The Danger of Moral Equivalency thinking

In the complex realm of international conflicts, seeking a simplified narrative that paints all parties with the same brush is often tempting, leading to the dangerous notion of moral equivalency. We saw this on the weekend rallies by Palestine supporters marching and chanting death to Israel in Melbourne and Sydney. Politicians, police and the media chose moral equivalency. 

This concept suggests that both sides in a conflict are equally responsible for the violence and suffering without delving into the nuances and historical context of the situation. One case where this myth often surfaces is in discussions about the Hamas attack on Israel.

Understanding the Conflict

The conflict between Israel and Hamas has deep historical and political roots that extend far beyond the headlines. It is vital to recognize the complex backdrop against which these incidents occur. The modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to the early 20th century, and its root causes include land disputes, national aspirations, and a history of violence.

Hamas, a Palestinian political and military organization, took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. Since then, the region has seen frequent conflict, including rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli territory and Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Hamas’s stance on Israel isn’t very nuanced.

They reject Israel’s existence: Hamas has consistently and officially rejected the existence of the State of Israel. Its charter, adopted in 1988 and often cited to outline its principles, states that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.”

Resistance and Armed Struggle: Hamas believes in armed resistance as a means to achieve its goals, including the liberation of Palestine from what it considers Israeli occupation. It views the armed struggle as a legitimate response to Israeli actions and policies in the region.

No Negotiations or Recognition: Hamas has historically refused to engage in direct negotiations with Israel or recognize Israel’s right to exist. It opposes peace processes, such as the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution, and has criticized the Palestinian Authority’s (Fatah’s) approach to negotiations.

Religious and Ideological Motivations: Hamas’s stance is influenced by its Islamic ideology, which sees the conflict with Israel in religious and ideological terms. It envisions establishing an Islamic state in historic Palestine and perceives its struggle as part of a broader Islamic and Palestinian cause.

While Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, governs the West Bank. These divisions within the Palestinian territories further complicate efforts to achieve a unified stance and negotiate with Israel.

The Myth of Moral Equivalency

Moral equivalency is a concept in ethics and political discourse that suggests comparing two actions, situations, or entities as equally or similarly morally right or wrong despite significant differences in their nature, context, or consequences. 

Many speak out against Israel, using past actions as a prelude to today's actions. One alarming article from the “Jewish Voice for Peace” entitled “The Root of Violence is Oppression” waves every accusation of Israel as truth and then draws a straight line toward excusing violence from Hamas. 

And, of course, the ABC's subtle but ignorant commentary, we all deserve liberation, safety, and equality. 

Regardless of your level of support for Israel, you simply cannot make the moral equivalence and justify the naked terrorism we are seeing. Here’s why.

Intent Matters: It is crucial to distinguish between intent and capability. While it is undeniable that both sides possess the means to cause harm, their intentions significantly differ. 

Hamas has consistently called for the destruction of Israel and uses civilian areas in Gaza to launch attacks, putting Palestinian civilians in danger. On the other hand, Israel seeks to protect its citizens from rocket attacks.

Asymmetrical Power: The myth of moral equivalency ignores the significant power imbalance between the two parties. Israel, a recognized state with a well-equipped military, faces an organization in Hamas that often operates from densely populated areas, intentionally using civilians as shields. The ABC did not call this strategy out. 

Efforts to Minimize Civilian Casualties: Israel has made considerable efforts to minimize civilian casualties during its military operations, even issuing warnings before airstrikes. In contrast, Hamas deliberately places its weaponry in densely populated areas, putting Palestinian civilians at risk.

Violation of International Law: The indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilian areas violate international law. On the other hand, Israel aims its strikes at military targets and takes precautions to avoid unnecessary harm to civilians. We learned that a hospital bombing was not Israel but Hamas. Why? You know the answer.

While civilian suffering in any conflict is tragic, recognizing the factors that lead to violence and differentiating between aggressor and defender is vital for a balanced assessment.

It is vital to encourage peaceful resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promote dialogue, and work towards a lasting and equitable peace for all parties involved. 

The myth of moral equivalency should be debunked to allow for a more constructive and informed discussion about this challenging issue, with the ultimate goal of achieving peace in the region.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”