The Morality of Fighting Terrorism

Many have argued that the nature of terrorism means that the old tried and tested just war principles no longer matter, as terrorists simply don't play by the rules. Nonsense. There are universal principles of moral justice binding on all people at all time. This kind of justification reminds me of the Bushites' justifications for torture at Abu Ghraib-- well, this is bad, but Saddam was worse. This is not the point.

Anyway, moralist Germain Grisez came up with 6 principles that should guide a response to terrorism. He derived the list in September 2001. They are as relevant today as then. If only he had been listened to...

Anyway, here are his principles (emphasis mine):

1) Terrorism carries out an intention to kill or injure people and/or to destroy or damage things of value in order to instill fear as a motive for desired behavior. Instilling fear so as to motivate desired behavior often is counterproductive, but doing so sometimes is good and even necessary. Yet even if instilling fear is appropriate, terrorism is a morally unacceptable means, just because terrorists intend (though not as their ultimate objective or goal) precisely to kill, injure, destroy and damage.

2) People have at times put an end to isolated individuals´ acts of terrorism by killing them. However, terrorism carried out by members of a widespread group for ideological ends that appeal to extremists in that group presents a far greater challenge. Any possible response is likely to have only limited success at best. Yet when a community undergoing terroristic attack deliberates about how to respond, anger and hatred induce the illusion that very violent responses are likely --and perhaps almost certain -- to succeed.

3) The use of force to prevent terrorism can be justifiable and morally required of those responsible for defending the community. Even deadly force may be used against those one reasonably expects will otherwise continue to pose a grave threat. But force, especially deadly force, must never be used to avenge past acts or as terrorism to prevent terrorism. Such uses of force, even against military forces and assets, are morally unacceptable.

4) Moreover, when stopping terrorism requires the use of force against the activities of terrorists or of people complicit in their terrorism, any foreseeable damage to innocents (that is, people not engaged in those activities) must be no more than what those using the force would think it fair to accept if the innocents were their own friendly associates.

5) Responses to terrorism that are morally unjustifiable also are foolish. They provoke greater and more widespread anger and hatred: seven other demons will take the place of the first, and small atomic bombs will be used instead of hijacked airliners.

6) Even when carried out within proper limits, deadly force against persons cannot be an adequate response to terrorism. A sound response must also include a very serious and sincere effort to improve relationships with less radical members of the group whose interests the terrorists are trying to promote by their bad means. That serious effort at reconciliation must be implemented by economic and political action designed to mitigate suffering and reduce hatred.

A Departure to Fine Dining

We began this blog with the promise to write about a variety of things, not just politics. With 36 entries now posted, I see that reasons-and-opinions is in danger of becoming World Events from a Catholic Perspective by Morning’s Minion!

Well, time to restore order to this site. And what better issue to bring on board than dining out. Last Saturday I had a truly superlative dining experience at Thomas Keller’s per se (4 stars from Frank Bruni of NY Times, 3 stars from the Michelin Guide, No. 8 in the World’s 50-best list) in New York City.

per se is situated at the 5th floor of the Time Warner Centre. It’s a plush, brown-toned dining room with only 16 tables, with a commanding view of Central Park. (Although the view from the 35th floor bar of the Mandarin Oriental, where we had drinks before dinner, is far more amazing). It has been open for only two and a half years, but its popularity has soared and obtaining a reservation has become extremely difficult. My friend had enlisted his Amex concierge to secure the booking for us several months ago, and we were lucky that he delivered.

The three of us arrived promptly at 9:30, and were seated briefly at the very smart parlor, and offered champagne. A few minutes later we sat down for dinner. I will recall some of my strongest impressions of what transpired in the next few hours.

Having read a bit about Thomas Keller’s philosophy, I was not surprised, but nevertheless struck by the utter lack of pretension in the service. The servers, who were astonishingly well informed and appeared to be true food enthusiasts, were warm, unobtrusive, accommodating, courteous, and yet successful at maintaining the aura of seriousness and formality of the place. The sommelier did not lecture, rather engaged us. My two friends, who are connoisseurs of German and Austrian varietals, loved the conversation we had in picking the wines. We ended up getting one bottle my friends knew about (the white, Prager Riesling) and one they did not (the red, Schwarz Zweigelt). The sommelier steered us to the latter by meticulously and passionately describing the kind of notes we could be expecting from it. (Not being a wine connoisseur myself, I will refrain from commenting on them, except that the Schwarz was velvety, bold, and had strong hints of licorice.)

The menu was extensive. One chooses from one of three sets, with one being a vegetarian tasting menu (the NY Times review had raved about it); although we were encouraged to pick items from other menus if so interested. It was officially a nine course meal, but I counted being served a dozen times during the course of the evening!

The amuse bouche would bring a knowing smile to anyone who has read Keller’s book—it was his famous sesame cone filled with salmon tartare and crème fraîche. It was a sensational start to the evening, as with each tiny bite the deep taste of the fish enveloped my mouth, with its oily texture contrasted by the crispy cone and rich crème.

Salmon tartare with a crispy cracker is not exactly a revelation. Many places in DC serve variations of this dish. What singled out per se’s presentation was the flawless execution—from the quality of the fish to the just the right amount of sesame in the cone, from the fresh goodness of the crème to the hint of sea salt in each bite, one simply could not have done this better.

Just about everything that followed that evening reflected this general theme. Barring a course or two, nothing seemed to push the culinary boundary. This was as far as one can get from El Bulli or Mini Bar. Mr. Keller’s goal seems to be at once more modest and exulted. His aim, I feel, is to take the finest ingredients and then push their flavors even further simply yet brilliantly, eschewing complexity in presentation and tastes. Readers of his book know that this does not come easily; what seems simple on the plate goes through excruciating efforts underneath. That’s where the absolute mastery of Mr. Keller lies.

To me, the home run of the evening was the sabayon of tapioca with poached oysters. I normally only care for raw oyster, but here was an amazing exception. The dish worked because the oysters were slightly poached and thus had mellowed a tad bit. Its soft texture however remained, and it hung in balance somewhere in between the softer tapioca and the more aggressive caviar. A triumph of preparation, no less.

The fish course elicited some laughter, as Frank Bruni only last week made light of the ubiquity of Loup de Mer, more commonly known as Branzino or Mediterranean Sea Bass. (see article here). But given that I am doubtful of ever seeing a better balance between the crispy skin and moist flesh, set against the freshest peas and corn imaginable, I will let that issue pass.

And on and on it went. Combining duck with cherry is obvious, as is beef with potato and spinach. But when the execution is this good, it’s like you’re tasting a new dish. The Wagyu brisket, was just an inch cubed, but packed in more flavor than the sixteen ounces at a normal bbq.

The cheese course was breathtakingly good, and although I had eaten for several hours by then, I craved more of the Burrata (with tomato and basil and an amazing olive oil) once I was done. The amount was, of course, just right, as there was more to come. I absolutely don’t like coconut, but could get used to the sorbet served here. I could taste and smell a tropical island in that course.

Perhaps because I was with excellent friends who are also passionate about food, the long array of courses almost flew by. When we were done, it was past 2 AM; we had been there for over four and half hours! We were the last to leave the restaurant, but not once did anyone make us feel as though we were overstaying. In fact, after dinner, our waiter took us on a tour of the spotless kitchen. We even checked out the bakery, which was operating in full swing at that hour. The heady aroma, a mélange of sugar, butter, and chocolate, wafting out of the bakery was intoxicating. We also saw the plasma TV hooked live to the proceedings of the French Laundry. This allows, apparently, Mr. Keller to check the flow of plates in both restaurants simultaneously.

Ok, given the obscene amount one spends at a place like this, shouldn’t perfect service and execution be a minimum? Well, it ought to be, but often it isn’t. The pre-fix price at per se is only a fraction over most top-end restaurants in the U.S., but at least in my experience, it rises above them comfortably.

per se
Chef’s Tasting Menu, 7/29/2006

Canapé of Salmon Tartare
Black Sesame Cone, Crème Fraîche

Oysters and Pearls
Sabayon of Pearl Tapioca with Island Creek Oysters and Russian Sevruga Caviar

Salad of Mission figs
Sorrel leaves, Fig Gelée

Peach Melba
Moulard Duck Foie Gras, Peach Gelée, Golden Purslane, Melba Toast, and Puffed Caroline Rice

Crispy Skin Fillet of Loup de Mer
Haricots Verts, Vinaigrette Polonaise

Pan Roasted Atlantic Sea Scallop
Ragu of English Peas, Chanterelle Mushrooms, Corn Pudding

Sautéed Liberty Valley Duck Breast
Poached Cherries, Tokyo Turnips, Cherry-Duck Jus

Snake River Farm’s Calotte de Boeuf Grillée
48-Hour Braised Wagyu Brisket, Potato Gratin, Carrots, Wilted Spinach with Bordelaise Sauce

Burrata
Heirloom tomatoes, Piccolo Basil and Armando Manni “Per Me” Extra Virgin Olive Oil 2003

Coconut Sorbet
Braised Pineapple, Macadamia Nougatine, Coconut Cream, and Hibiscus Nuage

Dark Chocolate Tarte and Yuzu
Lemongrass Ice Cream, Mango Pâte, Petite Mint

Mignardises

Wines
White: Prager Riesling Smaragd 1999
Red: Schwarz Zweigelt 2002 Neusiedlersee

George Bush: Beavis or Calvin?

Much play has been given to Bush's recent "Yo Blair" intervention when he expounded his wisdom and knowledge about the Middle East by claiming that everything would be just fine if Syria told Hezbollah to "stop this shit".

But let's wind the clock back to the beginning. To the first days of his presidency, when he had his first meeting on the Middle East. As recounted by Ron Suskind in his book, The Price of Loyalty, and quoted by Talking Points Memo:

"Just saw him that one time. We flew over the Palestinian camps," Bush said sourly. "Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation." And that was it, according to [Paul] O'Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own. [Colin] Powell said such a move might be hasty. He remarked on the violence on the West Bank and Gaza and on its roots. He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and Israeli army. "The consequences of that could be dire," he said, "especially for the Palestinians."Bush shrugged. "Maybe that's the best way to get some things back in balance."Powell seemed startled. "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things," Bush said.

Fast forward to today. After giving the green light to Israel to unleash carnage and destruction across Lebanon, culminating the in the Qana massacre, Bush now notes that the war represents a "moment of opportunity." Ex-Bush official Richard Haass thought otherwise:

"An opportunity?" Haass said with an incredulous tone. "Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"

Sadly, Bush's outlook represents the ultimate fruits of a Calvinist approach to foreign policy, wherein the false doctrine of predestination means that the world can be neatly divided into the saved and the damned, between the good and the "evildoers".

The True Face of Republicanism

This is both depressing and predictable. The House of Representatives agreed to consider a $2.10 increase in the minimum wage, raising it to a still-measly $7.25 over three years, the first hike in 10 years. The problem is that they insist on tying it to cuts in the estate tax, which really only benefits the super-rich. I guess they consider this a win-win situation. If the Democrats agree, the rich gain, while should the Democrats balk, they will be shamelessly accused of voting against a minimum wage increase. And, of course, the working poor will lose, and poverty rates will continue to rise (as they have every single year under Bush).

Then again, remember a year ago, then when the poor of New Orleans were dying during the Bush-administration Katrina screw-up, the congressional Republicans were focused on: yes, you guessed it, the estate tax. Grover Norquist argued that the best way to help the Gulf region would be to cut the estate tax. I'm serious. Bill Frist kept thought repealing the estate tax was a more important priority than the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans. Senator Sessions was "looking for a corpse" in New Orleans, hoping that finding a dead rich person who had lost a business might help them in their estate tax repeal. They didn't find one. Surprise, surprise.

But what the Republicans are doing now is not a surprise. And Catholics like the people who came up with the nonsensical "five non-negotiables" are complicit, by their silence, in what is really a grave injustice. I'll conclude by quoting the Catechism (#2434):

"A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.[220] In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.' Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages."

But, to the Bush's ideological fellow travelers, this is only "prudential judgment" and can safely be ignored.

Hezbollah and the IRA

Much of the justification for Israel's onslaught has centered on the use of "civilian hostages" by Hezbollah. By embedding themselves deeply in the civilian community, the argument goes, civilian casualties are inevitable, and entirely the fault of Hezbollah. But this misunderstands the relationship between Hezbollah and the Shia population. A close analogy would be the relationship between the IRA and the national populations of inner city Belfast (say, the Falls Road) in the 1970s and early 1980s. The IRA was a terrorist organization, and its acts were at least as immoral as Hizbollah's, in terms of targeting civilians. But they were also immensely popular in their own community, and replaced the state in terms of their own (thuggish) brand of law and order, and had a whole network of safe houses, arms dumps etc. Now, it would certainly be licit for the armed forces of the United Kingdom to try to stamp out the IRA. But would this justify bombing the Falls Road back to the stone age? Of course not! Not only would such an action would be a grave wrong, it would only serve to boost the popularity of the IRA among the disenchanted population. Sound familiar?

Who's The Biggest Flip-Flopper Of Them All?

If John McCain is the Republican nominee in 2008, I hope the media pounce on the flip-flop theme with a much zeal as they fell for the Kerry nonsense in 2004. Then again, that is at least partially dependent on the Democrats showing some spine (sadly lacking). As described by Kevin Drum, McCain first flip-flops on Jerry Falwell, then on torture, and now, on campaign finance reform. What's left, but the ghost of Bush?

Cowboy Mentality Backfires

Proof that the U.S. and Israeli positions on Lebanon are hugely counterproductive:

(1) Hassan Hasrallah's popularity skyrockets over the Middle East.

(2) Hizballah, treated as pathetic Syrian puppets a short while ago, is now wildly popular in Lebanon. They have 87 percent support. Even among Christians, support is 80 percent. Even worse for the future, "8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January."

How stupid can the Bush administration be? No, wait, don't answer that...

Voting For Bush is Non-Negotiable! Yeah, Right!

As part of the plan to absorb the Catholic church into the Republican party, the Catholic Answers group came up with a list of 5 non-negotiable issues for Catholic voters. What are they? Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, stem cell research, and human cloning. It defines them as the only "things on which there is only one acceptable "side" for a conscientious Catholic". OK, so what does that mean? Simple! "Find out where each candidate stands on each of these issues. Eliminate from consideration any candidate who is wrong on any of the five issues. Vote for one of the remaining candidates." Now this is interesting. Even though the group goes to great claims to claim that this is a non-partisan list, I think a 4-year old could see where this is going. In the words of E.J. Dionne:

"Not social justice. Not war and peace. Not the death penalty. The leaflet might as well have said that voting for President Bush was a non-negotiable position for Catholics".

"Republicans who broke with the Church on all manner of other questions related to poverty, social justice, war and peace, and the death penalty were left (so it seemed, anyway) undisturbed."

The problem is that these ideologues largely went unchallenged. And it still goes on today. When Cardinal Mahony discusses immigration in light of Catholic social theory, he is roundly mocked by the right. You see, it's not a non-negotiable issue! What this really means of course is that Republicans are given a free pass to basically ignore Catholic teachings that might inconvenience them.

And look at the list, for God's sake! I guess people can argue that the most important principle is the sacredness and dignity of life, which is why four of the five are on the list anyway. But even here, no mention of war? torture? the death penalty? Certainly torture should be on the list, given that there is absolutely no room for dissent on this issue among Catholics. But to even talk about this would embarrass Bush, of it stays off the list. More generally, what happened to the whole gamut of issues listed in Gaudium Et Spes #27 ?

"The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where people are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator."

No, these are absent from the list. And why is gay marriage there? A Catholic teaching sure, but it is surely not on par with culture of life issues as enunciated above!

Anyway, it turns out that it's a lot more complicated than the ideologues make out. I'll quote none other than the man who used to be called Cardinal Ratzinger. In a 2004 letter dealing with communion and pro-abortion candidates (an issue for another day!) Ratzinger wrote at the bottom:

N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy
to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidateÂ’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidateÂ’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

There you have it. What he is saying is that it is wrong to vote for somebody because they support abortion and euthanasia. But if you do not support these positions, it is still fine to vote for them for "proportionate reasons". Again, this is not hard to decipher. Take the following example: a candidate adopts a pro-life position, but refuses to back it up with measures to reduce the incidence of abortion. So you are pretty sure abortion rates will be unaffected by him being elected to office. He also supports an unjust war, torture, the death penalty, and social and economic policies that favor the rich (especially his donors and their friends), and refuses to environmental issues seriously. His opponent supports abortion, but takes the opposite opinion on the rest of the issues. Conclusion: it's a no-brainer, you can vote for the second person! See, that wasn't so hard...

McCarrick Slaps Weigel!

(**Warning: this may be too "insider Catholic" for some people's tastes!!**)

Conservative theologian George Weigel, who supported Bush's Iraq misadventures and dissents from Catholic teaching on the death penalty, recently wrote an article making snide remarks about Cardinal McCarrick's well-known penchant for "moderation". He went on to say "Then there are questions of doctrine.", and proceeded to quote an article describing various heterodox positions taken by three different Catholics. The good cardinal did not take this lying down, though, and issued a rebuttal, taking Weigel to task for seeming to equate these people with McCarrick. Said McCarrick:

"Sometimes, however, it truly is important to set the record straight in the face of half-truths or innuendos, lest the old axiom that silence presumes consent gives the impression that one has no reply, and the field is left to those who manipulate words into fanciful concepts with little relevance to the facts. "

[....]

...the column goes on to describe the positions of three Catholics from other nations - people I don’t know – as if their erroneous views were my own. That is, at the minimum, deceptive journalism, if not worse."

Ouch. More from dotCommonweal and Rocco Palmo. The interesting thing is that Weigel published in newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver, led by Archbishop Chaput, who also leans conservative and who (some say) would have liked to replace McCarrick in Washington. Note, though, that the person who actually replaced McCarrick, Archbishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh, had previously chided some of his fellow bishops who denied communion to John Kerry in 2004 (a small handful) asserting that such a momentous decision like this should require a two-thirds majority. And McCarrick was at the forefront of refusing to politicize the eucharist. Then again, the George Weigels of the world seem inclined to turn the church into a subsidiary of the Republican party every chance they get. Not going to happen!

Bush Makes the World More Dangerous: is This Even in Doubt?

Nice essay from Michael Hirsh in Newsweek. He argues that Bush's cowboy approach to the "war on terror" has been an utter disaster. By equating Hamas and Hizbollah with Al Qaeda, and by equating Saddam with Bin Laden, the Bush administration has inflamed the middle east, boosted the position of Iran, and generally made the world a less safe place. He notes:

"And what began as a hunt for a relatively contained group of self-declared murderers like bin Laden became a feckless dragnet of tens of thousands of hapless Arab victims like the sons of the hostel owner in Samarra, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terror, just as Saddam had little to do with Al Qaeda, just as the Iraqi insurgency had little to do with Al Qaeda (at least at the start), just as Hizbullah has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And as the war broadened beyond reason, and the world questioned the legitimacy of the enterprise, our friends dropped away. Worse, we have found ourselves making enemies in the Islamic world faster than we could round them up or kill them."

Dispensationalists Gone Wild!

I've been arguing that one of the reasons (not the only one, for sure) behind the U.S.'s rock-solid support for the Israeli assault on Lebanon is the bad theology that sees the victory of the Jewish state as auguring the return on Christ, and the "end times" scenario that accompanies it. You saw this in action this week, as fundamentalist preacher John Hagee and 3,500 of his fellow travelers gathered in Washington DC to support Israel.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Standing on a stage bedecked with a huge Israeli flag, Mr. Hagee drew rapturous applause and shouts of "amen" as he hailed Israel for doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil." Calls for Israel to show restraint violate "God's foreign-policy statement" toward Jews, he said, citing a verse from the Old Testament that promises to "bless those who bless you" and curse "the one who curses you."

...Mr. Hagee is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement. This evangelical political philosophy is rooted in biblical prophecies and a belief that Israel's struggles signal a prelude to Armageddon. Its followers staunchly support the Bush administration's unequivocal backing of Israel in its current battle with Hezbollah in Lebanon."

The Catholic position, of course, is very different. The relevant Second Vatican Council document (Nostra Aetate) states: "Nevertheless, according to the apostle, because of their ancestors the Jews still remain very dear to God, whose gift and call are without regret." But this does not mean that the Jewish people are divinely entitled to a land grant-- that is seen as purely provisional and no longer in force. Of course, the secular state of Israel, and its citizens, and worthy of respect and protection, but it is not (as a territorial entity) favored by God above others.

Once you start going down the road of Hagee, you can get into very dangerous territory. In the Old Testament, you will find the notion of the herem, the curse of destruction, that ancient Israelites believed was mandated by God: this meant annihilating enemies completely. In city after city as the Israelites conquered Canaan, every single person (sometimes even the animals) were killed. Underlying this genocide was not only the idea of a divine land grant, but also the collective guilt of the enemy. Note that this bad theology has been applied elsewhere: just look at how America was seen by the Calvinists as the "Promised Land" and how these Old Testament passages affected their relations with the native Americans.

Back to Hagee. The article makes another interesting point:

"President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for "spreading the hope of God's love and the universal gift of freedom." The Israeli prime minister also sent words of thanks. Israel's ambassador, its former military chief and a host of U.S. political heavyweights, mostly Republican, attended."

So now we know, don't we, what really motivates Bush in this conflict? And it should scare the hell out of us all. And where will we go from here? Again, Hagee is quite clear about this:

"Mr. Hagee wrote in a recent book, "Jerusalem Countdown," which focuses on what he says is a coming nuclear showdown with Iran."

Israel and Lebanon: One War or Two?

Middle-eastern expert Juan Cole argues that we must distinguish between the land war in southern Lebanon and what is happening to the country as a whole. His thesis that that limited incursions to root out Hezballoh terrorists might be justifiable, but the bombing on Lebanon is a grave injustice. Key quote:

"I haven't complained about the Israeli border war with Hezbollah. I'm not sure it is wise, and I don't know how many Israelis Hezbollah even killed in, say, the year 2005. Is it really worth it? But I don't deny that Hezbollah went too far when it shelled dozens of civilian towns and cities and killed over a dozen innocent civilians, even in reprisal for the Israeli bombing campaign. (You can't target civilians. That is a prosecutable crime.) That is a clear casus belli, and I'd like to see Nasrallah tried at the Hague for all those civilian deaths he ordered. The fighting at Maroun al-Ra's and Bint Jbeil was horrible on all sides, but it was understandable, even justifiable."

This is interesting. I think it is possible to argue that such an invasion is compatible with just war ad bellum. Of course, whether it is just in bello is another story, as there is ample evidence that Israel does not hold civilian life in high regard. But anyway, on the attack on Lebanon itself, Cole is scathing:

"...the Israelis have kidnapped the 3.8 million Lebanese and are holding them all for ranson, while breaking their legs from time to time to encourage prompt payment. The horrible thing is that the Lebanese could not do anything about Hezbollah if they wanted to. Their government is weak and divided (Hezbollah is in it, and the Bush administration and Ambassador Mark Feltman signed off on that!) Their new, green army only has 60,000 men, and a lot of them are Shiites who would not fight Hezbollah. Lebanon was a patient that needed to be nurtured carefully to health. Instead, it has been drafted and put into the middle of the worst fighting on the battlefield.Then there is this: ' Brigadier General Dan Halutz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, emphasised that the offensive . . . was open-ended. “Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that,” he said. 'In other words, Halutz, who is also said to have threatened ten for one reprisals, is openly declaring that he will commit war crimes if he wants to. Nothing is safe? A Christian school in the northern village of Bsharri? A Druze old people's home in the Shouf mountains? A Sunni family out for a stroll in the northern port of Tripoli? He can murder all of them at will, Halutz says."

and

"Meanwhile, while Nancy was singing and Brazil was scoring, Halutz and Olmert
were putting the final touches on their long-planned bombing campaign. They would go up and hit Tripoli's port, a Sunni area. They would hit the port at Jounieh, the trendy Christian city near Beirut. They would hit Beirut's port and its new shiny airport. They would hit the milk factory, the telecom towers, the roads, the bridges, and some clinics and hospitals for good measure. They would hit the fuel depots. It would be a total war on the Lebanese civilian population, setting 800,000 out of 3.8 million out from their homes or the rubble of their former homes, forcing them to other cities as homeless refugees, or abroad to Syria or Cyprus. They would reduce al-Dahiyah al-Janubiyah, the teeming Shiite slum to the south, to rubble and stray bloody fingers, feet and noses. They would say that these were all military targets, but they liedHezbollahah is a political party with 14 MPs in parliament. It has political party offices, soup kitchens, clinics, in those Shiite slums. A lot of times it seems to be these that the Israelis hit. They lied and said that missiles were launched from Beirut, when they never were.Israel's present policy toward Lebanon, of striking at so many civilian targets as to hold the entire civilian population hostage, is unspeakable."

Although Cole does not use religious language, he is effectively accusing the Israelis of invoking the lex talionis on steroids, engaging in collective punishment, and using an end-justifies-the-means moral calculus. Grave evils all. And as for proportionality, well....

One more thing: whatever you think of Cole, he knows Lebanon, and he knows the region. Do you think Bubble Boy Bush (who, almost alone among world leaders, thinks a ceasefire would be a bad idea) could even locate Lebanon on a map?

Principle, Prudence, Poverty

As discussed in my post on abortion, many conservatives blithely dismiss church social teachings that inconveniently contradict the Republican agenda. They will tell you that while abortion is non-negotiable, a Catholic's response to matters of social and economic policy is one of prudential judgment around which honest people can differ. I argued that the time that this was often a convenient smokesceen to justify not only holding one's nose about Republican social and economic policies on the grounds that other issues were more important, but actively supporting them.

Take the simple example of poverty in the United States. Under Clinton, the poverty rate fell from 14.8 percent in 1992 to 11.3 percent in 2000. Under Bush, it bounced up to 12.7 percent again by 2004, increasing every single year. Now, it would be folly to give Clinton full credit for the economic boom (though he deserves a significant amount), and Bush, monumental failures notwithstanding, is not fully to blame for increasing poverty either. Still, there can be little doubt this his policies of tax cuts for the rich combined with cuts at the lower end played a major role.

The church, obviously, pays quite a lot of attention to poverty. From the Catechism: "God blesses those who come to the aid of the poor and rebukes those who turn away from them" (#2443); "Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use" (#2445); "Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church..." (#2448).

How can we live up to these principles? Many, especially in the Christian Democratic tradition in Europe, favored the development of welfare states, which reduced the degree of poverty and inequality in society. But others have argued that an excessive welfare state leads to perverse incentives, culminating in high unemployment and a culture of dependency. Both positions are valid to hold in the Catholic tradition. What is not acceptable is simply to ignore the issue. So if one holds the second position, then one needs to propose solutions that would break the cycle of dependence, such as in-work benefits (such as an expansion of the earned income child credit), subsidized childcare, educational reform etc. I don't see many Republicans favoring these policies, or even having this debate. They will certainly talk loudly about the failures of the welfare state, but will not propose any viable solutions. Well, they might talk about the need for private charity to step up, and they might even quote some church teachings on subsidiarity. Fine, but this in no way the state a free pass to enact anti-poor policies. Oh yes, they might talk about how Republican policies actually help the poor. The problem with this is that the statistics speak for themselves. At the end of the day, "prudential judgment" entails fumbling with facts and experience, not embracing an ideology.

More on the Disproportionate Response

Michael Byers from the Tablet weighs in on the issue. Key quotes:

"... self-defense must be exercised in a necessary and proportionate manner. Since there is no evidence implicating the Lebanese Government in Hezbollah's attacks, Israel should have restricted its air-strikes to Hezbollah targets. Instead, Israel bombed Beirut's international airport, striking at the heart of Lebanon's economy. It bombed roads, bridges, power and petrol stations, and imposed an air and sea blockade. It promised, in the words of the Israeli Army chief of staff, that "the clock will be turned back 20 years for the Lebanese people".

"Israel's reasoning must be questioned, since the destruction of infrastructure will actually make it more difficult for the Lebanese Government to exert control. The difficulty will only be exacerbated if - as has been reported - anger about Israel's disproportionate response causes support for Hezbollah to rise."

"Israel's actions indicate some disregard for the lives of innocents. ...Under the laws of war, civilians may be placed at risk only for reasons of military necessity. They must never be targeted to create political pressure, or for reasons of revenge."

This is in line with what I wrote earlier. It's worth keeping in mind that "proportionate" is not simply a matter of adding up dead bodies on either side. Rather, the overall evils caused by the military response (not just civilian deaths, but also factors such as destroying the Lebanese economy, targeting the whole of Lebanon for the crimes of a militia that is not supported by the majority, weakening a nascent democracy, and giving a boost to to Hezbollah and its patrons in Syria and Iran) must be weighed against the good of ending terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, including the future threat of Hezbollah. In the words of the Catechism (#2309): "The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Michael Walzer in the New Republic makes a valiant attempt to argue that the response may be proportional given that

"...Israel's goal is to prevent future raids, as well as to rescue the soldiers, so proportionality must be measured not only against what Hamas and Hezbollah have already done, but also against what they are (and what they say they are) trying to do."

He's right to take a broad comprehensive approach. But I still find it really hard to see how this is not disproportionate, given the scale of Israel's actions. Of course, as I noted before, most defender's of Israel's actions eschew traditional just war theory. The normally reasonable Jonathan Chait, again at the New Republic, said it bluntly:

"The real question, then, is not whether Israel's counteroffensive is disproportionate but whether it's working."

Hmm, end justifies the means, eh? This is why we need consistent principles of justice that are universal!

Historical religious antagonism—When will we get a grip?

Looking at the unfolding events in Lebanon, it is hard to escape the feeling of helplessness. The problems seem particularly intractable because of deep historical grievances of the antagonists. Israel continues to use its Holocaust card successfully with the Europeans and the Americans. The Arabs—Muslims and Christians—on the other hand have innumerable tales of injustice inflicted on them during the 20th century and now. I see a parallel between this conflict and the persisting Hindu-Muslim tension in India.

This tension took prominence during the BJP years in there, when even riots that took thousands of lives were justified or tolerated in the guise of historical grievances or wounds. Let’s also not forget similar arguments presented during the Serb-orchestrated genocide in Bosnia during the 1990s.

An influential apologist for the cause of Hindu grievances during the BJP years was Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul. His infamous quote, “Ayodhya is a sort of passion. Any passion is to be encouraged. Passion leads to creativity,” appeared to justify a pogrom by Hindu rightwing zealots that claimed numerous lives, on the grounds that Hindu India, long wounded by invasion, was at last flexing is muscle in a manner that was understandable and inevitable.

Naipaul’s thesis was refuted by one of my favorite authors: William Dalrymple. Read his excellent piece on this in the Guardian review here

I recently emailed this article to a group of friends that unleashed a lively debate:

RC wrote:

Thanks. The issue is a complex one. And while my limited travels in North India provided impressions consistent with some of Naipaul's observations--invasions are not accidental and are never for the benefit of the invaded, true today as well--history must have a firm empirical basis; otherwise, it becomes a convenient ideological platform.

SA wrote:

Beyond the rights and wrongs of Naipaul's thesis - whose dubious empirical foundations are laid bare here - surely it is somewhat irrelevant to how communal relations should be handled today.

Even if grave injustices were committed in the past (as they certainly were, but then, in which corner of the world is that not the case?) that is hardly justification for some sort of historical retribution in the current age. Naipaul's statement about Ayodhya being a kind of passion and justified because passion leads to creativity makes him sound like a brown-shirted thug.

JA wrote:

I am not sure I agree with you, SA.

Much of what we do today is influenced by whether we feel guilty of or victimized by our past. So much depends on what we consider to be our past and this is where things go hairy. Like Kurosawa's Roshomon, we see events differently. They are subjective views, but for the observer it is objective. And this is what matters, since our reactions and what we do today are based on that. The problem with Roshomon is that there may have been other observers of the event who were never asked to retell their story. For example, as my friend Diana Saco would point out, history books may have looked very different if they were written by women. The Subaltern Studies tried doing that but met with an untimely death. But even they have problems. Neeladri, who is a Subaltern, did not write the last para quoted in the article about Romila and Bipin's books. To be fair, he should have. Those books also provided only a particular reading of history. Of course that reading was somewhat closer to Neeladri's views than those by the BJP government. My point is that we all take sides. In fact, we have to take sides. And what side we take depends on our inherited and shared experiences.

But your point is well taken that history should not be a justification of what we do today, because we should be capable of rising above our own past. Otherwise we fall into the same deterministic trap of Marxist theory and fatalism.

Perhaps Saurav Ganguly got it right when, in responding to a question about India's miserable performance overseas, he remarked that he did not believe in history.

SA wrote:

I think we may agree more than we disagree, JA. We are all creatures of our past, real or imagined. But we needn't be its captives.

I guess what I was getting at is that the positive question of what actually happened in India's long and chequered history is conceptually distinct from the normative question of how we should order a just society today.

The manner in which we approach the positive question is inextricably influenced by our experiences both as individuals and as members of the various sub-groups to which we owe alleigance (family, flag, religion, class, etc.)

But one starting point for the normative question may be to say: look, anything that happened more than X years ago, whether proven or dubious, flattering or unflattering, shall not constitute any basis for adjudicating between communities today. We could christen this the Sleeping Dog rule.

I realize that there are some problems with this normative approach, in particular, where to draw the demarcating historical line (e.g. a just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict would hinge crucially on the value of X). But in principle I believe it may the only way to escape what you call the deterministic trap.

MC wrote:

Interesting discussion- I suspect that much of what "men" do and feel today is influenced by how they perceive the past. Much of what women across the world do or would like to do is probably influenced by how they feel about the present. They don't need to look at history to know that they are victimized . Either the existing laws (which usually are dictated by tradition/history - couched under different headings) or the implementation of these laws define their lives and therefore probably influence what they do. Positioning yourself as a victim or otherwise - due to a particular reading of history is a luxury afforded to men. This is not to say that women don't participate in this pursuit - just that fewer numbers of women probably do so.

Since regardless of the culture or the history - their place in the sun was never assured - whether they were in Bijapur or Vijaynagar- how could any event have further victimized them (hmmm maybe the Brits weren't that bad). Nothing wrong with passion - it does fuel creativity (Naipaul is right about that). However, Ayodhya did not result in passion alone - it resulted in challenging the rule of law.

Regardless of what we feel about history (and of course history is usually manufactured - but who cares it's real to us) - it does not justify breaking rules(and buildings and killing people). If those who feel passion for "Ayodhya" want to build temples (or whatever the heck they want) - they can air their views, petition the state - ask the people who ran the mosque (the Wakf Board) for space - all without breaking laws.Saurav was right...

MC also sent this excellent article on Ayodhoya.

Does War Need UN Approval?

Many in the United States, including Catholics, have a kneejerk disdain for the United Nations. Typically, this is based on the fervent nationalism that underpins much of US political life, and this is rooted firmly in secular ideology. Hence John Kerry was widely mocked for his position that Bush should have dealt with the Iraq issue from a multilateral perspective, under the auspices of the UN.

Elsewhere, people see it differently, including in the Vatican. John Allen addressed this issue earlier in the year, when he talked about how refinements to just war teaching for the 21st century would be one of the principal major issues facing Pope Benedict XVI. He notes that many Catholic Americans-- such as Robert George, Fr. Richard John Neuhuas, George Weigel and Michael Novak-- tried (to various degrees) to argue that Bush's invasion of Iraq was in not line with just war teaching. See here for a summary of this work. Much of it revolves around the nature of modern terrorism. But the Vatican did not buy this line in the Iraqi context, largely because of concerns about "last resort" and "competent authority" (this refers to the UN).

But, in the words of John Allen:

"...Vatican diplomats, and to some extent Benedict XVI, size up the global situation differently than many American analysts. Especially key is the question of sovereignty, and the extent to which one can meaningfully speak of a global sovereignty invested in international organizations such as the United Nations. Does justice ad bellum in the 21st century require that the United Nations approve the use of force? A closely related issue is the rule of law, and the binding force of international law. Events may well compel the pope to clarify how the traditional principles of Just War analysis, or "humanitarian intervention," should be applied to new historical circumstances."

Dershowitz Deluded

Via Kevin Drum:

Alan Dershowitz is clearly one of those people who thinks just war principles are an inconvenience. In a recent article, he is trying to amend the definition of who is a civilian. Key quote:

"The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit".

Then again, this is the man who defends the use of torture. This is what happend when you throw out the notion that there are universal principles of justice that bind everybody. Moral relativism, anyone?

Hooray for the USCCB!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued an excellent statement on the Lebanese war, making many of the points I made in my last post.

Key quotes:

" Israel’s response has been in some instances militarily disproportionate and indiscriminate. In light of traditional Catholic teaching, massive counterattacks on civilian areas and infrastructure, blockades and other acts of war should not be supported. Punishment of entire peoples for the indefensible acts of militant armed factions contradicts traditional just war norms. A humanitarian crisis is growing in Gaza and Lebanon."

"Regarding Lebanon, the rocket attacks and the bombings of innocent civilians are morally indefensible. Unjustifiable and indiscriminate attacks, and excessive military responses, endanger innocent lives and undermine Lebanon’s struggle to free itself from outside domination and from serving once again as a bloody pawn in the broader Middle East conflict."

Supporting Israel: the Wrong Reasons

In an earlier post (one of the first on this blog), I made the argument that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon cannot be seen as in line with just war theory, mainly due to the issue of proportionality. Now more than ever can we see how true this is, given the appalling destruction of southern Lebanon, the city of Tyre, and the southern suburbs of Beirut; with continued attacks on civilian centers and about half a million people displaced from their homes. And indeed, the United Nations envoy, Jan Egeland, called Israel's behavior a "disproportionate response" and a "violation of international humanitarian law".

And yet..... many in the United States (including the Bush administration) still professes support for everything Israel does. The following, I believe, are the main reasons for this (some of these themes were explored in greater detail in earlier posts).

First, Israeli exceptionalism. This comes in various hues. On one extreme, there are the dispensationalists-- fundamentalist "Christians" who believe Israeli strength against its neighbors will help bring about the second coming of Christ. It may sound crazy, but there are lots of people who believe this-- just look at the popularity of the Left Behind series. But while this is still probably a minority opinion overall, there are many who accept a weaker version of this theory, that the Jews have a divine right to the land of Israel, which means that their behavior cannot be judged by conventional standards. Even among the non-religious are many who believe Israel should be given a break, given the persistent anti-semitism of the past 2000 years, culminating in the holocaust.

Second, the terrorist factor. You will frequently hear people discuss how the tactics of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas mean that a conventional response is useless. Since they don't play by the rules, they cannot be beaten by normal means. This group will sometimes argue that just war theory is a useless guide to the "global war on terror". Notice the similarity of these arguments to those in the Bush administration justifying torture.

Third, Niebuhrian realism. The protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, argued that there are no universal principles of justice that transcend all national, religious, cultural, and ideological differences. He actually used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to make his point, arguing that it is impossible to judge the relative claims of each side by appealing to morality. Niebuhr had a huge influence on Henry Kissinger. You can see where this is going. These principles have guided US foreign policy since the second world war at least (think of the all the nasty dictators supported during the cold war) and are essential to understanding the alliance with Israel.

As you can guess by now, I have problems with all three lines of reasoning. The Catholic position, in particular, rules out the following: (i) the lex talionis, the law of retribution, or a response designed with retribution in mind (which would justify a disproportionate response from the militarily stronger party); (ii) the notion of collective guilt (clearly at play here as Israel is punishing the entire country of Lebanon for the crimes of Hezbollah, even though the majority of non-Shia have little time for Hezbollah, but are unable to disarm them); (iii) consequentialist "end-justifies-the-means" reasoning (terrorism is not a license to violate the moral law); (iv) the idea that God's present relationship with Israel includes a title to real estate (Israel is a secular state, no more and no less than any other); (v) moral relativism (there are indeed such things as universal principles of justice binding on all peoples).

At the end of the day, the only legitimate way to judge the morality of a war is through the clear just war principles, and clearly, in the current case, the response is seems highly disproportionate and thus immoral.

CNN is a joke

Their main news headline right now is entitled: "Relief and Tears of Evacuated Family: The Esseily family from California escaped the horrors of Israel's campaign in Lebanon on board the USS Nashville."

I guess it's the war version of missing white girls...