Pope Francis and the Catholic bishops of the Holy Land have unequivocally condemned the Israeli assault on Gaza as unjust. While their reasoning, from classic just war principles, is sound, I do not share their moral clarity and certitude. The magnitude of civilian suffering and death would normally rule this as unjust; but this situation is highly unusual.
An Unusual Situation
The primary reality is that Hamas is embedded in civilian locations, including even hospitals and schools. To simplify, this leaves the Israelis with the choice: protect themselves by endangering Palestinian civilians or refrain and leave their own population eventually unprotected. Given this simple binary, the responsibility of the state is clear: to protect its own population.
Additionally, the Gazans en masse support Hamas. They celebrated the October 7 attack. They are then in some degree not innocents, but morally complicit as quasi-combatants. This is a total war, with the population of Gaza committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. In this context the principles of Just War become questionable.
Add to this: Israel is attacked not only by Hamas, but by Hezbollah, the Houtis and Iran. The entire Muslim Arab world favors their destruction.
If that is not enough: the Progressive Left of the West has now configured Israel as the oppressor and the Gazans as the oppressed. Much of the world sympathizes with this version of things. That leaves the USA as their lone ally against a hostile world.
All of this is considered in light of the Holocaust and a long history of violence against Jews.
Palestinian Bishops
The condemnation by the Palestinian bishops, led by the esteemed Cardinal Pizzaballa, is understandable. As Arabs they are victims of the assault. Most importantly, even if they entertained some ambivalence, it would be suicidal to express this as they are far move endangered by hostile Muslim Arabs than by a Jewish state that is capable of some moral restrain.
Pope Francis
The strong condemnation from the Pope is more problematic. Every day he speaks by phone to the single Catholic parish in Gaza. Obviously, this has aroused his empathy for the Arab victims. This would be commendable for an ordinary Catholic, a movement to the margins and the suffering. Is it appropriate for the Pope to position himself so markedly on one side of a war?
He is the pope for every parish, order, ecclesial community. In a real sense, he is "papa" for the entire world, including Muslims and Jews. In his papal ministry, he has accentuated (to a fault?) this more-than-ecclesial, global role (climate, immigration, etc.). He is already by temperament emotional with diminished capacity for abstraction, detachment and objectivity. In this instance, his daily phone call clearly inclines him to favor the Arabs over the Jews, in appearance and inevitably in fact.
This is worse given the history of Catholic and Christian hostility to the Jews. It is worse than worst given the global hatred for Israel and the Jews across the Muslim world and the progressive West. It might appear that he is jumping on the bandwagon of beating up on the Jews...again!
His positioning here contrasts sharply with his posture, early on especially, on the Ukraine war where he assumed a neutrality, apparently hoping to broker a peace, and refrained from condemning what is far more obviously an unjust war. In the one case he risks the appearance of indifference to the suffering of the Jews, in the other to the plight of the Ukrainians. The charism of infallibility, in morals and faith, clearly does not extend to diplomacy.
President Biden and Trump
Biden was a loyal ally to Israel even as he pressured them to exercise restraint in regard to civilians. This would be one of the few things that I believe Biden got right. He attempted a deliberate balance in which he offended strong defenders of both Israel and Hamas.
But he is in part the root cause for this war in his indulgence and weakness towards Iran. It was the infusion of money that allowed Iran to finance its surrogates including Hamas.
In light of Trump's attacks this week on the Yemen Houthis, it is striking that Biden was characteristically weak in his response to the Houthi attacks on international trade.
By contrast, Netanyahu's fierceness against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran has remade the Middle East for the better. Trump is clearly in synch with this forceful approach. That prudent use of force along with continued advances in the alliance of Israel with the Arab states may well become Trump's decisive contribution to world peace.
Reinhold Niebuhr: Private and Public Morality
We learned from Niebuhr that, for a Christian, public morality (the policy of a government) is different from that of the individual. For example, a person might be pacifist and prefer his own death to taking that of another. But a father could hardly surrender his wife and children to a homicidal assailant out of an aversion to the use of lethal force. Likewise with the state: it is required by its very nature to defend the innocent, including use of lethal force. Personal decisions are ALWAYS finally unambiguous morally: in every situation there is a right thing to do. But policy decisions, which are comprehensive/abstract rather than concrete/situational, are always complicated, ambiguous and endlessly consequential in unexpected manners. In a personal situation, my conscience, if well-informed and prudent and sober, will direct me, however fallibly and provisionally. But with policy there is an entirely different moral and prudential calculus. We cannot apply a personal kind of moralism to the complexities of policy. This reasoning applies to all policy but especially to the use of lethal force (which is distinct from violence) in policing, war and the death penalty.
Inherent Evils
Catholic ethics is not relativistic, situational or consequentialist in that it sees some acts as inherently evil, by way of their form or nature, regardless of intention or circumstances. This includes adultery, blasphemy, abortion, and deliberate killing of the innocent. This clear, simple principle becomes clouded by the Hamas policy of embedding themselves with civilians. By classic reasoning, a lethal strike that inevitably and directly kills innocents is not acceptable. Arguably, Israel by prewarning civilians to leave the area to be attacked has taken proper precautions. Also, as stated above, Palestinian civilians are in some degree complicit with Hamas and to that extent not protected.
Double Standard?
Nevertheless, with my Catholic conscience I would probably have to object to the level of civilian casualties, women and children, in Gaza. Yet, I am reticent to issue a moral judgement against Israel. First of all, I am not in their situation, their battle for survival. Secondly, while the principles of the natural law, including the just war, are binding for all people, in this extreme situation I hesitate to apply them so righteously. I would hold a self-consciously Catholic or Christian government to a higher standard. Compared with the Jewish and Muslim faiths, we have a more rigorous ethic of forgiveness of the enemy and the brotherhood of all humans. I cannot hold either group to the high bar of morality demanded, even in public as different from private morality, that we hold for ourselves as disciples of Christ.
Humanitarian Aid
Another issue entirely is the withholding of aid...food, water, medicine, electricity...from the Gazans. This adds a new level of devastation that arguably does move towards genocide. If I would tolerate Israel in their use of lethal force against Hamas, I could not accept the prevention of humanitarian assistance. It may be true that much of this aid is helping Hamas to survive and fight. Nevertheless, the toll of starvation, dehydration, and sickness imposed upon the broader populace cannot be justified.
On this issue, it is my view that the President of the USA is obliged to draw a definite, firm red line: prevention of such aid will incur the suspension of our assistance to the state. This is a strong position but is, in my view, morally obligatory.
Conclusion
As a Catholic I cherish a special love for the Jewish people. As an American I respect them as an ally and defender of democracy and the freedoms. Regarding Zionism and Israel's policies and practices I of course reserve freedom of opinion. With the Trump diplomacy I hope for a strengthening of the Israel alliance with the Sunni states and a diminished Iran. Regarding the Israeli use of force, including civilian casualties, I reserve judgment due to the complexity of the situation. But the withdrawal of humanitarian aid is not morally acceptable. On this we as a nation cannot be complicit.
No comments:
Post a Comment