The Inconvenience of Reality
Or the stunning inconvenience of moral dilemmas. Making it so dreadfully difficult to take the moral high ground, when situational realities intervene, making it imperative that a re-orientation take place. Which in and of itself sometimes spells out another reality; that of abandoning first principles, which, when observed, have the effect of leaving one on the low side of the tide.There are many such dilemmas facing any country that seeks to behave and make decisions that meet self-imposed and outwardly-anticipated standards. All the more so when that country is Israel, whose political ethics and behavioural norms have been and continue to be compromised by actions outside their sphere of influence, requiring response of a nature not always appreciated by a world that has imposed its own standard of expectations on her.
So it is signally when Israel, facing the immutably deadly face of terrorism responds in a manner that some observers consider 'in kind'. That country having had the experience time and again that only an emphatic response balancing aggression with aggression has any deterrence impact on those whose purpose is to see her vanquished, expunged from the geography. Disproportionality may be argued, but effectiveness is key.
And on another level there is the great sad Jewish conscience that demands of itself that its response to need be a compassionate and understanding one. Not only based on her own unanswered needs at times of torment, but as a national trait, a trauma imposed not by dreadful experience necessarily, but by a type of genetic imprinting.
When desperate Darfurians, black African Muslims flee to safety through Egypt to their destination in Israel and beg for refuge, how can Israel demur? No one granted Jews refuge, a surcease from the horrors of the Holocaust. No world body, no pact-sharing countries have succeeded in drawing themselves out of their unbelievable stupor of helplessness to stop Sudan's genocidal response to insurgents.
As a people who know how the ultimate in suffering can be defined, Jews expect no less of Israel, their country, than to respond affirmatively. And so she did, accepting the first 500 desperate Darfurians who made their way into the country, for permanent settlement. In a country whose citizens total barely six million, one-fifth of whom are non-Jews, that acceptance equals sacrifice.
For a country whose purpose of existence is to provide a haven for Jews worldwide, in the wake of the monstrous attempt to completely annihilate that same people, that acceptance is generous. For a country with a finite geography, tiny by any standards, continually in strife with its own indigenous Muslim population, to accept another group however needy, may be seen as chancy.
The United States, in contrast, known for its hugely generous heart, saw fit to take in fewer than two thousand Sudanese refugees last year, a number quickly absorbed into its huge 300-million population and gigantic geography, about one-third of North America. But having accepted that initial 500 fleeing Sudanese, Israel is faced with the reality of an additional influx of equally-desperate refugees - some 50 each day.
In response to which the difficult decision was made in an agreement with Egypt that these dreadfully needy people would be returned to Egypt, which will then remove them back to their country of origin. Official orders have been given that all further Darfurian arrivals will be turned back at the border to Egypt. What is a country to do?
That's a hard one. And Jews both inside and outside of Israel are indicating their displeasure, loud and clear, with the government position. While yet understanding the manifold reasons behind it. Just as, for another example, it is understood that Israel desperately requires allies, and most particularly potential allies from the Muslim world.
And when one such as Turkey gives indication that it views Israel not as a pariah state but as a proudly legitimate one, needful of support in the region, Israel finds itself rubbing against moral complicity, facing another moral dilemma. And, in the end, acceding to the unendurable imperative of undermining its own moral sense of reality.
Israel chose the path of ensuring good relations with Turkey prevail, and protecting the well-being of Turkish Jews by compromising her morals, by refusing to officially give notice that she recognizes the Armenian genocide. The tacit admission was made, that the consequences of wartime actions by the Turks were tantamount to genocide, and full stop.
The facts sacrificed to realpolitik. Morals sacrificed to existential need. Pity that such choices must be made. The expedience of perceived necessity trumping moral imperatives.
It does pain.
Labels: Justice, Political Realities
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, August 30, 2007
<< Home