a convenient salve to our sentiments.
Fascinating—that you could level such a criticism at someone you never met, as Professor King’s post did.
How do you know I haven’t attended at counter rallies in support of Israel? Argued with Hamas supporters in the comments on left-wing websites? That I haven’t gotten my hands dirty as you call it in support of moral causes?
It would seem the person dealing in abstractions and generalities isn’t me?
I think this idea of objective universal rules of moral conduct is a bit problematic.
Let's say I agree that morality isn't 100% subjective. It doesn't follow that I, someone in America not involved in the Israel/Arab conflict and certainly more ignorant then most of the people involved, have some better take on what the objective universal rules of conduct relative to this conflict are. The more humble position would be to assume people on the ground know better.
With Iraq/Afghanistan we did the total opposite. We decided that we could run the country better than what was there, and failed. We did the same with supporting the Arab Spring. In all these cases we made a bunch of assumptions about universal moral principals that really seemed to be wildly inaccurate when applied to the Middle East. We would have been better not getting involved.
I don’t think you would want the father of a murdered child making a call about when to pull the trigger.
A step removed: Is Netanyahu’s government sufficiently objective? Certainly better than a morally bankrupt UN or most of Europe. But (there it is again), before Hamas’s atrocities, I think a fair observer would have been more concerned about the populist shift in Israel politics and their objectivity even without this tragedy.
No easy answers, and you’re right that humility is key, but sadly I very much doubt that there is going to be much remaining.
To follow up what I said before, there are no fair observers. It is an uncaring world and the truth of morality and any kind of civil justice is that it's mostly the least bad outcome.
Follow through your logic about the father of a murdered child. How was the child murdered? Suppose it's by a guy who was known to the authorities as a repeat violent offender. He's a terrible human who would be pitiable, for he lives in squalor, were he not a violent sociopath. But because he's so pitiable, and despite the fact that he refuses any opportunity for help, and is continually addicted to drugs and out of money, he's always committing crimes and continually being let go. Eventually, your kid ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he's dead.
From a big picture view, this is a "failure of society". A sad part of the overhead. A cost of doing business, and we can say that, well, it's not that society wanted the kid murdered, and society will punish the murderer. It's the least bad outcome.
But... in Israel, there's no outside society to step in. The murderer has friends that have egged him on and encouraged his hatred and grievances, all the while keeping him desperate and poor. And, he hates you. It wasn't some random thing. He killed your kid, and as he's dragged away, he screams that he's going to kill the rest of your kids next.
Put simply, there's no "sufficiently objective" to be had in such a situation. The "friends" of the murderer, such as they are, are borderline accomplices who, themselves, deserve condemnation for the situation they've had a hand in creating. The least bad outcome outside a society is to let people defend themselves.
Maintaining moral standards in the prosecution of a war is critical to strategic success. Tactical victories are meaningless if they do not serve a greater strategic aim i.e. winning the peace. If Israel prosecutes a war without conscience two things are likely: (1) they lose the moral advantage and international symptathy and (2) even if they destroy Hamas another equally vicious group will replace it. Where to draw the boundary between moral and immoral conduct of war (jus in bello) is very difficult and it's not a clear binary, which is where so many early supporters have exceedingly high expectations for a "clean" war. Nevertheless, acting under moral constraint in war is prerequisite to a durable peace.
As has been said before, the situation is near unsolvable. Given that, even the cleanest and most moral response by Israel is likely to come up short and a similarly bad Hamas replacement is nearly certain.
I agree with this and will add: Israel could try it's hardest to minimize collateral damage (and suffer surplus casualties in the process) and it will never be enough for some people. The difficulty is in calibrating an effective and proportional response that won't alienate more people than necessary. Easier said than done in light of Hamas' atrocities.
It's motherhood and apple pie to ask for a morally permissible means of conduct when declaring 'support'. But what about simple condemnation of Hamas? Isn't it clear what Hamas did wasn't permissible? Why should it be caveated? Are you familiar with these?
Perhaps, with these in mind, you can tell me what the definition of 'morally permissible' is for Israel's response in the context of Hamas flagrantly violating Article 58 (inter alia)? You'll recall that "Amid international calls for a ceasefire to allow in aid, Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz said there would be no halt to the siege without freedom for Israeli hostages." (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/biden-warns-iran-over-gaza-israel-forms-emergency-war-cabinet-2023-10-11/)
I have paid attention to this conflict for more than 30 years.
It's been the same pattern.
1) Israel is attacked.
2) Israel does a good job defending itself BUT
3) the world steps in and stops Israel short of achieving the sort of victory that would fix the problem. AND THEN
4) Outside powers ham handedly broker a peace deal WHICH
5) The Palestinian powers either reject or violate... The world gets upset at Israel for whatever reasons even though they aren't at fault after which...
6) See point 1.
This time, for whatever reason however, feels different. It should anyway. It feels like step 2 might play out differently and step 3 might not happen. Israel should stick to it's guns and finish the job this time regardless of what the world thinks.
The situation with the Palestinians is a lot like the situation with blacks in America.
You have a group that through that, due to genetics, just can't really seem to build anything decent on their own. If you destroyed Hamas, you would eventually get another Hamas. If you surrounded them with some of the best fellow countrymen and governance in the world they would still founder.
It is just very hard for people to accept this. Both the people themselves obviously, but also outside observers that just can't come to accept the base facts.
Since every group has wronged every group going back to forever, such failing groups can always construct a narrative about how what the oppressor did to them is why they are failing today. It's easier then accepting the alternative, and even if they wanted to do the hard work they probably aren't capable of it.
It's no wonder Summers is confused when asking why people can't see Israel with the same "moral clarity" as George Floyd. The answer is that they are seeing it with the same moral clarity, but they see Jews as Derek Chauvin. Chickens coming home to roost.
"I condemn BLM riots....BUT". Saying that police do a pretty good job and the disparate impacts just can't be changed much is not an acceptable answer. Just like Israel has done about all it can do but it can't solve the underlying problem of Palestinian genetics.
It's useless to list action X, Y, or Z you want to see in either case. Maybe some of them are good ideas that should happen. But if you got everything you wanted, 90% of the issue would remain, and people would still be unsatisfied.
Whatever role genetics may or may not play (whether it does or not, I see no solid evidence for it) in both cases I have no doubt that the situation does far more to guide behavior.
Note: In the case of US blacks, I don't mean discrimination, at least not in the typical fashion. I mean low expectations and constantly being told that you can't succeed because of systemic racism, etc.
As Abraham's descendants, we are cousins. Our forefather Abraham must be the saddest about this conflict.
As a Jewish person, I protest your assertion that Palestinians cannot do better. Ignoring your ridiculous IQ "proof", the genetics are nearly identical to that of the countries around them.
There are far more similarities than there are differences. And this episode is a good proof - they clearly outsmarted the Israelis.
I believe every person is made in the image of G-d. We can all repent. We can all perform acts of kindness to other people.
This parallel is more true than most people know, if they watch and believe the major media, especially in the period since Trayvon Martin got his just deserts. Democrats pretend to be protectors of the poor, but they really keep them that way in order to use them as shock troops. The only way to get an acceptable outcome is to always defend yourself when attacked, regardless of what harm malicious third-party "supporters" have done to your opponent. You didn't make them that way, so who did is not your problem.
Sometimes equivocation can be an understandable reaction to a tricky dilemma but sometimes it is just moral and/or intellectual laziness. The mentality of 'Progressive' equivocation about the atrocities commited against Israeli civilians is very much the latter. It is not truly even primarily about a concern for the Palestinian people. The real driver is to signal that your privileged narcissistic little wonderful self is ever on the side of the 'oppressed'. To these people 'oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as one of the good guys. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. I still remember the drug-addled anti-Zionist 'sit-in' at my UK university in 1973.
A very eloquent statement, Arnold. When Larry Summers was President of Harvard, he issued a statement pointing out that double standards for Israel were cover for anti-Semitism among those pretending to respectability. This was but one of the things that motivated the Left there against him. He also privately criticized Cornel West, a full University Professor, no less, for his lack of academic work. West went public with it to stir up anti-white (and anti-Semitic?) antagonism to Summers. Summers also attended the ROTC graduation of Harvard students at MIT. These students had to pursue ROTC there because of the Left's abolition of it from Harvard. Finally, there was the brouhaha over the male - female differences in IQ distribution, in which Summers's scientifically accurate statement drove the faculty crazies nuts. Summers handled that badly, going into a defensive crouch when he should have forthrightly defended himself, and this led to his ouster.
It was thought he did this in order to maintain his standing in the Democratic Party. Summers is a sad case of what happens to moderate Progressives as the internal logic of Progressivism drives it further and further to nihilistic extremism.
I think that sometimes we're most irked by people who resemble us. Those who rape and kill are by any reasonable measure worse than the hedgers you hate, but the hedgers are much more similar to you—their involvement in the conflict, like yours (and mine), is limited to words, and they're in no real danger no matter what they say—so when they equivocate they have a special ability to grate on you.
This is manipulation with a political agenda. I can think what Hamas did was evil and wrong, and still be critical of Israel’s response. Furthermore this is just a line that is used to invoke guilt because of historical atrocities. I could equate this with rioting and looting are ok because of slavery. It’s a difference of scale, not of kind. BLM justifies rioting and looting, Israel justifies carpet bombing. Which version of woke is worse? Is it better that Israel doesn’t look the people its killing in the eyes?
I appreciate your willingness to engage and disagree civilly. Israel has not carpet bombed, though. I see the Israelis as doing their best to protect the citizens of Gaza in a context in which Hamas wants to use them as human shields. The laws of war were not drawn up in anticipation of rulers wanting to insure that their own people's lives are lost.
I think it's irrelevant. If this attack had been aborted, then Hamas would have regrouped and attacked some other time. If there is an ideology that is determined to destroy Israel, then its adherents will attack again and again until either they succeed or the ideology loses its support. I am not optimistic that Israel has an option that enables the country to survive long term. Losing to Hamas is not a winning option. Defeating Hamas just buys a little time.
And that means one of the only modern and democratic societies in the Middle East will fall. At the same time the idea pitch behind this society seems hopelessly naive and ill suited for what it signed up for. It’s too easy to say I told you so, but it’s also too easy to say religious extremism just showed up one day. It’s a hard conversation. 🤷♀️
I highly recommend you (all) read David French's NYT newsletter of Oct. 12 or 13 about the laws of war especially about "proportionality" and "distinction" (not available in the newspaper itself). The latter requires distinguishing between civilian people and property and military personnel and targets. Israel abides by the laws of war. Hamas are terrorists (not militants) who flout the laws of war as an added weapon.
You will learn that Israel is NOT "carpet bombing," but rather quite the opposite. By air or by land, the IDF targets only buildings and persons for which there is evidence of a military purpose.
That’s some Catch, that Catch-22. Israel may abide by the rules, and have the right to defend itself. I’m allowed to hate war if Kling is allowed to hate people who say “but.”
You missed his point. The point is about lying. He hates the many liars who are only pretending to oppose the massacre and only paying lip service to the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself.
The specific kind of bullshit they are spouting is to posture as if they are are being some kind of detached and disinterested judge - neutral, fair, objective, and principled - and to use the implication to fool people into thinking that the intersection of their views of "things Israel is fully morally justified in doing" and "things that will actually defend Israel in objective reality" is not empty.
When in reality, it's empty. You can determine this right away by straight up asking them to give an example of something remotely plausible in that intersection. They won't do it, because they can't, they don't really believe there's anything in there.
In reality they are solidly on Team Hamas, will give Hamas a pass of some rationalized justification for anything it does, while saying everything Israel does is immoral, unjustified, disproportionate, a war crime, a crime against humanity.
One can be tribal and be honest about it. But these people are lying about it, in way that furthers their ulterior motive of contributing to the propaganda of undermining support for Israel.
Specifically, what they are doing is voluntarily boosting, amplifying and the equivalent of forwarding a chain-letter of the "talking points memo" that is intended to provide other members of Team Hamas (at least those who live in places where they know they can't get away with just coming out and openly applauding these kind of horrendous deeds) with their own cover story and Socially Acceptable Excuse for their position.
It's one thing to be tribal and plain and honest about. One can be forthrightly barbaric, and whatever else you may think of that person, you can at least have a kind of grudging respect for the integrity and even bravery of being willing to accept the consequences of expressing their honest sentiments about some manner, vile as they may be.
But the people who are just as vile but lying about it by appealing to high principles to which they have no commitment are worthy of hatred.
and to use the implication to fool people into thinking that the intersection of their views of "things Israel is fully morally justified in doing" and "things that will actually defend Israel in objective reality" is not empty.
----
An addendum to this is that many people lie to themselves about whether there is any Venn diagram overlap.
There is very little overlap between "things that police can do to keep order in black communities" and "policing practices progressives would find acceptable". But they aren't really lying about it, they believe there exists some place the Venn diagram even if it clearly doesn't.
They can't locate it because they are sloppy biased thinkers with bad assumptions that don't analyze evidence and trade offs and can't accept that they have to adjust where the "policing practices progressives would find acceptable" circle lies in order for there to be any overlap.
This is of course a huge moral failing, and an abdication of their responsibilities as human adults and citizens. But it's a specific form of dishonesty that is different from outright lying.
It's why I dislike calling such people "anti-semitic". Brown Hamas supporters might actually be antiemetic. White western progressives would be aghast at being considered anti-semitic and they aren't lying about that. They just have a terrible ideology and aren't serious people.
I’m don’t think Maci can be criticized for missing the point.
The post is not limited to hypocrites and veiled Hamas supporters, and while I appreciate what may have been the subtext and intended audience, emotionally charged posts lead to saying things that are nonsensical and appear to grant license to eye-for-eye behavior.
No Catch-22. The international laws of war adopted by all civilized nations. I hate war too, but recognize that it is necessary for defense against evil people and organizations. What are Israel, Iraq, India, Ukraine, Yemen, Taiwan and other nations supposed to do, turn the other cheek and not defend themselves? Few democracies in history have started wars of conquest, the Mexican-American War perhaps being the exception.
War is hell and war is crazy. You and I are sane! The causes of war are most often the (crazy) megalomaniacs who want at any price what others have. Of course there are better ways for all involved to reach the same end. But as said, the megalomaniac are (by definition) crazy.
I actually thought the phrasing is wrong and not what Kling really means. I would have put it, like Handle alluded to above, "I most disrespect people who say, 'I condemn Hamas but',......."
"he hates those critics who condemn Israel without condemning past and current acts of violence..."
I'm sure I'm typical in condemning what Hamas did, and then, continuing to watch the news coming out of that godforsaken part of the world, condemn what Israel did.
He hates leftist critics of Israel. Hates the double standard applied to the “Jewish world” and the “Arab world.” He could have said all of this without saying he hates his own readers for daring to think.
He doesn't hate leftist critics, he hates those critics who "condemn" Israel without condemning past and current acts of violence against Israel and the Jews. I think we agree that there are fair leftist critiques of Israel, but they become less resonant after Hamas butchers over a thousand Jews--particularly innocent children. You might be thinking but Israel does the same thing and I think that's where I would disagree, it's not the same thing and Israel's attack on Gaza now is not the same thing at all.
I don't entirely buy the premise here. When Israel is supposedly caught committing atrocities, most of the time what has happened is that Gazan authorities have deliberately moved their artillery right next to Gazan civilians' homes, or relocated the civilians to where the weapons are, in the hope that Israel's necessary return-fire will kill or wound some civilians or wreck their homes, creating atrocities that Gazan authority can point to in its propaganda. As far as I'm concerned when this happens, Gazan authorities and their sponsoring governments bear 100% sole responsibility for the atrocities.
In other words, an attacker is never entitled to foreclose the only defense against his attacks by using innocent third parties as human shields.
Not the worst form of evil, but the most common way elite luxury believers support evil by others while signaling virtue in their own minds, and amongst similar others. Perhaps the “flu” of the mind. (Influenza not so far from influencer ).
Those criticizing Israel should be saying what the right response is, and how that right response defends Israel from further attacks. War is Hell, because to defend requires killing the attackers.
President Putin on the Israel-Palestine conflict: “If men decide to fight, let them fight. Leave the women and children alone. This applies to both sides.” Simply amazing!
And while Israel will look to minimize civilian casualties, the world will always say regardless of the number that there. was one too many.
"The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around.
Let them fight."
Fortunately very few are foolish enough to really think Putin has any standing whatsoever as a principled authority on ethical lines in armed conflict.
First we have to have a paradigm shift and see past antisemitism and islamophobia. It's not about Muslims and Jews though that is the window dressing. It is about a European colonial settlement project starting in the 20th century and spilling over into the 21st. There is no possibility of an internal solution coming about between the colonial occupiers and the indigenous populations. The only way to solve this will have to be imposed from outside pressure and intervention.
There are only two ways to do so. Either enable and facilitate the European colonial settlement occupiers to completely exterminate the 3-5 million indigenous people, as Hitler's "Final Solution" fantasized but failed mid way. Or force the hand of the European settlers to integrate the indigenous populations into a democratic and secular state where rule of law prevails over everyone with equal protection of the law and equal rights for all humans within the jurisdiction of the unified state. There is no third solution. Anything short of one or the other will continue to escalate the level of violence. The ultimate climax of the violence, decades down the road could conceivably end up in a nuclear holocaust. No one in their right mind should ever let it get that far.
I condemn, but if the US had open immigration in the 1930’s-1950’s, millions of Jews might not have died in the Holocaust and would be living peacefully in the US instead of a land where socialist totalitarian autocratic neighbors and terrorists attack on a regular basis.
I guess I lean a little amoral - because my first thought was - how can Israel respond to this in a way that moves the needle on its precarity, that gets it out of the path-dependent rut so that this *particular* situation doesn't replay on an endless loop until demographics turn the tide in the Arabs' favor and do the work of eliminationism (an outcome, it should be noted, the left doesn't mind)?
For all its "idealism" the left seems very content with the status quo in a lot of dimensions. I guess this can always be cast as adherence to morality, but it has a grim dystopian character that feels off.
“You say you condemn atrocities but you will get off the train should Israel not live up to your expectations for moral conduct during war. You were never on the train.”
Should Israel not live up to any expectations for moral conduct? Would you not look to any objective moral judge in such an emotionally heated moment?
The answer is clearly yes, but the implication here is that Israel ought to get to choose the moral standard for its own conduct and no one will get to second guess whether its actions are right because of its conduct.
I do think that is wrong, and it is permissible to say I condemn, but you need to conduct yourselves in a morally permissible fashion.
Do we not get to reevaluate the US’s invasion of Iraq with hindsight and look at all of the civilian casualties and consider that the US may have been wrong?
I will be rooting for Israel to eradicate Hamas, “but” I hope with hindsight that the cost will not end up being too high.
Only in the postmodern world do we expect normal citizens to try to judge events from an abstract and removed perspective of a neutral observer. Not even God in the Bible is a neutral observer. He takes sides all the time. Our judges are not expected to be neutral observers; many if not most legal standards look to prevailing social standards to make a determination within certain objective parameters. Even when you select an arbitrator in America, you pick from a panel of judges and compromise with opposing counsel on the judge who looks to be some combination of reasonable and not unacceptably likely to be partial to one side's interests or another.
Now, we DO ask students to take the John Rawls type perspective when they write their essays, to imagine themselves free of any of their personal associations and to judge a matter accordingly. But we do not ask anyone who is expected to make any decision of consequence to evince such neutrality: rather, the reverse, we demand absolute partiality in the form of fiduciary duties and the like! We even cast suspicion on even the hint of anything less than unconflicted partiality for one's interests when we select leaders to the point of criminal and civil penalties. In the real world, we shrink from throwing ourselves to true impartiality. No one wins elections by promising to be fair and impartial for one's own voters. No: you win by promising to provide unfair rewards to your voters and to punish your non-voters.
What's fascinating is to watch a lot of purported "Online Utilitarians" drop all pretense of any commitment to - or apparent felt to need to even fake explaining - some kind of consequentialist moral calculus, and instead go straight to nakedly tribalistic deontology that conveniently shrinks the circle of humanistic concern just small enough to exclude the outgroup.
That is, the default attitude for most of human history, "Anything we do to get rid of cockroaches is ok because they have no rights and their very existence is irksome to us."
But since they can't get away with that (at least, not everywhere, not yet) it is only barely veiled by the obvious hypocrisy of an appeal to """universal principles""".
I'm judging these events from the perspective of a neutral observer because I'm American. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I wish everyone involved the best (except the murderers and slavers) but ultimately this is a conflict between two tribes I'm not part of over a land I've never been to.
Israel should live up to consistent lessons of moral conduct. Not ones inconsistently applied by its enemies. Beyond that, I don't know that there is a clear moral response.
To rephrase, you condemn too, but Israel should live up to consistent lessons of moral conduct.
So you disagree with Professor Kling’s original premise?
No, Professor Kling is spot on. He's not saying Israel shouldn't conduct itself morally.
Perhaps a simpler way of making his point is to say that the "outside observers" who are "condemn, but" are not only inconsistently applying a morality, they're active participants to the conflict who have no moral standing to complain.
To be blunt, the global left and the Arab countries have worked hard to keep the Palestinians embittered, impoverished, and stoked up with a radical fervor. Condemnation from them is like Henry II condemning the knights who murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or the guys who express outrage when the pit bull they bred and trained for its brutality is put down after it repeatedly attacks people.
Reread his post. His criticism wasn’t leveled at only hypocritical people on the left or those who already have a stake in what’s going on. It’s to anyone who might offer a “but.”
My concern is that like many reactions from the pro-Israel camp, of which I normally consider myself in that camp (is this also a bad “but”?), my concern is that the point seems to be attempting to stake out the terms of what will be acceptable criticism of Israel in advance.
I’m not sure anyone but God gets to reserve that right.
I've reread his post several times now and I don't agree with your concern.
What I do agree with is that it wasn't leveled at generic groups of people. It was quite plainly leveled at YOU.
For most people, this is deeply uncomfortable, because, in the sense Charles Pick describes, most of us have been taught a wholly abstract sort of morality. One that doesn't like to dirty its hands much, to be honest. And thus, it's a morality that's well suited to clamming up when the guy at the student rally you went to starts screaming "Death to Israel!"
For most people, who mostly only engage in shallow morality, it hurts to have it pointed out just how shallow it is. Kling isn't saying no one can moralize. He's rightly questioning us as to whether we are engaging in true moral reasoning, or if our morality is a convenient salve to our sentiments.
Fascinating—that you could level such a criticism at someone you never met, as Professor King’s post did.
How do you know I haven’t attended at counter rallies in support of Israel? Argued with Hamas supporters in the comments on left-wing websites? That I haven’t gotten my hands dirty as you call it in support of moral causes?
It would seem the person dealing in abstractions and generalities isn’t me?
I think this idea of objective universal rules of moral conduct is a bit problematic.
Let's say I agree that morality isn't 100% subjective. It doesn't follow that I, someone in America not involved in the Israel/Arab conflict and certainly more ignorant then most of the people involved, have some better take on what the objective universal rules of conduct relative to this conflict are. The more humble position would be to assume people on the ground know better.
With Iraq/Afghanistan we did the total opposite. We decided that we could run the country better than what was there, and failed. We did the same with supporting the Arab Spring. In all these cases we made a bunch of assumptions about universal moral principals that really seemed to be wildly inaccurate when applied to the Middle East. We would have been better not getting involved.
I don’t think you would want the father of a murdered child making a call about when to pull the trigger.
A step removed: Is Netanyahu’s government sufficiently objective? Certainly better than a morally bankrupt UN or most of Europe. But (there it is again), before Hamas’s atrocities, I think a fair observer would have been more concerned about the populist shift in Israel politics and their objectivity even without this tragedy.
No easy answers, and you’re right that humility is key, but sadly I very much doubt that there is going to be much remaining.
To follow up what I said before, there are no fair observers. It is an uncaring world and the truth of morality and any kind of civil justice is that it's mostly the least bad outcome.
Follow through your logic about the father of a murdered child. How was the child murdered? Suppose it's by a guy who was known to the authorities as a repeat violent offender. He's a terrible human who would be pitiable, for he lives in squalor, were he not a violent sociopath. But because he's so pitiable, and despite the fact that he refuses any opportunity for help, and is continually addicted to drugs and out of money, he's always committing crimes and continually being let go. Eventually, your kid ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he's dead.
From a big picture view, this is a "failure of society". A sad part of the overhead. A cost of doing business, and we can say that, well, it's not that society wanted the kid murdered, and society will punish the murderer. It's the least bad outcome.
But... in Israel, there's no outside society to step in. The murderer has friends that have egged him on and encouraged his hatred and grievances, all the while keeping him desperate and poor. And, he hates you. It wasn't some random thing. He killed your kid, and as he's dragged away, he screams that he's going to kill the rest of your kids next.
Put simply, there's no "sufficiently objective" to be had in such a situation. The "friends" of the murderer, such as they are, are borderline accomplices who, themselves, deserve condemnation for the situation they've had a hand in creating. The least bad outcome outside a society is to let people defend themselves.
Maintaining moral standards in the prosecution of a war is critical to strategic success. Tactical victories are meaningless if they do not serve a greater strategic aim i.e. winning the peace. If Israel prosecutes a war without conscience two things are likely: (1) they lose the moral advantage and international symptathy and (2) even if they destroy Hamas another equally vicious group will replace it. Where to draw the boundary between moral and immoral conduct of war (jus in bello) is very difficult and it's not a clear binary, which is where so many early supporters have exceedingly high expectations for a "clean" war. Nevertheless, acting under moral constraint in war is prerequisite to a durable peace.
As has been said before, the situation is near unsolvable. Given that, even the cleanest and most moral response by Israel is likely to come up short and a similarly bad Hamas replacement is nearly certain.
I agree with this and will add: Israel could try it's hardest to minimize collateral damage (and suffer surplus casualties in the process) and it will never be enough for some people. The difficulty is in calibrating an effective and proportional response that won't alienate more people than necessary. Easier said than done in light of Hamas' atrocities.
It's motherhood and apple pie to ask for a morally permissible means of conduct when declaring 'support'. But what about simple condemnation of Hamas? Isn't it clear what Hamas did wasn't permissible? Why should it be caveated? Are you familiar with these?
- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-58?activeTab=undefined
- https://lieber.westpoint.edu/siege-law/
Perhaps, with these in mind, you can tell me what the definition of 'morally permissible' is for Israel's response in the context of Hamas flagrantly violating Article 58 (inter alia)? You'll recall that "Amid international calls for a ceasefire to allow in aid, Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz said there would be no halt to the siege without freedom for Israeli hostages." (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/biden-warns-iran-over-gaza-israel-forms-emergency-war-cabinet-2023-10-11/)
I have paid attention to this conflict for more than 30 years.
It's been the same pattern.
1) Israel is attacked.
2) Israel does a good job defending itself BUT
3) the world steps in and stops Israel short of achieving the sort of victory that would fix the problem. AND THEN
4) Outside powers ham handedly broker a peace deal WHICH
5) The Palestinian powers either reject or violate... The world gets upset at Israel for whatever reasons even though they aren't at fault after which...
6) See point 1.
This time, for whatever reason however, feels different. It should anyway. It feels like step 2 might play out differently and step 3 might not happen. Israel should stick to it's guns and finish the job this time regardless of what the world thinks.
Spot on.
The situation with the Palestinians is a lot like the situation with blacks in America.
You have a group that through that, due to genetics, just can't really seem to build anything decent on their own. If you destroyed Hamas, you would eventually get another Hamas. If you surrounded them with some of the best fellow countrymen and governance in the world they would still founder.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/palestinians-in-your-country-what
It is just very hard for people to accept this. Both the people themselves obviously, but also outside observers that just can't come to accept the base facts.
Since every group has wronged every group going back to forever, such failing groups can always construct a narrative about how what the oppressor did to them is why they are failing today. It's easier then accepting the alternative, and even if they wanted to do the hard work they probably aren't capable of it.
It's no wonder Summers is confused when asking why people can't see Israel with the same "moral clarity" as George Floyd. The answer is that they are seeing it with the same moral clarity, but they see Jews as Derek Chauvin. Chickens coming home to roost.
"I condemn BLM riots....BUT". Saying that police do a pretty good job and the disparate impacts just can't be changed much is not an acceptable answer. Just like Israel has done about all it can do but it can't solve the underlying problem of Palestinian genetics.
It's useless to list action X, Y, or Z you want to see in either case. Maybe some of them are good ideas that should happen. But if you got everything you wanted, 90% of the issue would remain, and people would still be unsatisfied.
I'm disheartened that your comment got 4 Likes.
Whatever role genetics may or may not play (whether it does or not, I see no solid evidence for it) in both cases I have no doubt that the situation does far more to guide behavior.
Note: In the case of US blacks, I don't mean discrimination, at least not in the typical fashion. I mean low expectations and constantly being told that you can't succeed because of systemic racism, etc.
(speaking as a Jew)
As Abraham's descendants, we are cousins. Our forefather Abraham must be the saddest about this conflict.
As a Jewish person, I protest your assertion that Palestinians cannot do better. Ignoring your ridiculous IQ "proof", the genetics are nearly identical to that of the countries around them.
There are far more similarities than there are differences. And this episode is a good proof - they clearly outsmarted the Israelis.
I believe every person is made in the image of G-d. We can all repent. We can all perform acts of kindness to other people.
This parallel is more true than most people know, if they watch and believe the major media, especially in the period since Trayvon Martin got his just deserts. Democrats pretend to be protectors of the poor, but they really keep them that way in order to use them as shock troops. The only way to get an acceptable outcome is to always defend yourself when attacked, regardless of what harm malicious third-party "supporters" have done to your opponent. You didn't make them that way, so who did is not your problem.
Sometimes equivocation can be an understandable reaction to a tricky dilemma but sometimes it is just moral and/or intellectual laziness. The mentality of 'Progressive' equivocation about the atrocities commited against Israeli civilians is very much the latter. It is not truly even primarily about a concern for the Palestinian people. The real driver is to signal that your privileged narcissistic little wonderful self is ever on the side of the 'oppressed'. To these people 'oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as one of the good guys. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. I still remember the drug-addled anti-Zionist 'sit-in' at my UK university in 1973.
A very eloquent statement, Arnold. When Larry Summers was President of Harvard, he issued a statement pointing out that double standards for Israel were cover for anti-Semitism among those pretending to respectability. This was but one of the things that motivated the Left there against him. He also privately criticized Cornel West, a full University Professor, no less, for his lack of academic work. West went public with it to stir up anti-white (and anti-Semitic?) antagonism to Summers. Summers also attended the ROTC graduation of Harvard students at MIT. These students had to pursue ROTC there because of the Left's abolition of it from Harvard. Finally, there was the brouhaha over the male - female differences in IQ distribution, in which Summers's scientifically accurate statement drove the faculty crazies nuts. Summers handled that badly, going into a defensive crouch when he should have forthrightly defended himself, and this led to his ouster.
It was thought he did this in order to maintain his standing in the Democratic Party. Summers is a sad case of what happens to moderate Progressives as the internal logic of Progressivism drives it further and further to nihilistic extremism.
I think that sometimes we're most irked by people who resemble us. Those who rape and kill are by any reasonable measure worse than the hedgers you hate, but the hedgers are much more similar to you—their involvement in the conflict, like yours (and mine), is limited to words, and they're in no real danger no matter what they say—so when they equivocate they have a special ability to grate on you.
This is manipulation with a political agenda. I can think what Hamas did was evil and wrong, and still be critical of Israel’s response. Furthermore this is just a line that is used to invoke guilt because of historical atrocities. I could equate this with rioting and looting are ok because of slavery. It’s a difference of scale, not of kind. BLM justifies rioting and looting, Israel justifies carpet bombing. Which version of woke is worse? Is it better that Israel doesn’t look the people its killing in the eyes?
I appreciate your willingness to engage and disagree civilly. Israel has not carpet bombed, though. I see the Israelis as doing their best to protect the citizens of Gaza in a context in which Hamas wants to use them as human shields. The laws of war were not drawn up in anticipation of rulers wanting to insure that their own people's lives are lost.
What do you say to Israel should have foreseen the attack, and might have had evidence of the attack by way of Egypt?
I think it's irrelevant. If this attack had been aborted, then Hamas would have regrouped and attacked some other time. If there is an ideology that is determined to destroy Israel, then its adherents will attack again and again until either they succeed or the ideology loses its support. I am not optimistic that Israel has an option that enables the country to survive long term. Losing to Hamas is not a winning option. Defeating Hamas just buys a little time.
And that means one of the only modern and democratic societies in the Middle East will fall. At the same time the idea pitch behind this society seems hopelessly naive and ill suited for what it signed up for. It’s too easy to say I told you so, but it’s also too easy to say religious extremism just showed up one day. It’s a hard conversation. 🤷♀️
I highly recommend you (all) read David French's NYT newsletter of Oct. 12 or 13 about the laws of war especially about "proportionality" and "distinction" (not available in the newspaper itself). The latter requires distinguishing between civilian people and property and military personnel and targets. Israel abides by the laws of war. Hamas are terrorists (not militants) who flout the laws of war as an added weapon.
You will learn that Israel is NOT "carpet bombing," but rather quite the opposite. By air or by land, the IDF targets only buildings and persons for which there is evidence of a military purpose.
That’s some Catch, that Catch-22. Israel may abide by the rules, and have the right to defend itself. I’m allowed to hate war if Kling is allowed to hate people who say “but.”
You missed his point. The point is about lying. He hates the many liars who are only pretending to oppose the massacre and only paying lip service to the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself.
The specific kind of bullshit they are spouting is to posture as if they are are being some kind of detached and disinterested judge - neutral, fair, objective, and principled - and to use the implication to fool people into thinking that the intersection of their views of "things Israel is fully morally justified in doing" and "things that will actually defend Israel in objective reality" is not empty.
When in reality, it's empty. You can determine this right away by straight up asking them to give an example of something remotely plausible in that intersection. They won't do it, because they can't, they don't really believe there's anything in there.
In reality they are solidly on Team Hamas, will give Hamas a pass of some rationalized justification for anything it does, while saying everything Israel does is immoral, unjustified, disproportionate, a war crime, a crime against humanity.
One can be tribal and be honest about it. But these people are lying about it, in way that furthers their ulterior motive of contributing to the propaganda of undermining support for Israel.
Specifically, what they are doing is voluntarily boosting, amplifying and the equivalent of forwarding a chain-letter of the "talking points memo" that is intended to provide other members of Team Hamas (at least those who live in places where they know they can't get away with just coming out and openly applauding these kind of horrendous deeds) with their own cover story and Socially Acceptable Excuse for their position.
It's one thing to be tribal and plain and honest about. One can be forthrightly barbaric, and whatever else you may think of that person, you can at least have a kind of grudging respect for the integrity and even bravery of being willing to accept the consequences of expressing their honest sentiments about some manner, vile as they may be.
But the people who are just as vile but lying about it by appealing to high principles to which they have no commitment are worthy of hatred.
and to use the implication to fool people into thinking that the intersection of their views of "things Israel is fully morally justified in doing" and "things that will actually defend Israel in objective reality" is not empty.
----
An addendum to this is that many people lie to themselves about whether there is any Venn diagram overlap.
There is very little overlap between "things that police can do to keep order in black communities" and "policing practices progressives would find acceptable". But they aren't really lying about it, they believe there exists some place the Venn diagram even if it clearly doesn't.
They can't locate it because they are sloppy biased thinkers with bad assumptions that don't analyze evidence and trade offs and can't accept that they have to adjust where the "policing practices progressives would find acceptable" circle lies in order for there to be any overlap.
This is of course a huge moral failing, and an abdication of their responsibilities as human adults and citizens. But it's a specific form of dishonesty that is different from outright lying.
It's why I dislike calling such people "anti-semitic". Brown Hamas supporters might actually be antiemetic. White western progressives would be aghast at being considered anti-semitic and they aren't lying about that. They just have a terrible ideology and aren't serious people.
“You missed his point.”
I’m don’t think Maci can be criticized for missing the point.
The post is not limited to hypocrites and veiled Hamas supporters, and while I appreciate what may have been the subtext and intended audience, emotionally charged posts lead to saying things that are nonsensical and appear to grant license to eye-for-eye behavior.
"appear to grant license to eye-for-eye behavior" - looks like you missed the point too.
Please check the meaning of “appear”.
No Catch-22. The international laws of war adopted by all civilized nations. I hate war too, but recognize that it is necessary for defense against evil people and organizations. What are Israel, Iraq, India, Ukraine, Yemen, Taiwan and other nations supposed to do, turn the other cheek and not defend themselves? Few democracies in history have started wars of conquest, the Mexican-American War perhaps being the exception.
Catch-22 was written about such a war. Of course it's necessary, that's why it's the best there is. If I say it's crazy it just shows I'm sane.
What are we supposed to do? I'm going to enjoy the day, and stay the fuck away from Israel/Palestine. There is always a but.
War is hell and war is crazy. You and I are sane! The causes of war are most often the (crazy) megalomaniacs who want at any price what others have. Of course there are better ways for all involved to reach the same end. But as said, the megalomaniac are (by definition) crazy.
Is it possible that Kling just made a very good argument, that you want to believe is manipulation because you disagree?
I actually thought the phrasing is wrong and not what Kling really means. I would have put it, like Handle alluded to above, "I most disrespect people who say, 'I condemn Hamas but',......."
“Hates people who say but...”
"he hates those critics who condemn Israel without condemning past and current acts of violence..."
I'm sure I'm typical in condemning what Hamas did, and then, continuing to watch the news coming out of that godforsaken part of the world, condemn what Israel did.
What is truth? Whose truth? Are mine the same as yours.......are yours the same as mine.........ours?
Dicit ei Pilatus: Quid est veritas?
Not sure your point here, but think you’re focusing too much on the word hate and not the overall argument about the people he hates and why.
He hates leftist critics of Israel. Hates the double standard applied to the “Jewish world” and the “Arab world.” He could have said all of this without saying he hates his own readers for daring to think.
He doesn't hate leftist critics, he hates those critics who "condemn" Israel without condemning past and current acts of violence against Israel and the Jews. I think we agree that there are fair leftist critiques of Israel, but they become less resonant after Hamas butchers over a thousand Jews--particularly innocent children. You might be thinking but Israel does the same thing and I think that's where I would disagree, it's not the same thing and Israel's attack on Gaza now is not the same thing at all.
I don't entirely buy the premise here. When Israel is supposedly caught committing atrocities, most of the time what has happened is that Gazan authorities have deliberately moved their artillery right next to Gazan civilians' homes, or relocated the civilians to where the weapons are, in the hope that Israel's necessary return-fire will kill or wound some civilians or wreck their homes, creating atrocities that Gazan authority can point to in its propaganda. As far as I'm concerned when this happens, Gazan authorities and their sponsoring governments bear 100% sole responsibility for the atrocities.
In other words, an attacker is never entitled to foreclose the only defense against his attacks by using innocent third parties as human shields.
This is an excellent point, but it will get exactly as much coverage as other countries refusing to accept Palestinian refugees, ever.
Thank you for this. You put what I have been feeling into words.
Not the worst form of evil, but the most common way elite luxury believers support evil by others while signaling virtue in their own minds, and amongst similar others. Perhaps the “flu” of the mind. (Influenza not so far from influencer ).
Those criticizing Israel should be saying what the right response is, and how that right response defends Israel from further attacks. War is Hell, because to defend requires killing the attackers.
There is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace.
I didn't make it up, but I don't know where it's from
President Putin on the Israel-Palestine conflict: “If men decide to fight, let them fight. Leave the women and children alone. This applies to both sides.” Simply amazing!
And while Israel will look to minimize civilian casualties, the world will always say regardless of the number that there. was one too many.
"The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around.
Let them fight."
Fortunately very few are foolish enough to really think Putin has any standing whatsoever as a principled authority on ethical lines in armed conflict.
First we have to have a paradigm shift and see past antisemitism and islamophobia. It's not about Muslims and Jews though that is the window dressing. It is about a European colonial settlement project starting in the 20th century and spilling over into the 21st. There is no possibility of an internal solution coming about between the colonial occupiers and the indigenous populations. The only way to solve this will have to be imposed from outside pressure and intervention.
There are only two ways to do so. Either enable and facilitate the European colonial settlement occupiers to completely exterminate the 3-5 million indigenous people, as Hitler's "Final Solution" fantasized but failed mid way. Or force the hand of the European settlers to integrate the indigenous populations into a democratic and secular state where rule of law prevails over everyone with equal protection of the law and equal rights for all humans within the jurisdiction of the unified state. There is no third solution. Anything short of one or the other will continue to escalate the level of violence. The ultimate climax of the violence, decades down the road could conceivably end up in a nuclear holocaust. No one in their right mind should ever let it get that far.
I condemn, but if the US had open immigration in the 1930’s-1950’s, millions of Jews might not have died in the Holocaust and would be living peacefully in the US instead of a land where socialist totalitarian autocratic neighbors and terrorists attack on a regular basis.
Well said. Thank you.
totally agree.