Hassan Nasralla and the Universal Nature of Selective Morality

Some events in one's life, as much as in humanity's conscience, are demarcation lines where what is right is clear, and what is wrong is clear.  Individuals and societies decide for themselves on which side of the demarcation line they would stand.  And their choice will be registered in the collective conscience of history.

We are witnessing some of these events that have been evolving over the last few months.  And many, or most, of us - individuals and societies - are choosing sides based on anything other than transient interests and obvious material gains.  Yet, most of us, like to present the choice as a 'moral choice'.

The latest in the long line up of  'selective and expedient morality' is Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah.

In the middle of the blood shed of unarmed Arab and Muslim Syrians seeking a glimpse of freedom from one of the most inhumane and police regimes in the Middle East, the Syrian Baath Dictatorship, in the middle of this, Hassan Nasrallah come out to align himself with the oppressors in Damascus.

Amending the Ten Commandments: Thou Shall Not Criticize Israel

The title on Haaretz front-page online few days ago read: "Zionist group bans Goldstone from grandson's bar mitzvah"

Judge Richard Goldstone is a Jewish South African internationally respected jurist who made the grave mistake of accepting to write a report on the crimes committed by Israel and Hamas during the bloody Gaza War over a year ago in which over 1500 Palestinians were killed, more than two thirds of them children and civilians.

The opinion of Goldstone has put blame on both Israel and Hamas for crimes they did. That did not fly well with either group, but Israel has a strong reach and loud mouth, supported by its loud mouth chorus allover the world that pledge loyalty to the clan more than to the truth.

so, naturally he has been vilified ever since his critical report by all pro-Israel groups. The latest and the most nauseating action against him is what triggered this posting.

He has been 'barred' by pro-Israel group from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah, a major religious event for Jewish boys indicating the coming of age. It is a very important event in the life of the boy and his family. Here are some excepts from the Haaretz article:

Judge Richard Goldstone, who authored a damning report accusing Israel of committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip, has reportedly been banned by pro-Israel activists from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah in his native South Africa.
".... the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) and the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol in Sandton reached an agreement with the Goldstone family under which the judge would not be permitted to attend the synagogue service in Johannesburg next month. "
The head of South Africa's Beth Din - or Jewish religious court - told the blog the court had not been officially involved in the matter, but that he supported the move as it spoke to the sentiments of many in the community .
... Kurstag said he believed Goldstone had done "a tremendous disservice not only to Israel but to the Jewish world. His name is used by hostile elements in the world against Israel and this can increase anti-Semitic waves."

One would imagine that someone with the title of "Head of Jewish Court" would act more like a judge with some commitment to truth and honesty, and not as a head of a self-centered and bigotted clan. But obviously that is too much to expect from him.

The behavior of that group, and many pro-Israel groups demonstrated intense ethnocentric fervor that in many case cannot be distinguished from racism. Why do I say that? Because a basic element of racism is a sense of uniqueness that entitles you and your group to be judged differently compared to other groups. You feel automatically that you deserve benefits, protection and special privileges just because you belong to the 'special group'.
Frequently what accompanies that sense of you being special is the sense that the others are out to get you just because you are special.

As a result, wrongdoings you or your group may be accused of should not even be mentioned by your own group members or others, because either:

1. You simply do not commit any wrongdoings. The others are only picking on you because you are special, hence the charge of anti-Semitism against non-Jews who are critical of Israel.
2. Wrongdoings you are charged with may be true, but you did it only because the others - with their 'hatred for you and your clan' - forced you to do it.
(Remember Golda Meir saying: I hate Arabs because they make us kill their kids”).
3. And even if your clan committed wrongdoings, and even if you could not find a way to use ‘the others made me do it’ argument, no one should talk about your wrongdoings, especially your own people, because it only re-enforces for the others that you and your clan make mistakes. That may open the door to holding you accountable - something you will not accept because you are special.

The label ‘Self-hating Jew’ that Judge Goldstone received before has, for long time been the standard charge against righteous Jews who dare to speak the truth about Israel (for example, Richard Silverstein, Normal Finkelstein, Anna Baltzer, and many others - see their website link below). Even Obama’s aids, Rehm Emmanuel and David Axelrod, received that honor for apparently taking their loyalty to the USA seriously and for advising the president in a way that did not seem whole-heartedly pro occupation, pro illegal settlements and pro Arab land grab.

The so-called head of Jewish Court, Kurstag, went on to say what I think his most sick and nauseating statement:

"I understand that he [Goldstone] is a judge, but he should have had the sense to understand that whatever he said wouldn't be good and he should have just recused himself. "

If the head of a Jewish ‘court' thinks like that, you can only imagine what kind of bigoted clan he is part of.

What is worse is that by the standard that the Jewish Court head prefers, Jews everywhere should recuse themselves before making decisions that may not be in Israel favor, even if they think it is the honest and right decision to make.

If one applies that standard to our government in the US , and considering how many Jews are in our congress, cabinet, military, National Security Council, White House high position, wouldn't that tantamount accepting that Jews will always have doubtful loyalty to their homelands, with Israel receiving their primary - if not the only - loyalty they have?

Would not that be called flagrant antisemitism? Only, in this case, it has the seal of approval of a head of a Jewish Court.

Khaled

Links:
'Paranoid' Netanyahu Calls Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel 'Self-hating Jews'- Hiffington Post
Report: Zionist group bans Goldstone from grandson's bar mitzvah - Haaretz - Israel News

Web sites of Righteous Jews that regularly receive the honor of being labeled self-hating Jews for being honest:
Tikun Olam (Richard silverstein)
Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Anna in the Middle East (Anna Baltzer)
Jews Against the Occupation
Norman G. Finkelstein

Finally, something that unites religions of the world

05.29.2008
By Khaled Hamid

Special to the Post-Dispatch

Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!

A major and an unusual event took place earlier today uniting people from ALL major religions of the world. Look at this list of diverse nations that agreed on that one thing: US (Western Christianity), Russia (Eastern Christianity), China (Buddhism/atheism), India (Hinduism), Pakistan (Islam), and Israel (Judaism). Any lucky guesses what brought the disparate parties together?

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. I am not talking about prospects of world peace, abolition of poverty or God revealing Himself to all humanity. I am talking about little flying things that go by the ‘cute’ name of bomblets.
I know this is not a political blog but the list of those countries, covering all major world belief systems, uniting behind anything makes religion somehow come to my mind.
Some of you may know by now that earlier on Wednesday, 111 nations have approved in Dublin a treaty banning the use, manufacturing, distribution, and selling of cluster bombs. These horrible weapons are considered indiscriminate, they cover wide areas that tend to include civilians and, moreover, they have high failure rates (see photo below).

The unexploded 10% of the hundreds of bomblets released from each cluster bomb just lay there, waiting for civilians coming back to war-torn areas after the war is over. The bomblets tend to have bright color, attracting children who make a significant fraction of the post-hostilities victims in areas carpet-bombed by cluster devices. Hundreds of civilians are still being reported injured, maimed or killed since the end of Kosovo/Serbian war, the 2006 Israel war in Lebanon, and, believe it or not, in Vietnam still.
It would seem, then, that the ban on cluster bombs is a reason for celebration and cause to unite behind. It definitely has a pretty good moral foundation. But that is NOT what united those 6 countries. They united behind NOT approving it. They simply refused to be part of the negotiations. They opted out.
The reason, as some observer mentioned, is that those countries are the largest manufacturers and/or stockpilers of those horrible devices. Why would they waste a perfectly good bomb?
Money was the main reason the British military objected early on. But the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, took the decision to ban cluster bomb use by the UK, overriding his military, in a move that pushed the treaty beyond the final hurdles and got it approved. He felt that the 80 million or so dollars to be wasted were a minor sacrifice considering the harm done by these weapons.
The British PM was quoted saying that the ban was “in line with British interests and values, and makes the world a safer place.”
Hats off to Mr. Brown, who had his priorities right this time.
As for the objecting nations, nothing is new there. Throughout history, the mighty buck has proven a strong rival to deities of all kinds.
That is probably why the question ‘what would Jesus do?’ - or its equivalent in other religions - has never been frequently or seriously contemplated in making decisions in business, politics or war.
I am opposed to making religion a gold standard in the public arena, but shouldn’t morality be part of the decision making process for all of us?
Additional links:
Cluster bombs explained - The Guardian
111 Nations, Minus the U.S., Agree to Cluster-Bomb Ban - The Washington Post
Turnabout key to cluster bomb ban - LATimes

When morality hurts

Moral value systems of any universal significance - for the less cynical among us, anyway - seem to go against the grain of our survival instinct. 'Survival for the fittest' is the rule as we all have heard. Yet our moral code tells us that we may be strong, but we should not dominate. We may be powerful, but we should not oppress. And even though we may in the majority, we should not strip the minority of its rights. And even when it was no us that took away, stole or abused the weak and the less fortunate, our moral code still makes us feel so responsible that if an illegitimate endeavor bring us benefit, we feel obliges not to enjoy it, and morally compelled to reject illegitimately obtained benefits.
Moral individuals in pre-civil rights America and apartheid South Africa fought the same system that entitled them to great privileges. Nothing is more beautiful than a human being fighting for someone else's right, fully aware that their own success in their fight will only make them and their children less powerful, less rich or less privileged.
These thoughts came to my mind as I was reading an article on YNet (the online version of the Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot). In summary,

..... A good, ethical Israeli Jew, does not even buy produce or eggs originating from a West Bank settlement. He has no problems dealing with Arabs, and interacts with them equitably, humanely and with no sense of supremacy.
Then he discovers the truth: his own home is built on land owned by Palestinians who ran away fearing for their lives in 1948. He is told this painful truth by one of those Palestinians, sitting in front of him in his house.
The Israeli Jew was not even born then. He did not know that bit of truth, and the Arab is resigned to what destiny dictated on him. Yet, the living pain he sees in the soul of one of the dispossessed people shakes his moral core, and will haunt him for the rest of is life. What should he do?

If we can put aside for a while all the intense feelings almost all of us have about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it is possible to see how the creation of a state from scratch in the span of less than a century is an amazing sociological experiment. Not even considering the economic, military, political, linguistic and other problems of such an adventure, the ethical and moralistic aspects of such a creation are astounding. Nearly all nations were established on the losses of pre-existing nations. But, none have done so over a short period of time that a fully established country is contemporary to the first generation of those who were dispossessed by its creation.
This posting is not meant to bash Israel, but to reflect on the moral dilemma facing some Israelis who come to the realization that their parents and grandparents, while having worked hard and sacrificed to give them the country they have great privilege living in, they have done so at the expense of individuals that are still alive- Palestinians that are still haunted by the memories of their losses. This is very different from being an American that feels for the injustices done to native Americans or African slaves centuries ago. In Israel, if you feel the pain of those dispossessed by your parents, you also know that the pain is not in the past, is not history, it is an every day reality for some of those people.
To be honest, I do not know how I would feel if I were in their situation. And if I felt bad, what would I do? Or even, what could I do? When correcting a wrong - that we did not even participate in - means we would lose everything, how many of us, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhist, etc, would have the courage to give up what our lives and existence is made of just to make things right?
To you, my few readers, let me pause this question: you are the lucky grandchild of a wealthy man. You get married, and rich grandpa gives you the house of your dreams. You live a wonderful family life, get blessed with 2 lovely children, help your neighbors, worship God faithfully in you own way, and feel good about all fellow humans. Then lighting strikes.
You discover that your loving grandpa, now in heaven, have earned his living by dealing in drugs. The particular piece of land your home sweet home was built on was extorted from the widow of one of your grandpa's over-dose victims; who happened to owe him a lot of money. In such an extreme form, this situations sounds like a cheap B- movie (or a sleazy daytime soap opera if you like). But if you think of a less extreme, and less dramatic, situation, the dilemma could still exists.
Grandpa (or grandma) could be an abusive exploitive employer, a doctor that takes advantage of his patients health issues, an insurance sales person that over-prices and over-hypes the insurance policies he sells, or even an eloquent car sales person that earns a good living passing 'lemons' for used cars to unsuspecting buyers. The dilemma is still the same for you - and you are still on the privileged side, courtesy of the family-loving, yet not ethical grandpa.
What would you do - really? No posturing or 'grand standing' type answers please.
Now, imagine you are on the other side of the fence - the dispossessed side. Does your answer change?
Be honest to yourself above all. Only this kind of introspect and honesty can lead us to some understanding of a reasonable compromise that may last long enough for the ink of its draft to dry.To read the thought provoking article click the link below.
Unclaimed property? by Yehuda Litani - on YNetNews.com