Moral equivalence

Submitted by John B (Spain), Jan 25, 2009 at 16:52

Regarding establishing moral equivalence: I notice that Israel says it "will defend soldiers accused of war crimes". First this sound like a cheap journalistic technique - you get someone to make an accusation and then you get the party you want to attack to comment and then report: "minister denies rape charge" or some such, thereby getting your accusation out without risking being sued.

But, secondly it implies a moral equivalence wherein Israel has possibly been involved in war crimes when I think it is fairly well established Israel has done everything to beyond what might be normally expected to ensure there were no war crimes.

And thirdly I am flabberghasted that Israel allows this "narrative" to be established by saying it will defend those accused of war crimes rather than simply dismissing the whole concept as outrageous and a complete inversion of the reality. This dismissal could include the years of shelling of Israeli civilians from Gaza, Hamas using their own civilian population as human shields, using children as battle shields, brainwashing children in pre-primary school.

If Israel had an information department worth the name it would squash the idiocy flat. I cannot help but accept the possibility that there are some people within the governing fabric of Israel who do not want it to succeed.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".