The Old Testament story of the garden of Eden is not only about human creation but also about our kind’s initial experience with free will, specifically the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Adam apparently never told Eve that God had forbidden him from eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil. She then naively accepted the serpent’s enticing explanation, “when you eat of it . . . you will be like God.” Now that prospect might be enticing for anyone, though the only beneficiary here would be the serpent. For he would forever challenge humankind’s better judgement by clouding the balance between right and wrong. And that balance has forever been the concern of moralists and the pitfall of politicians.
Sometimes, when I ponder the intent of political persuasion, I recall Eve’s naivete in her blind acceptance of that bad apple. Politicians often lure us to support an allegedly beneficial policy without informing us of its costs. And too often the main beneficiary is the politician who, like Satan, clouds the moral distinction between good and evil to serve his/her own interests, either to hold onto office, or to provide license for an immoral act and the exercise of gratuitous power over others. Sometimes, the end is illusory, and the means are deceitful, like instigating an insurrection or corrupting an election to hold onto office in the name of an unspecified “greatness” or suppressing a neighboring state to gain absolute supremacy over land and its bounty.
Of course, we all have heard the maxim that the “end justifies the means.” But there are two corollaries that make that maxim truthful and verifiable: “the end must be good in itself,” and “the means must be proportional to that end.”¹ For example, Israel’s declaration of war against Hamas for conducting a vicious and unprovoked attack against peaceful Israelite citizens could be justified as self-defense, thereby resulting in a massive aerial bombardment of Hamas’ underground caves. Self-defense would seem a justifiable end after an unprovoked attack. But that end could have been sought in many ways, such as fortifying the borders, seeking condemnation against Hamas via the United Nations, or inflicting economic reprisals by limiting access to the world banking apparatus and Qatar’s bankrolling of Hamas. But should the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians, including woman and children who are obviously noncombatants, be justified as a proportional response? Can the end of self-defense justify the chosen means of indiscriminate bombing in this real-life situation? Or is the end tinged with revenge and thereby revelatory that neither is the end moral, nor the means justified?
The oft-used justification of “fog of war” certainly clouds this moral dilemma, but it cannot equivocate this military “scorched earth” policy as moral or somehow equivalent to the initial provocation. Rather, the ubiquitous fog here is “the law of the jungle” which equates a brutal victory with a “just” war. Ironically, both sides can claim vengeance either for Hamas terrorism or Israelite oppression of Palestinians. But vengeance can never inspire a moral act. This feud over Palestine has regularly deteriorated into periodic confrontations for decades, while animosity between the competing tribes has persisted for centuries.
Hamas certainly did not intend to overthrow Israel with 1500 attackers on October 7th. Its only purpose was to poke the bear on its border and gain a “moral” victory for its supporters around the world. But rapping women, burning children alive, and beheading victims, including babies, will not win a sympathetic response around the world, unless it spurs an equally horrific response from the bear. And that response might well be Hamas’ goal. If so, it has achieved a “great victory” by reducing Israel to its level of inhumanity. The never-ending battle continues, while Hamas’ rationale for its existence would seem once again justified—at least by its own rationale and by like-minded supporters world-wide. The allegedly peaceful democratic bear is exposed as a violent predator when poked hard enough. And many thousands of casualties will justify each side’s persistence in a fierce contest until one side is obliterated or severely weakened in power and/or world support. The Israeli Defense Force may seek the end of Hamas, as commanded by its Prime Minister. But, as in past wars between the same forces, victory can only be temporary until reprisals can once again be planned and executed. A new generation of combatants will rise from the ashes of this conflagration to wage once again the banner of racial/tribal wars of annihilation. Human history is replete with this repetitive insanity.
Many lifeforms compete for sustenance and more favorable living conditions, but few compete among their own kind to the extent of extermination or complete subjugation. But we humans have done so throughout recorded history. Because we are allegedly sapient beings, we can always justify internecine wars in terms of self-defense, vengeful reprisals, territorial rights, and a multitude of irrational/political memes like racial/religious superiority or heredity rights.
How do we break this cycle of internecine violence? Well, I would like to suggest that our knowledge of good versus evil should warrant a stricter moral code where a desired end must be moral and achieved by moral means. Hamas, for example, committed a grossly immoral act on October 7th. Israel has responded with an equally grotesque bombing campaign. Both combatants justify their violence in the context of both past and current confrontations, to include the long-standing suppression of the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza or the ongoing aerial bombardment of Israel culminating in the tragic October attack. This interminable conflict persists from generation to generation because it is fueled by a violent history and by tribal/racial hatred. As a result, Israelites must incorporate bomb shelters in their homes, while Palestinians suffer poverty and limited lifestyle choices in everything from food, shelter, education, to career opportunities.
Ironically, there are better angels on both sides of this equation. In the recent past, Israelites and Palestinians have responded to each other as fellow human beings. Many Palestinians have worked in Israel, while many Israelites have participated in health and education services in Palestine. There are normal human beings on both sides of this tribal impasse. These are the people that need uplifting and must be heard by the world community—including the United Nations. Rather than giving voice to talking heads from either side’s political base, the UN and world community must intervene and support those better “angels.” Both the October 7 atrocities and the subsequent bombing campaign should be condemned. A neutral UN-established world court needs to supervise both the cessation of conflict, the disarmament of Hamas, and a peaceful reconciliation of all hostilities, meaning a two-state solution where both parties relate as equal autonomies with normalized state relations. The United States alone cannot provide the supervision and support required, for it is not a neutral arbiter, but both the guarantor and beneficiary of Israel’s power in the Middle East.
Logical people could agree with this proposal. Many others, however, would disagree, finding it unrealistic. History unfortunately supports the latter. For the animosity between Hamas and Israel will persists regardless of how the present conflict ends. Rapprochement eludes the memories of mortal enemies who have sought peace only by killing each other in the past. And the moral confusion about “the end justifies the means” will continue to cloud any future rapport in favor of endless conflict.
Eve merely wanted to be godlike without any knowledge of the cost. Likewise, we too often want our apple without any knowledge of its cost. But victory for either Hamas or Israel risks that divine injunction, “for dust you are, and unto dust you shall return.” Gaza is already being reduced to dust. If a wider war with Hezbollah results, Israel too will bear the cost of escalating its attacks on Gaza. These costs are unimaginable and unbearable for the good people of Israel and Palestine. They both represent religions of Old Testament times. But they might benefit from a prophet who arose from those times and proclaimed, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” And that injunction will never be represented between nations, unless first practiced by their people.
______________________________________________
¹ This principal of proportionality—that a just end can only be achieved by just and honorable means—has been universally attested in Western philosophy and supported by all major religions. It is only problematic when neither understood nor practiced.