October 2011 Archive

Gilad Shalit was finally released from his Hamas terrorist kidnappers last week after five years in captivity. His release brought joy to millions in Israel and to the civilized world.

There were obviously some political reasons for both Hamas and Israel to conclude the “deal.” Ben Cohen in his blog article entitled Evaluating the Gilad Shalit Deal says that: “for the first time in five dark years, the interests of all the parties involved aligned in favor of a deal.”  The deal served the internal and international political interests of both Hamas and of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Some argued that the price paid for his liberation, the release of more than 1,000 convicted terrorists some of whom had murdered innocent civilians including women and children was too high, unjust and dangerous. Indeed the high number of released terrorists constitutes a risk that some or many of them will return to cause more deaths and destruction. The deal is unjust for the family of the victims who have to deal with the fact that the ones responsible for the death of their loved ones are set free. The deal is dangerous because it will encourage more kidnappings in the future.

This is a classic ethical dilemma of a “wrong versus wrong” situation, where there is no perfect solution. It is a search of the lesser of two evils.

The real essential moral dilemma, in my view, is well expressed by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel in his blog post entitled “Beyond Gilad Shalit: Wrestling with Ethical Ambiguity” when he asks the question: “How does a society weigh the ethical demands of saving a human life when the life of many might possibly be jeopardized?” Morality and numbers are not good companions!

Should we ever pay ransom, no matter how exorbitant, to save a life? Historically the Jewish Community has had to deal with this issue again and again, during the Middle Ages, the Holocaust and more recently since 1948, when the State of Israel was created.

Prof. Dov Waxman, co-author of Israel’s Palestinians: The Conflict Within, reminds us that sometimes we have to be humble and acknowledge that in some cases there are no “definitive moral answers.” In his article posted on the Carnegie Council website entitled Freeing Gilad: An Ethical Conundrum, he writes: “Thus, while saving the life of Gilad Shalit, the deal between Israel and Hamas could potentially put many other Israeli lives at risk. From a “consequentialist” ethical perspective, this must surely be considered wrong. On the other hand, from a non-consequentialist, “deontological” perspective, the deal is ethically sound on the grounds that we simply have a moral duty to free a captive and save a human life if we can do so.”

From a psychological point of view there is a difference between Gilad Shalit who is real, has a name and a face, and the probability of future Israeli kidnapping victims. In the balance is a life versus the perceived risks of future loss of life.

Melanie Phillips, a blogger at the UK Daily Mail, who opposed the exchange, sums up the dilemma when she writes in her great article on the Aish.com website entitled This Was No Prisoner Exchange that the deal represents: “a triumph of heart over head.” I think she is right.

I believe that the decision makers remembered the quote from the Talmud that says:

“Whoever saves a single life is as if one saves the entire world.”

Last week we learned of the killing of Anwar of al-Awlaki on Friday by a joint operation of the U.S. Military and the CIA in collaboration with the Government of Yemen. Mr. Al-Awaki was a radical Islamist, the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula and had vowed publicly to fight Jihad against America. He is believed to have been instrumental in the shooting by Nidal Malik Hazan at Fort Hood which killed 13 Americans. He is also believed to have been linked to the attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit and the inspiration of the failed Time Square bombing.

President Obama declared that his death was “another significant milestone in the broaden efforts to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates” and that his death was a “major blow” for al-Qaeda.

Mr. al-Awlaki’s killing has prompted a legal and moral debate in this country and abroad.

Ron Paul, a Libertarian was very critical of the action. He declared:  “al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes.” The American Civil Liberties Union concurs. Jameel Jaffer, the Deputy Legal Director said in a statement: “The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent.”

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and author of the recently published book “Confronting Terror” has a different view. He says in his article in his September 30^th 2011 WSJ that “Al Qaeda has no territory, population or conventional armed forces. It draws its operatives from any country and trains them to covertly infiltrate peaceful societies to launch surprise attacks on civilian targets. If the U.S. were to reserve criminal justice rules for American terrorists, it would only encourage al Qaeda to recruit citizens and ease their path into this country. American al Qaeda operatives would be free from targeting and efforts to stop them-here or abroad-would require the whole system of warrants, judges, Miranda warnings and lawyers. He also mentions in his article that in 2004, the Supreme Court declared that: “A citizen, no less than an alien, can be part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners and engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.”

It is a complex issue that can not be easily resolved on a blog post but I am particularly intrigued by the fact that Mr. Awlaki’s U.S. citizenships plays such an important role in this debate. (Mr. al-Awlaki, of Yemeni parents, was born in this country but return to Yemen when he was 7 years old. He returned later to complete his studies.) America is one of the rare countries that grant citizenship to those born in the U.S. Most countries in Europe determine citizenship by the nationality of the parents.

What does it mean to be a citizen?

Dictionary.com defines citizenship as: “the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.” Citizenship is a privilege but, as with most privileges, it includes responsibility and obligations.

I believe that any individual who voluntary decides to become an enemy, in both words and action, of the country of which he is a citizen has morally deprived himself or herself of the privilege of that citizenship.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.