Self Restraint in War

In a recent issue of Forward, there is a fine discussion of an expression that will sound blasphemous to pacifists, but nonetheless captures a goal of those who feel called to fight a war but within some kind of acceptable moral framework. Go here.

The expression is: טוהר הנשק, “purity of arms.” Below the fold, I provide the Hebrew and an English translation of the quote at the origin of the expression. The Hebrew is easy enough that any student of ancient Hebrew ought to be able to catch it.

הבלגה משמע:

יהי נשקנו טהור.

 אנו לומדים נשק,

אנו נושאים נשק,

אנו מתייצבים בפני הקמים עלינו.

אך איננו רוצים שנשקנו יוכתם בדם נקיים.

Self-restraint means:

our arms must remain pure.

We learn [to use] arms,

we bear arms,

we stand up against whoever attacks us.

But we do not want our arms to be stained with the blood of the innocent.

The intellectual and moral pedigree of this concept is unimpeachable. I say this based on conversations with a one-time member of the left-wing Haganah. The Haganah adopted this concept as a guiding principle. Unlike the right-wing Irgun.

Who said left-wing / right-wing politics do not matter? The truth is not all on one side, but it cannot be on both sides equally either.

Comments

[Justin (koavf)]

John,

Only the most ideological and radical pacifist wouldn't see the value in "purity of arms" (as I understand it.) Even if there is no moral distinction between killing an enemy and killing a bystander, there is a distinction nonetheless and the ability of a combatant to make that distinction is the difference between conflict with some kind of restraint and mass slaughter. Surely any pacifist would prefer the former to the latter.

For that matter, anyone living an ethical life should be able to appreciate the fact that another is living by a moral code, even if that is not the same one he has chosen.

If a pacifist can't see the difference between a soldier who is motivated by ethical discipline or duty and a maniacal spree killer, then I feel sorry for that person.

As an aside, do you know anything about an intellectual history of Jewish pacifism? I know that John Howard Yoder was working on that as his final project before he died, but he didn't get much resolution on the matter (cf. The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited.)

-JAK

[steph]

Great. But it isn't "impractical idealism". The article says "As a principle, tohar ha-neshek is an admirable one; in practice, it can be excruciatingly difficult to apply. One would have to study what happened on a case-by-case basis in order to come to any reasonable conclusion about how well the IDF applied it in Gaza."

OK: Case one - the dumping of white phosphorous...
Case two - the dropping of cluster bombs...
Case three - the bombing of the UN headquarters...
etc etc
Conclusion: Purity of arms was not applied by the IDF in Gaza.

[JohnFH]

Justin,

You make excellent points. To be honest, "purity of arms" sounds blasphemous to me, and I think in terms of a just-war framework. My point would be that you can't fight a war without sinning, and often sinning very boldly. That being so, the arms will never be clean, even if the blood of civilians are not on them.

Steph,

I agree with you about Cases 1 and 2, though I would like to know more about phosphorus and cluster bombs were used and any differences between overt and covert rationales. I'm unsure about Case 3; presumably an investigation will look at the incident with care.

Of course, the IDF's method of using arms in Gaza and their use of warning systems to disperse civilians makes Hamas's continuous and deliberate targeting of civilians by missiles and mortar fire look comparatively heinous. Just pointing out the obvious.

It is also not clear how many civilians were killed by the IDF in Gaza. The figures so far come from Hamas and cannot be independently verified.

Furthermore, it is well-known that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. That makes them co-responsible for the deaths of their own civilians. Once again, just pointing out the obvious.

[steph]

Of course what you say is 'obvious' is in fact, not obvious. Cases one and two cannot have rationale. Their uses of them are against the Geneva Convention but that means nothing to Israel, nor does international law. Case three has plenty of evidence from the inside. One of our own UN workers was there for instance. I don't "presume" an investigation will take place. Still waiting for the Bush administration to be held to account for the illegal invasion of Iraq and subsequent 'mistakes'.

[steph]

To be honest, "purity of arms" really sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[JohnFH]

Steph,

Rationales matter. According to international law, phosphorus has legitimate uses in war. It sometimes causes collateral damage, both to those who use it and to anyone else in the vicinity. But was phosphorus intentionally used as a lethal weapon by the IDF?

The use of cluster bombs, on the face of it, seems to make a mockery of the goal of precision-targeting. Their use is not however banned by the Geneva Convention, or if it is, then NATO and the Clinton administration were also in violation of it when they bombed Serbia into submission.

That's the trouble with your line of argument. Applied consistently, everyone turns out to be guilty of war crimes. Which is just another way of saying that no one is guilty.

But I agree with you about the expression "purity of arms." Still, oxymorons have legitimate uses. There is a sense in which war is itself is an oxymoron, which opens the door to many more to follow.

[Alex]

The Hagana adopted it, fine. Have they always practiced it? Of course not.

[steph]

That's right, everyone is guilty. War isn't legitimate and neither are arms. End of. And yes, the IDF did use phosphorous as a lethal weapon. They dumped it on a heavily populated area. And NATO and Clinton (and Bush) have still to be called to account.

[JohnFH]

Steph,

It's good to see that you are a consistent anti-imperialist of the old school. You guys get to defend the indefensible actions of governments like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, and of movements like Hezbollah and Hamas.

As a just-war theorist, I get to defend the indefensible actions of governments like United States, Great Britain, and Israel.

To each his own.

[steph]

You seem to like rhetoric. However it doesn't alway work does it. I'm not defending anyone John.

[JohnFH]

Hey Steph. Rhetoric is not enough, though I wouldn't handicap yourself by leaving it to others.

When it comes to war, if you attack one side only and not the other for real or imagined war crimes, you will be understood as defending one side.

[steph]

Not handicapping myself John. Your rhethoric doesn't work. And John, I am not defending any one side. I am not defending Israel and I am not defending Hamas.

[JohnFH]

No, Steph, it's not my rhetoric that doesn't work. It's my argument that fails, if you are not defending Hamas.

This is the first time in this discussion that you have suggested, and even now by implication only, that Hamas, no less than Israel, is guilty of indefensible acts.

It might now seem that, like Switzerland, you wish to take a neutral stance. You will not defend either Israel or Hamas. For your sake, I hope you are getting rich in the process, as Switzerland does by laundering money.

[steph]

I have never suggested I defended Hamas. So it does not "now seem" at all. I am not neutral. I might point out Israel's evils more because they are more loudly defended by America. You really do wander off on a tangent with Switzerland. No I don't have money at all and I don't particularly want it. I just pay the rent and eat out of the garden and swim in the sea for nothing. So what does that have to do with anything?

[JohnFH]

Steph,

Just trying to understand your point of view better by testing the waters a bit.

I mentioned Switzerland because sometimes people with views like yours - strong and vocal opposition to Israel's policies, muted opposition to Hamas's policies - hold up Swiss neutralism as a model for other Western countries to follow. Clearly not your case.

It sounds like you have a serene existence.

[steph]

I don't see what Swiss money making has to do with Swiss neutralism. And why the cynical "serene existence"? What has that to do with my finding fault in both Israel and Hamas?

[JohnFH]

Steph,

That's interesting that you see no connection between secret Swiss bank accounts, money laundering, and Swiss neutralism. I thought that was a commonplace.

No, I did not mean to sound cynical when I referred to your "serene existence." I am a bit jealous. It's far below zero here, with two feet of snow on the ground.

[steph]

Ah - I forgot I mentioned my lifestyle :-) Snow doesn't ever come to our shores - it just falls briefly on the mountain tops for a bit of winter skiing. However my bliss will be interrupted again as I go again to icey Inglund for the old phd ... but serenity is my home.

You can rest assured I am neither rich nor neutral.

[steph]

One thing still bothers me - you did assume that I was defending Hamas because I was accusing the Israeli government. However I know of nobody who opposes Israel and defends Hamas. The only people I know of who defend Hamas are Hamas. But I have said this before and so have others.

[JohnFH]

That's not true, Steph.

Among those who have defended Hamas in crucial instances is Chomsky.

By pursuing your not-with-one-side-or-the-other approach, you risk splitting hairs which is not something normally done in the midst of a war.

Here's an analogy. Put yourself in the shoes of the Judean monarch in Jeremiah's day. My goodness, consenting to putting him down a cistern was really the most benevolent thing he might have done.

Jeremiah's scathing denunciations of Judahite policy and predictions of utter ruin could only be understood as aiding the enemy in context.

Right? My guess is that our differences boil down to the fact that, all other things being equal, you feel it is responsible to oppose Israel and support the Palestinians. I happen to have a somewhat different stance.

[steph]

Oh for goodness sake John - I don't "feel it is responsible" to oppose Israel. I feel sorry for and powerless to help the Palestinian and Israeli civilians who oppose this war. I don't "feel it is responsible" to oppose Israel or Hamas. I don't "feel it is responsible" to oppose the American government either but I think all three are murdering and greedy power seekers. It is not my war - or our war - it is your war.

[JohnFH]

That's where they differ, Steph.

The very possibility that a war may represent, long-term, the lesser of two evils precisely with civilians in mind does not seem to cross your mind.

Or perhaps you recognize that possibility, and would defend the legitimacy of wars fought by "murdering and greedy power seekers" (The Hobbesian definition of government; no state is entirely free from fitting this characterization), just not the one under consideration.

For example, perhaps you are fine with murdering and greedy Great Britain and America's war efforts during WWII, not in the sense that atrocities committed should have been avoided more often than they were (this is always the case), but that their decision to engage in defensive and offensive action, including preemptive strikes, was and is defensible.

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what brand of pacifism you subscribe to, and why. There will always be civilians who are opposed to war. Sometimes they are a majority. Whether they are right to oppose a particular war or not is another can of fish.

[steph]

My God you are so patronising!! I don't "subscribe" to any "brand" of pacifism. Maybe you just won't "understand". No I am not "fine" with the second world war and yes of course it is defensible but the just not make it justifiable. You can defend killing your mother but that does not excuse you.

A progressive society breeds your Hobbesian government. What is not supposed to have crossed my mind has actually crossed my mind but of course I do not believe it is the lesser of two evils. It is the only evil.

I don't think the possible pacifist persuasion of the civilians has anything to do with the validity of war.

[JohnFH]

Just trying to understand you. I doubt I'm the only one to have that difficulty.

It's true I can't follow your logic, and not because I'm not trying.

For you the Second World War is defensible but not justifiable (a distinction that is a bit unusual).

On the other hand, war (or is it Hobbesian government?) is the only evil.

That's where we disagree. There are occasions, and not just that of WWII for both Great Britain and the USA, in which war is a lesser evil than sitting on one's hands.

If that is so, the only question is: by what criteria is the decision to go to war to be made?

[steph]

No you don't understand do you. I'm totally illogical to you. Perhaps that is your failing not mine. You doubt you're the only one. Well more fool them.

"For you the Second World War is defensible but not justifiable (a distinction that is a bit unusual)." Well if you can't understand that there's not alot I can do to help. You can defend stealing - saying you were hungry. It doesn't make stealing right. Defend killing your mother - she patronised you. It doesn't make matricide right. You can defend WWII - it doesn't make it right.

I'm beginning to think that you just can't see an alternative to war. War solves everything - he quick fix. Maybe you just can't see that perhaps it is the flaw of your Hobbesian government that thinks that war means more gain and less compromise.

I'm surprised almost that you aren't happy with Obama. :-)

[JohnFH]

Steph,

Perhaps all you are saying is that, as Luther pointed out, the best case scenario is that we are simul iustus et peccator. Put more starkly still, war might sometimes be a case of bold and defensible sinning, but it remains, always, aggression and transgression.

If that is what you are saying, I agree. Sorry I didn't catch your meaning right away.

That still leaves the problem of when to sin boldly and when to refrain from sinning boldly. You have yet to address that problem. It is in fact the problem. You cannot wave it to one side.

[steph]

Sort of - except I am also saying there is always a way to avoid "sinning boldly". Shame humanity is too greedy and impatient to see this. Just because you might be able to defend war doesn't mean you have to make it. Just because history is full of bold sinning doesn't mean we have to repeat it.