Might makes right?

Submitted by Edward Halper (United States), May 4, 2010 at 12:05

"I heard a lot of comments from the generation of my grandfathers why victory was complete as you put it. Morality is not in the argumentation. They understood that the defeat by the western allies was the only way to stop the soviets from taking revenge for which they knew there was a moral basis."

I think you've refuted yourself here. As you say, Germans knew that harsh retaliation from the Russians would have been morally justified.

My point is not that morality is a substitute for victory but that it must necessarily accompany victory if victory is to be effective. Israel's victory in 1967 was not effective because it stopped pressing the moral case it had to go to war and to exist as a nation.

Despite wild claims in the media, Palestinians do not fear an Israeli victory. I can't imagine Israel exacting revenge. Israel is not Russia. Hence, the Machiavellian scenario you imagine--a decisive Israeli victory whose "morality" Palestinians are either forced to acknowledge or acknowledge out of fear is not likely.

---

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".