Magnetic rhetoric can be creatively arranged to satisfy individualistic, emotional, or moralistic impulse. For example, David Day '06 plays the blame game with his argument, "Hypocrisy on the Gaza Strip" (Aug. 23). He deserves a response and alternate way of stating things. First, blame and bitterness serve nobody in politics. Second, the threat and actuality of war are an inseparable facet of humanity. Third, warfare of the past several centuries and its accompanying rhetoric are compounded by contradictions and hypocrisy.
A mismatch between words and actions is clearly the main point of Day's criticism of the Bush administration's support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's eviction of Jewish citizens from the Gaza Strip. The consequences, according to Day, will be felt first in the redoubled morale of the "ruthless murderers" who are well-organized in Gaza, and who Mahmoud Abbas is incapable of controlling. They will be felt second in the setting of a fatal international precedent for the relatively unorganized resistance to the Iraqi government -- an act of betrayal of the values of freedom, democracy and justice that apparently moved George W. Bush to press vigorously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Finally, Day argues from a moral perspective that the removal of Israeli presence in Gaza is an insult to the just resolution of the second intifada.
What Day fails to address is the fact that a history of unilateral action cutting against a long record of ignored multilateral agreements slices both ways. It sliced one way in the wars the state of Israel experienced in establishing itself in the Middle East after the 1948 multilateral fiat in the United Nations, and in America's refusal to tackle the roots of the conflict in later events, like the Suez crisis in 1956. It now slices the other way as Hamas, PIJ, al Aqsa, al Qaeda and others adopt of unusual, savage tactics that have since matured into a strategy of terror at regional and global levels.
Suicidal terrorists are not just "ruthless." They go beyond ruthlessness to become irrational and incalculable. In the June 2003 issue of The Atlantic, Bruce Hoffman describes with graphic accuracy the callous regard for human life learned by suicide squads in the intifadas and the ordinary backgrounds of many who decide to, or are pressured to be "martyrs." Blaming them for that aggravates the problem, since they are dead. Their families and friends are the ones left to soak up their blood with outside criticism. Addressing the source of what has become an existential conflict, preferably with assistance from those who reason with it, is a way around killing one another. Slaughter and waste, no matter what it touches, is generally viewed as bad politics.
On Sept. 8 in the Tufts Daily, Scott Weiner calls for multilateral engagement between Israelis, Palestinians, and third-parties in writing that "one-sided efforts, be they positive initiatives like disengagement or negative initiatives like divestment, cannot force the joint action required by both sides to achieve sustainable Israeli-Palestinian peace. . . [It] is not a state to be forced upon two entities, like war or colonialism." I would add that the rules of play in joint action between groups in the West and some terrorists have become simple. The rule is annihilation.
Weiner's points are nice to hear, but unrealistic at the present time. He forgets what Day reminds us of: modern Islamist terrorism is a phenomenon largely external to the "rules of the game" of usual state politics, and is far from being multilaterally-engagable. America and Israel should unilaterally address the conflict, but do so in a way that prepares future multilateralism.
Several events provide fresh opportunity. The passing of Yasser Arafat, the publicized malfunctions of the Iraq campaign, the Atlantic rift, and the election of a new Iranian president have opened up the political landscape to new directions. Accelerating the "war on terror" against all the facts is a positive-feedback provocation promising more misfortune. Sharon's move is less puzzling in light of this, as is Bush's support for it.
In key decisions, neither fear of hypocrisy, nor Old Testament notions of justice figure into the occasional ethics of international leaders. That is a phenomenon observed since at least the fifth century, B.C. One observer made explicit the amoral responses that anarchy demanded for survival after witnessing the wars of the Italian states in the 15th-16th century, buoyed by foreign intrigues. That idea (not without opposition) crystallized after slowly-constructed world orders were smashed from the 18th century on. In the latest round, the nature of conflict between asymmetrically-powered interests was illustrated for America, Europe, and Russia in awful ways.
Unilateralism, irrational choices, and hypocrisy are germane to political "ethics." A 180-degree turn in a cabal's policy can be unexpected, even for well-versed observers. This is because poor decisions are often upheld by resolute politicians and bureaucracies, spawning a lineage of disasters. For example, the Iraq War whose origins Day urges us to put aside. A key moment of courage, or a collusion of forces can be the breaking straw that puts a state on a different path, just as it had put the state on a collision-course.
Switching horses in mid-stream is an often amoral move for leaders, one based on a combination of external pressures and happenstance intersecting in a decisive manner. Such is the withdrawal decision from Gaza, although it was more foreseeable than other examples of unpredicted decisions. Israel is now an established great power in the Middle East. Perhaps it is making a conciliatory gesture to the neighbors it has displaced or made insecure. Perhaps a blend of peripheral interests is compelling it to do so. In my opinion, if this is not the "moral" and "just" outlook taken by the Bush administration following September 11, 2001, then it is one that looks farther for stability and peace.
When the causes align themselves in the right way, people rarely escape war. The job of leaders and other loud voices is to limit war by recognizing, relating, and controlling those causes, and avoiding "moral" claims to righteousness. In conclusion: are the actions of the Bush administration hypocritical? Sure. Does it matter? Not for the impartial who are looking for a peaceful resolution, who can avoid the temptation to call out treachery at every step that requires sacrifice. This is a practical argument based on the observation that aggressive behavior, obstinacy and recurring conflict frequently leads to the worst disasters mankind suffers.
