OccupationalHazard.org 12.14.00

The Occupation - 12/14/00

A committee of moral disgust

Meron Benvenisti - Ha'aretz

The sigh of relief from Israel's representatives after their meeting with the members of the international fact-finding committee to investigate the circumstances of the outbreak of violence in the territories was deep and very audible. "I came to the meeting with considerable trepidation," admitted Health Minister Roni Milo (Center Party). "However, their approach indicates that they have no intention of serving as a tribunal." This is certainly a somewhat bizarre response coming from the representative of a country that is not only convinced that it is not to blame for the situation and that its position is just, but which also possesses "explosive" information that points directly to the Palestinians' responsibility for the violent events and which, according to a highly-placed Israeli military source, "would place Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in a very embarrassing position."
Israel's strong apprehensions that an external examining body would analyze the actions of Israeli security forces using the criterion of objective norms - the very same apprehensions that led the government to initially oppose the committee's arrival - were dispelled after the reassuring statements made by the committee's members.
Basically, the committee was saying that it was not planning to intensify the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. Committee chair and former United States senator George Mitchell said that he and the other committee members had come in order to help.
However, Mitchell's message to the Palestinians was different. In his meeting with Palestinian representatives, Mitchell stressed the fact that the committee's role was to investigate the events. In Mitchell's eyes, there is nothing wrong with conflicting messages; quite the contrary, his experience and success in dealing with the complex inter-communal dispute in Northern Ireland have taught him that only conflicting messages and different emphases to different audiences can promote processes of conciliation.
In point of fact, the committee's purpose is not to seek out justice, but rather to achieve peace and bring an end to the violence in the territories. But justice often falls victim to the need for stopping violence. The committee's role is primarily to bring about the reduction of tension and therefore is looking for compromise solutions; but there can be no compromise as far as the facts are concerned. A Palestinian child, Mohammed al Dura, was killed, and he was killed by either an Israeli bullet or a Palestinian one, but not by a bullet fired by both sides. He was accidently caught in cross fire, or he was deliberately sent into that cross fire; there is no middle-ground. An external investigating body that tries to determine what really happened, how it happened and why it happened would be unable to obtain agreement from both sides. Its ruling would be considered one-sided and the committee itself would be sucked into the whirlpool of the conflict.
Thus, the Palestinians' demand that the committee arrive at the "truth" that will ultimately prove the justice of their position is naive. The Mitchell committee is only another boxing ring in which the Israelis and Palestinians can exchange blows, while the referee, who ignores the fact that the two boxers are by no means evenly matched, sets the rules for the match in accordance with the terms dictated by the stronger side, which is interested in seeing an "end to the violence" but is not interested in "justice."
It will quickly become apparent that Israel will have absolutely nothing to fear from the fact-finding committee and that, moreover, Israel will actually derive considerable benefit from this body - at least on the domestic front, if not on the international one. The committee will become one more instrument for stifling any initiative for examining the actions of Israeli security forces and for uncovering the truth lurking behind the propaganda smokescreen. Anyone who is interested in such initiatives will be instantly greeted with the rhetorical question-cum-accusation: "Are you crazy? Do you actually want to help the Palestinians influence the Mitchell committee?!"
The efforts to stifle initiatives will not encounter much opposition. After all, it is only the radical groups on the fringes of the national consensus that are casting serious doubt as to the government's self-righteous narrative of the recent developments in the territories and which would be audacious enough to actually request a hearing before the Mitchell committee.
It has already been pointed out that except an inquiry whose purpose was to exonerate Israeli security forces from any responsibility for al Dura's death, no judicial probe has been conducted of the circumstances that have led to the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, although it is crystal clear that Israeli soldiers did not "go by the book" in every incident.
What is truly surprising is that no one in Israel's judicial and political establishments has demanded - or indeed initiated - such an inquiry. It would have been logical to expect that a society that considers itself a part of the Western liberal world would vigorously protest the unmonitored use of lethal weapons. It would similarly be logical to expect that the escalation in both armed coercion and the administration of collective punishment would create cracks in the national consensus, or even put an end to that consensus altogether.
The threat of the disintegration of the national consensus influenced Israel's governments in the Lebanon War and in the first Intifada, but does not even exist in the present Al Aqsa Intifada. The freedom of action enjoyed by Israel's security forces - which is euphemistically called "restraint" - is not only threatening the prospects of ending the violence in the territories and renewing the peace process; it is threatening Israel's image as a Western, liberal society.
In the context of this image another aspect of the Mitchell committee's work is exposed: The fact-finding body is also a feeble attempt to soothe the conscience of the enlightened world, in face of a primitive tribal feud. This conscience-soothing process has been termed by the writer Michael Ignatieff as the "seductiveness of moral disgust," at the acts of "others that if we owe them our pity, we do not share their fate.
© copyright 2000 Ha'aretz - reprinted with permission

Back to front

A committee of moral disgust
Meron Benvenisti - Ha'aretz





The sigh of relief from Israel's representatives after their meeting with the members of the international fact-finding committee to investigate the circumstances of the outbreak of violence in the territories was deep and very audible. "I came to the meeting with considerable trepidation," admitted Health Minister Roni Milo (Center Party). "However, their approach indicates that they have no intention of serving as a tribunal." This is certainly a somewhat bizarre response coming from the representative of a country that is not only convinced that it is not to blame for the situation and that its position is just, but which also possesses "explosive" information that points directly to the Palestinians' responsibility for the violent events and which, according to a highly-placed Israeli military source, "would place Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in a very embarrassing position." Israel's strong apprehensions that an external examining body would analyze the actions of Israeli security forces using the criterion of objective norms - the very same apprehensions that led the government to initially oppose the committee's arrival - were dispelled after the reassuring statements made by the committee's members. Basically, the committee was saying that it was not planning to intensify the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. Committee chair and former United States senator George Mitchell said that he and the other committee members had come in order to help. However, Mitchell's message to the Palestinians was different. In his meeting with Palestinian representatives, Mitchell stressed the fact that the committee's role was to investigate the events. In Mitchell's eyes, there is nothing wrong with conflicting messages; quite the contrary, his experience and success in dealing with the complex inter-communal dispute in Northern Ireland have taught him that only conflicting messages and different emphases to different audiences can promote processes of conciliation. In point of fact, the committee's purpose is not to seek out justice, but rather to achieve peace and bring an end to the violence in the territories. But justice often falls victim to the need for stopping violence. The committee's role is primarily to bring about the reduction of tension and therefore is looking for compromise solutions; but there can be no compromise as far as the facts are concerned. A Palestinian child, Mohammed al Dura, was killed, and he was killed by either an Israeli bullet or a Palestinian one, but not by a bullet fired by both sides. He was accidently caught in cross fire, or he was deliberately sent into that cross fire; there is no middle-ground. An external investigating body that tries to determine what really happened, how it happened and why it happened would be unable to obtain agreement from both sides. Its ruling would be considered one-sided and the committee itself would be sucked into the whirlpool of the conflict. Thus, the Palestinians' demand that the committee arrive at the "truth" that will ultimately prove the justice of their position is naive. The Mitchell committee is only another boxing ring in which the Israelis and Palestinians can exchange blows, while the referee, who ignores the fact that the two boxers are by no means evenly matched, sets the rules for the match in accordance with the terms dictated by the stronger side, which is interested in seeing an "end to the violence" but is not interested in "justice." It will quickly become apparent that Israel will have absolutely nothing to fear from the fact-finding committee and that, moreover, Israel will actually derive considerable benefit from this body - at least on the domestic front, if not on the international one. The committee will become one more instrument for stifling any initiative for examining the actions of Israeli security forces and for uncovering the truth lurking behind the propaganda smokescreen. Anyone who is interested in such initiatives will be instantly greeted with the rhetorical question-cum-accusation: "Are you crazy? Do you actually want to help the Palestinians influence the Mitchell committee?!" The efforts to stifle initiatives will not encounter much opposition. After all, it is only the radical groups on the fringes of the national consensus that are casting serious doubt as to the government's self-righteous narrative of the recent developments in the territories and which would be audacious enough to actually request a hearing before the Mitchell committee. It has already been pointed out that except an inquiry whose purpose was to exonerate Israeli security forces from any responsibility for al Dura's death, no judicial probe has been conducted of the circumstances that have led to the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, although it is crystal clear that Israeli soldiers did not "go by the book" in every incident. What is truly surprising is that no one in Israel's judicial and political establishments has demanded - or indeed initiated - such an inquiry. It would have been logical to expect that a society that considers itself a part of the Western liberal world would vigorously protest the unmonitored use of lethal weapons. It would similarly be logical to expect that the escalation in both armed coercion and the administration of collective punishment would create cracks in the national consensus, or even put an end to that consensus altogether. The threat of the disintegration of the national consensus influenced Israel's governments in the Lebanon War and in the first Intifada, but does not even exist in the present Al Aqsa Intifada. The freedom of action enjoyed by Israel's security forces - which is euphemistically called "restraint" - is not only threatening the prospects of ending the violence in the territories and renewing the peace process; it is threatening Israel's image as a Western, liberal society. In the context of this image another aspect of the Mitchell committee's work is exposed: The fact-finding body is also a feeble attempt to soothe the conscience of the enlightened world, in face of a primitive tribal feud. This conscience-soothing process has been termed by the writer Michael Ignatieff as the "seductiveness of moral disgust," at the acts of "others that if we owe them our pity, we do not share their fate. © copyright 2000 Ha'aretz - reprinted with permission
Back to front