The task of the ethicist
By Sefi Rachlevsky
Haaretz, March 7, 2004
Contrary to the view espoused by the philosopher Asa Kasher ("Those who cry with one eye," Haaretz, Feb. 29), the occupation is not a matter of a Palestinian "narrative." The occupation is not a story of one side or a story of another side. The occupation is a fact.
For nearly two-thirds of its existence, Israel has chosen to be an occupying power. The heart of the matter, the "problem," is its choice to hold on to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip as occupied territories. Moreover, Israel chose not only military occupation but moved a million of its ethnic citizens into the territories and thereby turned it into an apartheid zone. The Jewish ethnic group has civil rights, the others do not. Occupation and apartheid are never ethical.
The reality that Israel has chosen for nearly two-thirds of its existence is not compatible with an ethical humanist world, but with the status of the "ger toshav" - the "resident stranger" - the precept regarding the existence of non-Jews in the Holy Land as despised subjects with no rights, and not as citizens. Even if the ethicist has embraced this approach, there is no reason for him to drag ethics into it.
Even for those who believe in the divine Israeli hold on extensive territories - which must be in Israel's hands, even those between the Euphrates and the Tigris - only one somewhat legitimate path is open, which is to grant civil rights to all the strangers residing in the coveted area. Having failed to do this, Israel was obliged to leave the area immediately. Either full citizenship or withdrawal. There is and never was a third ethical path. Israel chose not to do this. Even in "unified" Jerusalem, the non-Jews did not receive citizenship, only permanent residency. "Resident strangers."
It's not a matter of quantity. The occupation is not justified in absolute terms. Not as a security means, either. An occupation with apartheid cannot exist for even one day, even one hour; certainly not for 37 years.
So thoroughly has the occupation corrupted Kasher, apparently, that from where he sits the "left" seems to him to think that the end of the occupation means the end of terrorism. As though the hypothetical left, too, must be afflicted with an ethnic-based utilitarian morality - as though occupation must be stopped only so others will leave us alone, and not because the occupation is not ethically possible.
In this connection, the Israeli left has, indeed, gone astray, but differently. The root of the moral problem lies in the slogan "territories for peace," which had its genesis during the period of the negotiations with Egypt. Sinai is, indeed, territory; but Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not "territories." Some 3.5 million Palestinians live there. The Israeli ethnic ear hears the Palestinian extortion latent in the slogan: We will be given peace only if we get out of the territories. However, the real extortion here is the reverse of this. Until the Palestinians don't agree to peace, and on our terms, we will continue to occupy them, and by means of an occupation accompanied by ethnic apartheid.
Yes, leaving the territories will also contribute to Israeli ethnic security. Yes, the "enlightened" world of occupation, nongranting of civil rights and the creation of a regime in which the Jews have rights and others don't, preceded the first intifada by 20 years. But that's not the point. Even as a means of security, there was not and never will be ethical justification for the occupation.
What, then, is the ethicist to do, and especially one who is in charge, from his perspective, of the unchanging military ethical values? What is the ethicist who advises the Israel Defense (!) Forces to do? There is only one thing for the ethicist to do. To make it clear to the chiefs of the army that, ethically, they must demand from the country's leaders the immediate termination of the abnormal and unethical situation of occupation and apartheid.
Once that situation has ceased to exist, even technical matters, which are so important to Kasher, will become simpler. The terrorist will no longer be intermixed with the State of Israel. Citizens and noncitizens will no longer live in physical proximity that privatizes terrorism, and the warplanes will not be sent into territory for which Israel is responsible.
The so-called ethicist, who instead of calling for the end of the occupation has chosen a different route and offers "ethical" technical advise to the occupation, is going far beyond his professional field and appears to be entering the world of a "priest anointed for war," whose mission is to direct Israel in the wars of commandment of its holy conquests.
In a debate on the Camp David Agreement in the Knesset, Menachem Begin tweaked Moshe Shamir, the writer. We know you are not a historian, he said to Shamir, but not a historian on such a scale? True, Kasher's world is familiar to a large public, but still, not a philosopher on such a scale?
