Last Shabbat in the synagogue, we had an open discussion about the situation in Syria. This was before the developments of the beginning of the week, the possibility of securing chemical weapons away from the Assad regime. One of the ways I framed the issue is in terms of the Jewish mandate of "Never Again." What is required of us, in the face of either especially horrible weapons of mass destruction, or the systematic slaughter of civilians by a tyrant? As Jews, we carry a special responsibility, a responsibiilty that we have taken on.
Not everyone defines that responsibility the same way. Some say that "Never Again" refers specifically to genocide against an ethnic or religious minority. Others, and I am in this group, would define this more widely: brutality by a regime or a power against any civilian opposition group. We don't as America have the power always to put a stop to it, but we cannot stand by silently. I think the world of 2013 is a different world from 1939, at least because the world is revolted by murderers like Assad and trying to act, even if it's in a stumbling way.
Here are some examples of people trying to work out the moral implications of that responsibility.
- Last year, Elie Wiesel wrote a short piece about Syria, before chemical weapons became the main issue. I note it more for his moral stand that we cannot do nothing, than anything else.
- This Sunday, Nicholas Kristoff argued that Syria has become the "world capital of human suffering" at the current time. Again, he wrote when the options were only doing nothing or an American strike.
- Of course, the President of the United States made a moral case as well last night.
As citizens, it is important to keep as well informed as we can be, to keep watch on our representatives. I don't expect all of us to know enough about the policy details to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of one tactic over another. Our moral stance, though, is important — it's the threshold question that frames the specific action choices.
People have asked me how it is reasonable or ethical to respond to the killing of 1,000 people with an act that could kill hundreds or even thousands, or lead to a wider war. To me, the answer is that we don't measure human life that way. Once you allow that fighting can sometimes be justified, then there is in fact an ethics of war. The most important distinction is between soldiers and innocents, people who are legitimate targets of force and those who are not. A regime whose military massacres civilians is certainly open to an attack on its own military. That's not to say that their deaths don't matter, to us or to God, or that they shouldn't be minimized if possible. But the goals of punishing and deterring a mass murderer are ethical goals.
The best resource for thinking about the ethics of war is the writings of Michael Walzer, and American political philosopher who is also Jewish. His major work is a book called Just and Unjust Wars, and he has other writings as well.
To know what the Israeli leadership is thinking, it's good to keep an eye on the Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz and Yediot Acharonot. In general, Prime Minister Netanyahu's stance is that the risk of retaliation by Syria against Israel is worthwhile, because not acting in some way would give a green light to Iran to develop its nuclear weapons targeted at Israel.
Leave a Reply