Moral Cowardice

By Walter E. Block and Oded J.K. Faran

New York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman sees an epidemic of “moral cowardice.” He states: “The Republican Party today has a neo-Nazi problem that it refuses to confront. The progressive left today has a pro-Hamas problem that it refuses to confront. And the Jewish people and Israel have a radical Jewish settler problem that they refuse to confront.”

The present authors agree with Friedman on the first two issues, and enthusiastically congratulate him upon pointing this out, and for calling a spade a spade on these two unfortunate and unjustified occurrences.

As to the third, we disagree, sharply, and shall now correct him on this matter.

He complains: “The radical settlers in the West Bank want a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — empty of as many Palestinian Arabs as possible.”

First of all, a minor terminological point. There is no such thing as the “West Bank” unless it concerns a saving and loan company located somewhere in the “west.” The proper characterization for this territory is Judea and Samaria.

Second, this seems like only a verbal dispute but it is not. The point is, Jews occupied these lands some 3500 years ago. In the words of philosopher John Locke, they “homesteaded” it. They mixed their labor with this terrain, and are thus its proper owners. It cannot be denied that they were evicted from these territories now under dispute, but they never, ever, renounced their legitimate titles to them. Thus, the Palestinians who now occupy this area are nothing more and nothing less than trespassers. They do not properly belong there. In justice, they should be made to vacate from lands that do not properly belong to them.

Friedman fails to show why this is an unreasonable wish on the part of these “settlers.” Interesting, that word, “settlers.” Why not characterize them, more accurately, as “rightful owners.”

The next complaint concerns “… the Israeli settlers’ violent behavior in the West Bank — on top of Israel’s excesses in Gaza…”

Yes, these “settlers” are indeed violent. In self-defense! In contrast, the Arabs who do not belong there, rightfully, in the first place engage in initiatory violence. The Palestinians are inspired by the Hamas constitution, which preaches death to the Jews. Here is a line from that document: “As Hamas declares in its original charter (1988) by quoting Islamic sources: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, ‘O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…’ The Qur’an is clear: ‘And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.’ (8:39) This amounts to an open-ended declaration of war against those whose religion is not ‘for Allah.’”

In contrast, the Jews are a bunch of peace-loving nerds, people of the book. However, when put upon as they have been, they are resolved to “never again” allow such monstrosities to be visited upon them.

As for “Israel’s excesses in Gaza…” there is no such thing. The IDF has been extremely gentle with the Palestinians in that unhappy part of the world, posting notices before bombing hospitals, schools, residential neighborhoods where Hamas uses its people as shields. This is something to which not even the Nazis resorted.

Nothing daunted, Friedman proceeds with his indictment: “Jewish supremacist settlers, and those in the Israeli government who support them, use Hamas’s savagery as a moral permission slip for their own lawless marauding against Palestinians in the West Bank.” He has “Hamas’s savagery” down pat. No truer words were ever said. But the peace-seeking Jews in Judea and Samaria, do not “maraud” anyone. Rather, they respond to the Palestinians initiatory violence with defensive violence of their own.

Further, what is with this “supremacist” business? Yes, the Israelis are supreme in some qualities, but not in others. And the same goes for every community under the sun. Other than that, this is merely name calling without any substance on the part of this New York Timesman.

Friedman is exercised that “Lately, the Israeli right has begun a vociferous campaign to prevent the prosecution of Israel prison guards caught on camera abusing a Palestinian prisoner.”

Israel, like any other civilized nation, is at the time of this writing conducting a trial to determine the innocence or guilt of these prison guards. In any group of thousands of soldiers and prison guards, even Israelis, there are bound to be a few bad apples; if, indeed, they are found guilty of these crimes.

Compare and contrast this with how the Palestinians deal with members of their community who “abuse” Israelis. They, too, conduct trials to determine the truth of such claims. But, then, they award those of their number who they find who engaged in such fiendish practices.

Here is yet another false kick at the can on the part of Friedman: “I totally respect those on the left, right or center who have protested Israel’s killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians as collateral — and sometimes seemingly deliberate — damage in Israel’s retaliation/revenge campaign against Hamas. Such protests are a sign of moral health.”

Health schmealth! These protests are, rather, a sign of invincible ignorance. Hamas kills its own non-combatants, by using them as shields. It even kills its own babies by keeping baby formula from them, hidden in warehouses. Yes, in any war there is accidental collateral damage. But Hamas started this war, and this terrorist organization, not the IDF, is responsible for these regrettable deaths, Friedman to the contrary notwithstanding.

Friedman relies upon the Israeli newspaper Haaretz to make a point about IDF and “settler” cruelty. But this newspaper is a bitter critic of Netanyahu in particular and his Likud party in general. It is no more to be trusted on Israeli matters than is the New York Times itself.

Continues our sightseer of Israeli affairs: “Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his fellow travelers — and here I include the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which has flown air cover for Netanyahu in Washington, D.C., for his 18 years in office — have done more to undermine the long-term security of Israel and the Jewish people than any Hamas fighters.”

If that don’t beat all. The Likud is more dangerous to Israel than is Hamas? Tell that to the families of the 1200 people murdered by this friend of “the long-term security of Israel” and of the scores of hostages who lost their lives while in captivity. This one surely takes the cake in terms of coherence, rationality, and, yes, morality.

Here, Friedman attempts to justify this truly outrageous statement of his: “Why do I say that? Because they have presided over and abetted the shattering of the three most important pillars of Israeli security. I speak of Israel’s national unity — Bibi has deliberately tried to govern by division, not addition — as well as Israel’s longstanding commitment to democratic values and judicial independence and its commitment to fighting its wars, albeit inconsistently applied over the years, with a humanitarian ethos.”

“Division, not addition” is abject nonsense. Supposedly, the Labor Party which misruled the country from the first few decades since its very inception in 1948 under socialist principles, governed by “addition not division.” Israel is a democratic nation; each party tries to enact its own policies. As for the “humanitarian ethos” of the IDF, it is still operational, even under the shield policies of the Hamas. As for the “judicial independence” of the Supreme Court, Netanyahu merely wants to democratize it, so that extant members are no longer allowed to choose their successors. Instead, the entire electorate has a role in choosing its members, via the democratic political process, as occurs in the U.S.

Friedman refers to Netanyahu’s “insane obsession with annexing the West Bank.” Why, pray tell, is the desire to do so “insane.” Au contraire, it is entirely justified on the basis of Lockean homesteading theory.