Moral
Equivalent? I Got Your Moral Equivalent. On December 7, 1941,
the Japanese attacked the United States on its own soil by bombing Pearl
Harbor. Over 2,400 Americans were killed
that day and the USA was pulled into War World II. With the war winding down to a finale of an
Allied invasion of the Japanese homeland and all of the bloodshed such would
entail, a difficult decision was made.
An atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It is estimated that this bomb killed around
150,000 people. When Japan refused to
surrender, another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing around 70,000
people. On August 15, 1945, Japan
surrendered to the Allies.
On July 9, 2014, Israel began an offensive into the
Gaza Strip in response to more than 150 rockets that had been fired from there
into major Israeli cities.
In both cases, one side of a dispute played the role
of provocateur by launching surprise attacks.
In both cases, the victimized party responded by dealing directly with
the attackers in a forceful and effective fashion. In both cases, that response was undertaken
with reluctance because all other avenues of ending the conflict had
failed.
The bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor were blind; they
killed with no distinction. The bombs that America dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were indiscriminate. The
radioactive poisoning made no distinction between babies and soldiers; between
civilian adults and political leaders.
The incredible destructive forces of the unleashed explosions made no
distinctions between schools, hospitals, homes, and military
installations.
The rockets that Hamas chooses to hurl into Israel
also know no discrimination. They kill children and adults equally. They
destroy without discernment. The missiles
that Israel fires in response towards the Gaza Strip, although being as
targeted as possible towards military targets, also kill innocents.
What are the similarities and what are the
differences in this analogy? Both cases
are a matter of surprise military attacks.
Both cases involve a warranted and powerful response by those attacked
towards their attackers. Both responses
were an effort to end the conflict, disarm the original attackers, and bring a
cessation to the bloodshed. Japan
surrendered and the war ended. Hamas
continues to fire rockets, plant bombs, and kidnap Israelis. Oh, and by the way, Hamas also continues to
call for the death of all Jews and the dismantling of Israel.
Does any American have the moral foundation to
criticize Israel for their actions in this conflict? If our nation, once again, found itself in Israel’s
situation, would we be complaining that our counter attacks were killing
civilians? Would we allow our children,
our families, our friends, our homes, our neighborhoods, our businesses to be indiscriminately
blown up without responding in a meaningful and absolute fashion? I think not.
Not only should our president stand before the world
and declare our unconditional support for the nation of Israel in its quest for
survival; not only should our president be clear that we stand side-by-side
with our only DEMOCRATIC ally in the middle east today; not only should our
president be completely unambiguous about how this nation supports Israel
because we hold the same values and ideals…he should do this not in Washington
DC, but in Jerusalem.
