Eureka Street has published many articles critical of Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Palestine, including my own. Mihal Greener’s passionate yet eirenical exploration of the Israeli perspective provides a view that is both different and welcome. It invites a serious response.
Her article is challenging because she not only enables the reader to better understand an Israeli perspective, but insists that to do so is essential if one is to pass moral judgments on Israel’s policy, and the execution of this policy. She reminds us that moral analysis without empathy for those on whose actions you are passing judgment is a repelling moralism. Her moving representation of Israeli attitudes brings home how difficult it is to enter the inner world of people whose history, predicament, ethnic and religious identity you do not share. The chastening conclusion, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, might be that "whereof one cannot feel oneself part, thereof one must be silent". Certainly, silence would be preferable to a response that cited the sufferings of the people of Lebanon and Palestine, as if these made morally insignificant the sufferings of Israelis.
I agree with Mihal’s implied argument, that to enter fully the history, the predicament and the constant beleaguerment and rejection of the Israeli people is an essential part of moral reflection on this war. I think that she would agree that empathy is neither a substitute for moral reflection, nor that by itself it is a totally adequate response. If we respect people fully, we expect that, in whatever situation they find themselves, they will ask themselves as persons and as a nation what it is right for them to do. Our answer to that question will be based on acknowledgment of shared humanity and respect for the human dignity both of ourselves, and of those with whom we are in conflict.
Parenthetically, I wonder if the widespread criticism of the actions of Israel, as of the United States, comes not out of disrespect for these nations, but from high expectations. We demand more of those who have a high historical and rhetorical respect for humanity and for moral seriousness.
I would set the discussion about proportionality, introduced by Ms. Greener, in this moral context. Although international criticism of Israel’s military actions as disproportionate has mainly been framed in legal terms, the requirement of proportionality is morally based. International law demands that the conduct of war (ius in