Between Control and Resolve: A Tale of Righteous Anger And The Emotionalism Trap

The Struggle for Self Control And Peace in the Depths of Conflict And Multigenerational Struggles

Image Generated By Dalle-3 AI

I want to talk about something profound today. If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, and swims like a Duck, it's probably a Goose. That is the thinking of many in the current era. The above conclusion is irrelevant because it does not support the prepositions—no amount of linguistic wrangling or magical thinking changes a Duck into a Goose. To use a 'conversation-ending cliche, ' 'it is what it is'! To err on the side of caution, though, we need to check that Duck to ensure it has the right bits.

So, let us now look at a few facts. In 1932 - 33, Joseph Stalin introduced a policy that created an artificial (human-made) famine in Ukraine that killed millions of Ukrainians (1). Scholarly estimates range from 3.5 to 7 million deaths are attributable to the Holodomor. 

Between 1933 - 45 The Nazis systematically murdered six million Jews (2). The above are two examples of a controversial term: Genocide. Why is it controversial? It is controversial because some people today want to classify the Duck as a Goose.

According to most dictionaries, genocide is the systematic and purposeful eradication of a group of people based on ethnic or racial characteristics: 'the murder of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group (4).'

If the above information is accurate (if the premises are true), how are the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian civilians and the withholding of food, medicine, and other aid not considered genocide (the conclusion)?

You cannot argue the effectiveness of the response: It is Utilitarian, and it works, but is it ethical, and does it align with international humanitarian law? If I smack enough flies, I will squish some eggs and lessen the number of flies I must deal with in the future. That is potential. So, at what age do we start eradicating potential future Hamas members, In the womb, toddler stage, when?

The Hamas attack arguably gave Israel jus ad Bellum (reason for war), but what about the concept of jus in Bello, which is the justice for and responsibility to lessen the harm to non-combatants in war? Is jus in Bello being applied? 

Indeed, the issue is complicated and the intersection among utilitarian vs deontological responses, moral outrage and reflexive response to a brutal terrorist attack is complex, highly nuanced, and emotionally charged. This highly charged emotional state is a good reason to pause until calm, proportional responses can be formulated. 

I know that, unlike regular soldiers, Hamas terrorists do not wear nametags and identifying insignia and have a nasty propensity to cower among the innocents. But again, proportionality, please! If there is a terrorist in a town, it is pretty disproportionate, albeit effective in a Utilitarian manner, to wipe out the entire population to get the terrorist; it is an epic fail deontologically.

Let me get something straight right off of the mark: Hamas is a terrorist group that must be eradicated. Their attack on Israel on the 7th of October during a Jewish holiday was an act of barbarism in the nth degree and a way of infecting the Israeli zeitgeist with multigenerational trauma. The attack will be remembered on that holiday: Ad infinitum

. And that act must be answered. The fact that the Hamas cowards use Palestinian citizens as human shields and cannon fodder is not a legitimate excuse to wipe out the Palestinian civilian population.

However, Benjamin Netanyahu's answer is this indiscriminate method, and it is wrong: It is immoral and contradicts the Geneva Convention to which Israel are signatories! It is a stain on the moral zeitgeist of the Israeli people. 

I do not make the facts; they speak for themselves. I am pro-Israel, and I am pro-Palastinian. I am not an anti-semite for suggesting a better way of engaging in conflict!

If my pond has an invasive, harmful resident, I do not poison the entire pond: although the problem would be sorted, I use a more humane approach to alleviate the problem. If I have a rodent problem, I use a targeted approach to fixing it. I do not coat my yard in poisons that indiscriminately target cats, dogs, badgers, deer, etc.

Now, is Benjamin Netanyahu's approach genocide? It looks like a Duck, walks and acts like a Duck and swims like a duck. So why are world leaders afraid to call out this behaviour for what it is? They are afraid because the term equates to a legal minefield where the intent is the path through. How exactly do you prove intent?

Hamas are fleas on the armpits of honest, innocent Palestinians: kill the fleas, not the unwilling hosts!!! My heart aches for Israel because I know that they are taking a reputational hit worldwide, and I think that they have been lured into that situation of reflexive control by Hamas. My heart also aches for innocent Palestinians. In effect, Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy is anti-Semitic and an affront to Jewish people worldwide and the memory of the Holocaust.

Terms

Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism seeks to maximise your actions' utility or goals.

Deontological: Deontology concerns the rightness or wrongness of actions or goals.

Jus ad bellum: Jus ad Bellum is the *reason for war*.

Jus in Bello: jus in Bello is a Latin phrase that deals with the concept of *justice in war* (if that is indeed possible) and the responsibility of the combatants to non-combatants.

Ad infinitum: Forever

Reflexive control: Relates to your opponent using you like a puppet to harm yourself. Think of a puppet show where the puppet master makes the puppet punch itself in the face.

Valid Argument: A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Invalid Argument: 

If it rains, the road is wet. (Conditional statement)

The road is wet. (Affirmation of the consequent)

It rained. (Conclusion)

The above argument is invalid because some other act, like a person washing their car, may have caused the road to be wet.

References

1. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor

2. The Holocaust. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holocaust

3. United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

4. (N.d.). Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com