Equivalence ambivalence

(Wow, a second Israel post!)

Jonathan Chait lambasts Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein for drawing a "moral equivalence" between Israel and Hamas:

Yglesias and Ezra Klein have both defended their claim of moral equivalence...Klein argues that it doesn't matter that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties while Hamas is trying to maximize them, because the fact is that Israel simply is killing more civilians. He also argues that the "lived experience" of Palestianians is of oppression at the hands of Israel. Yglesias cites this point and adds that Israel has supported illegal settlements, and therefore, "it’s simply not the case that Hamas is the only party to this conflict that’s working toward unreasonable goals."

All of these arguments prove way too much...The United States killed millions of Japanese civilians [in WW2], while Japan killed very few American civilians. Indeed, the United States killed civilians intentionally. The lived experience of the Japanese people was not that of an aggressor but as a victim at the hands of a cruel American military. The United States bloodied its hands in all sorts of ways worse than Israel's misguided and wrong settlements (which, in any case, are not an attempt to destroy Palestinians but an attempt to tilt the borders of a two-state settlement into more favorable terms.)

In the logical-points-scoring sense, Chait is right here; Israel and Hamas are not "morally equivalent." But I would argue that the moral distance between them is too small to justify a point of view that says "Any Israeli attack on Hamas is good, and any Hamas attack on Israel is evil."

Yes, Hamas wants there not to be a state of Israel; they want the whole territory of Israel + West Bank + Gaza for their ethnic group. But Israel wants there not to be a state of Palestine; they want the whole territory of Israel + West Bank (Gaza being economically worthless) for their ethnic group.

Hamas, in accomplishing its military aim of destroying Israel, would prefer to kill Israeli soldiers, but views killing Israeli civilians as a worthwhile goal. Israel, in accomplishing its military goal of destroying Hamas, would prefer to kill Hamas soldiers, and basically doesn't care whether or not it kills Palestinian civilians.

If every single Israeli were to drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow, Hamas would probably dance for joy in the streets. If every single Palestinian were to drop dead tomorrow, Israelis would probably either shrug or sigh in relief.

So yes, Hamas the political party is more bloodthirsty than Israel the nation. But the substantive moral difference is relatively small. Like I said, not large enough to justify unconditional support for Israel and unconditional opposition to Hamas on moral grounds alone. If we offer Israel unconditional support, it's because they're our friend, not because they're the "good guys" in some cosmic sense.

As for the current invasion of Gaza, I pretty much echo the shrug that the world has so far given the whole thing.