Moral authority means what exactly?

I serve as a moderator for an email discussion group. As such, I view my role as a neutral facilitator of discussion, despite my own personal view or mastery of the facts (that may differ from the submitter).

The topic or issue that creates the greatest degree of "excitement" and activity revolves around Israel and its relationship with its Palestinian neighbours and citizens. The style of discourse may be best described as shrill and highly reliant on hand-picked facts and suppositions.

For the record, I am troubled by the treatment and level of services Israel (as the State/ Government) provides its non-Jewish residents and especially citizens. Not only is their municipal services ("city hall") and infrastructure less supported--sewage, roads, solid waste/garbage, school system--though they pay their taxes, they are also subjected to harassment. Bedouin are forced to live in Israeli designated areas and when they choose to live where they want they're informed they're living in an illegal area and denied all government services. And, this is done in spite of the high level of enlistment in the IDF.

Those living under either Palestinian rule--the Palestinian Authority [PA] in the "West Bank" or Hamas in Gaza--or, under direct Israeli control, I believe need to be treated as human beings, but with suspicion. Until the Palestinians engage in serious efforts to curb their anti-Israel/ Semitic rhetoric and behaviour, actively stop and pursue those engaging in terrorist acts against Israel and Jews and work towards the achievement and realization of a two state solution.

A recent thread, this one regarding the accusation that Israel used white phosphorus during the Gaza War, went like this:

"A" wrote:

>… some members of Yedidya vilified the IDF for alleged barbarities. I appreciate that we are to be judged by a higher standard than our terrorist neighbors but I see very few of those members who are at the vanguard of criticizing Zahal speaking out every time a terrorist crime of humanity is done by Hamas against Israeli citizens

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Barbarities committed by the I.D.F. are a moral issue for me; I am not vilifying the I.D.F. but rather taking responsibility for my own side. Barbarities committed by Hamas are a practical, not a moral, issue for me.

In response, "B" wrote:

... I, too, care about moral standards and consider them to be an integral part of my Jewishness and observance of the mitzvot.

Unfortunately, to conduct a military campaign against an enemy that is not comprised of an organized and structured army ... and which does not conduct itself according to some mutually accepted and recognized code to which we also might adhere, it's virtually impossible to fight according to some higher moral code that both parties do not recognize. I believe that their code is to kill, maim, and dismember as many men, women and children as they possibly can, without regard to combatant status. They purposely target hospitals, ambulances, cafes, restaurants, schools, nurseries, old age homes, hotels, etc. They then seek refuge in and hide in those same institutions, knowing that we won't target them. You simply
cannot deter a determined enemy under those conditions.

Returning once again to the old WW II analogy, the German and Japanese peoples, as represented by their governments, were unwilling to cease and desist from the mayhem they undertook to unleash on the civilian populations of the free world until they finally came to understand, late in the war, that the allied forces really would conduct what would otherwise be considered immoral reprisals against the populations of Germany and Japan, like the firebombing of Dresden that murdered scores of thousands of men, women and children, and the total destruction unleashed by the 2 atomic bombs on the civilian populations of Japan. Only then were they able to understand that the allies were determined to continue the wholesale and wanton destruction of their countries and populations, and that if they didn't surrender unconditionally, they would simply cease to be, i.e., they would all be dead. The results, as you know, are apparent today, i.e., we don’t all speak German, and we Jews are free to pontificate and agonize and moralize and beat our collective breasts about how horribly we conduct ourselves on the field of battle against an amorphous, implacable, immoral enemy. So, yes, I DO care about what Hamas and Hizb’allah do, and I believe that unfortunately we need to respond in kind.

In in response to the analogy to World War II, "A" then wrote:

The relevant analogy is not the mass killing of civilians but the wise decision of the Allies to rebuild occupied Germany and Japan so that they would become the stable democracies they are today. If Israel, instead of colonizing the captured territories, had been wise enough to decide in 1967 to foster (with international support) a democratic and stable Palestine, we would all be more secure and prosperous today.

The underlying assumption of "A" seems to be that Jews/Israelis are expected to confirm to a higher standard than other countries adhere to in times of war.

• Higher than other countries adhered to during WW2, which later was seen as a needed (possibly even morally and ethically) step to end the war more quickly.
• Without regard to actual conditions on the ground. A terrorist or guerrilla is due the same degree of protection as a civilian. Only uniformed soldiers are "open targets." Conducting a war purposely, from densely populated civilian centres or neutral locations (e.g. hospitals, schools, NGO offices or buildings) means that no military response is permitted. Such behaviour is to be condoned.

War is hell and those who enter it, all the more so those who initiate it, must understand its costs and be willing to pay them. Not go running around complaining how they are being bullied.

Lastly, the response to the analogy also ignores the actual facts and context of the Six Day War (1967) in which Israel acquired the additional (Palestinian) territories.

Unlike in the case of Japan and Germany who agreed to an unconditional surrender and openly (if that's not too strong a term) embraced the rebuilding efforts of the (former) Allied victor countries/forces, the Arab countries outright rejected an rapprochement with Israel. When one side refuses to recognize the existence of the other, it's near impossible to arrive at any kind of accommodation to rebuild the society/economy.

Following the Israeli military victory and Israel (unity) government's declaration (on June 19, 1967) that it was ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria, Sinai to Egypt and most of the West Bank to Jordan, in return for peace treaties with its Arab neighbors, normalization of relations and guarantee of navigation through the Straits of Tiran (and that the refugee problem would be solved by resettlement outside the borders of the State of Israel),the Arab League met in Khartoum Sudan for a summit at the end of summer (29 Aug - 1 Sept. 1967) to address its next steps. It issued the Khartoum Resolutions which has been described as the "3 Nos"--NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel and NO negotiations with it.

The implications of this was far-reaching. Conciliatory voices in both Israel and the Arab countries were muted (and possibly even stifled). It would take 20 years for an Arab country, Egypt, to conduct peace talks with Israel. Israel would launch a settlement program to establish "facts on the ground." Refugees would continue to live in the squalor of refugee camps loosing hope of ever returning and denied citizenship in their new host country.

The Khartoum resolutions weakened conciliatory voices in the Israeli government, and legitimized those voice who were calling for annexation of the conquered territories and Jewish settlement in them. They argued that in any case, it was clear that the Arabs would not make peace in the near future, and that the settlements would establish "facts on the ground" (a literal translation of a Hebrew phrase that means fait accompli) and would pressure Arab governments and Palestinians to make peace. Consequently, on September 24, the unity government led by PM Levi Eshkol, under [political] pressure ... announced plans for the re-establishment of a Jewish community in the Old City of Jerusalem (exiled in 1948 by the Jordan Legion) of the Etzion Bloc (kibbutzim on the Bethlehem-Hebron road wiped out by Palestinian in the war of 1948)and for kibbutzim in the northern sector of the Golan Heights. Plans were also unveiled for new neighborhoods around Jerusalem, near the old buildings of Hebrew University, and near the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. This phase of the settlement plan was well within Israeli the consensus.

The rest is, as they say, history. The settlements have expanded well beyond the Jerusalem corridor, the terrorism has been active, and the rejection and delegitimization of Israel has continued unabated. If there's going to any positive movement towards true peace and mutual respect, we must relate to the history and seek to distort or ignore it because it's inconvenient to our case/ideological mindset.