In the wake of renewed violence in Gaza, U.N. Secretary General, Ba Ki-moon praised Palestinian leaders for "exercising restraint" in the face of Israel's retaliatory strikes against Hamas. At the same time, he lectured Israel for taking action to stop Hamas. He went on to opine that "[t]his is one of the most critical tests the region has faced in years...The deteriorating situation is leading to a downward spiral which could get quickly beyond anyone's control."
In stark contrast to those statements, Ba Ki-moon warned the U.S. and the west against military strikes on ISIS in Iraq, because it might "show the Sunni extremists" that the "U.S. and Baghdad are working together."
Approximately 12 hours ago, ISIS seized 88 pounds of uranium from a research facility in Northern Iraq. What it was doing there is anyone's guess.
As the entire middle east is about to go up in flames, the world is still fiddling with the idea that all sides must exercise restraint. The problem is, when one side is the aggressor and the other is the victim, "restraint" necessarily compromises only the victim. A victim exercises restraint by surrendering to the aggressor. The aggressor exercises restraint by keeping what it took and then showing mercy to the victim.
There are two things that are fueling instability, not just in the middle east, but in eastern Europe as well: (1) Selective Outrage; and (2) moral equivalency. Selective outrage is advocacy. There should be no mistake about that. When a leader, in this case the Secretary General of the United Nations, condemns violence against Hamas and ISIS, he is choosing sides. In both cases, he is choosing the side of the aggressor. When he calls for "both sides" to "exercise restraint" after aggression has already occurred, he is sanctioning the new status quo and, by extension, the means through which the aggressor achieved its goal. In other words, if the victim agrees to exercise restraint, the aggressor's gains remain intact.
Hamas and ISIS are both large, well organized, terrorist groups. They are both bent on the destruction of Israel and the west. ISIS has the added distinction of wanting to destroy Mecca and all other Muslims who do not accept their version of Sharia law. In fact, Al Qaeda kicked ISIS out of the terrorist club for being too violent.
Which leads me to the concept of "moral equivalency." The world is a violent place. It will probably always be a violent place. While it is good that we strive for and work towards world peace, it is not going to happen in our lifetimes, and we cannot use "world peace" as an excuse to avoid confronting aggression. It has been fashionable for some time now to deconstruct morality to such an extent that all causes are considered equal. To be considered a modern thinker, one has to view the causes of Hamas, the Palestinians and Israel as equal. The causes of ISIS and other Muslims are all equal, just like the causes of Russia and the Ukraine. Quite simply, these causes are not equivalent.
Natural law dictates that when a group is attacked, it has a right to defend itself. There is no requirement that a victim surrender and, in fact, surrender is very rare. Our concept of natural law evolved in the aftermath of two world wars and the Holocaust to include the use of force in the defense of a victim. While not always a popular use of force, when terrorists in Africa seize a group of schoolgirls, we see the use of force as justified.
Here, the Israelis are justified in using force to stop Hamas from launching missiles into its schools. Iraqi Shiites are entitled to use force to stop ISIS from oppressing and killing its people. Ukraine is justified in using force to expel Russian operatives who are destabilizing the country. The United States is justified in using drones to blow up terrorists who are plotting to kill Americans. The world is entitled to use force to kill men that kidnap school girls to keep as sex slaves in Africa.
Treating the victims, aggressors and bystanders as moral equals does nothing but invite more violence. World peace can only be achieved when aggression is recognized for what it is, condemned and then forced to retreat.
No comments:
Post a Comment