|
The
debate over the "code of ethics" that is supposed to act as a
guideline for the army in its war on terrorism continues to heat up.
The participants don't balk at using blunt language to sharpen the
dilemma: Is the attempt to preen oneself with moral principles in
the course of conducting violence that is flagrantly immoral a case
of hypocrisy aimed at cleansing the conscience - or is the violent
situation fomenting a situation of moral twilight, in which any
attempt to cope with the ambiguity is preferable to an
all-or-nothing approach?
As
the debate rages, we have learned that the army is also busy at work
formulating an "ethical code for proper behavior at checkpoints" and
has even laid down a new, "humane" policy that will facilitate
things for the Palestinians, who will enjoy an improved
infrastructure at the checkpoints and will have the benefit of
manpower that speaks their language. The commanders of the School of
Military Law of the Israel Defense Forces have discovered that the
separation fence, too, needs an ethical approach, as its ongoing
operation requires "human assistance" from soldiers, and they face
moral dilemmas.
So
many "codes of ethics" are being written that it's all too possible
that the members of the military will find themselves adrift when
they try to figure out what's permitted and what's forbidden. There
is no doubt that this feverish preoccupation with formulating a
moral guide for the bewildered reflects the distress of the
formulators and their superiors, both because they are truly
disturbed by the serious departures from the rules of ethics that
are occurring in the territories, and because they are concerned
about the image of the IDF as a "moral, humane army." In short, they
are continuing with the classic Israeli occupation: shooting and
crying.
How ironic it is that the profound moral crisis into which the
Israeli society has been plunged by the occupation and the
suppression of millions of people is reflected not in accusatory ads
published by the human rights group B'Tselem, but in the reports
initiated by army sources about "ethical initiatives." And the more
the events in the territories multiply - the arbitrariness and the
acts of collective punishment, the "targeted assassinations," the
house demolitions and the uprooting of fruit groves, the "arrest of
individuals wanted for questioning" - the more the clauses of the
"codes of ethics" multiply, according to an iron rule: It's not the
actual measures that are undertaken that are subject to an ethical
test, but only some of their results.
The
measures themselves - however illegal they may be under humanitarian
international law - are ostensibly obligated by "the reality that
the terrorists have forced on us" and therefore are not to be
considered in terms of moral dilemmas but in terms of "our very
survival." And we will try to cope with the results of our actions
on the basis of a rule formulated in these words: "In cases where
the conclusion is that the damage is significantly greater than the
benefit, the attack should not be carried out, and alternatives
should be sought" (Yuval Yoaz, "Rules of behavior during an armed
conflict - Version 1.0," Haaretz, March 10). "Damage and benefit" -
when the lives of small children are at stake - is of course a
formula that, in the view of the authors of the document, sits with
the principles of classical ethical thought. The perpetual claim of
a "ticking bomb" is meant to silence any ethical consideration.
The
argument that the occupation is not ethical and therefore every
action deriving from it cannot be ethical, either, is rejected
because, supposedly, the question of the occupation and the "war of
the settlements" is a political one and therefore not relevant to
the ethical question. But what about the "codes of ethics" of the
checkpoints and the fence? First you establish a system of dozens of
checkpoints - which, according to testimony by IDF commanding
officers themselves, are worthless from the security point of view,
their only goal being to placate the settlers and act as means of
collective punishment. And afterward you lay down an "ethical code"
and suitable arrangements to consolidate this travesty. The army
builds an arbitrary and aggressive separation fence along a route
that is the very epitome of the immoral; and then, when the wrong
done to hundreds of thousands of people is exposed, the army
suddenly discovers that it has to formulate an "ethical code" that
will make it possible for schoolchildren to get to school and for
sick people to get to hospitals.
Indeed, a university degree is needed to understand evil and to lay
down what morality obliges us to do. The hypocritical attempts to
create "codes of ethics" for acts that are illegal and immoral is
intended to cloak a brutal, cynical and manipulative system in a
mantle of respectability. This system is taking advantage of the
naivete of people who are sensitive to moral values and who believe
that any improvement is for the better, even if the entire system is
arbitrary and bad. The "shooting and crying" syndrome has
contributed to the consolidation of hypocrisy, which allows us to
continue with the bad deeds while professing belief in "the
rightness of the way." The time has come to put an end to this.
|
