American Antisemitism Sunday continues with one of Steve-O-in NJ’s trademark historical commentaries in response to today’s post, “Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference.”

And here it is!

[I also could have justifiably credited Steve with an Ethics Quote of the Week, which you will find below: “[E]thical leaders of any cause owe those they lead a duty to realize when the conflict has become unwinnable and then seek an end to the conflict.”]

***

I don’t know about unethical, but it’s surely tone-deaf, in bad taste, and divisive in light of the current situation and in light of what this symposium seems to cover. A discussion about the now almost 80-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly possible, assuming it were a balanced one. A discussion of terrorism through the last two centuries which would include the difference between political (in support of a political goal) and millennial terrorism (where the violence is the goal), changes in viability with technology, counter-terror tactics and their evolution, and so on could be very interesting. However, this sounds like a pity party for Palestine and a hate-fest for Israel. It’s allowable, just barely, under free speech and academic freedom, as long as it sticks to discussion, although I think it’s going to generate a lot of heat and very little light. If it’s going to be a seeding place for violent demonstrations, forget it.

Truth be told, trying to nail down any kind of ethical framework around terrorism is like trying to staple water to a wall. Some deliberately try to separate the two by saying things like “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Frankly that’s the lazy way out, although it IS true that our biases are going to color how we view one cause vs. another cause and what kind of tactics we can justify. Rebellions of one kind or another have been around almost as long as mankind has organized itself into this group vs. that group, and certainly since the days when mankind had empires. The Romans were often able to stymie that by making the conquered peoples into junior partners, but some peoples, like the Jews, the Britons, and so on, wanted no part of that kind of arrangement, and had to be essentially destroyed to the point where organized resistance was no longer viable. In a time when both sides had essentially the same weapons, it was all about numbers. Certain tactics like ambushes and targeted eliminations, proto-terrorism if you will, worked to some degree, but usually couldn’t win. If the rebel side had insufficient numbers or was dispersed to the point where it couldn’t get sufficient numbers together, violent resistance wasn’t viable. Rebels or bandits could give the other side a very hard time (Hereward the Wake, the Knights of St. John at Rhodes), but in the end causes like that were usually either doomed, or only went anywhere when they COULD amass numbers enough to wage something like a real civil war.

That said, if you defeated a cause but didn’t stamp it out completely, sometimes you’d come to regret it, like the Moors did when they didn’t pursue Pelayo, the last leader of the Spanish, after the battle of Covadonga. It took 700 years, but eventually the Moorish rule in Spain was pushed out.

Terrorism really only started to be viable as a tactic with the advent of firearms and explosives, and even then, at least among the major powers, was considered the province of savages and brigands, not legitimate causes. France and Spain only decided to support the American Revolution after Saratoga, when the Americans proved that they could actually win a stand-up battle and were a legitimate force. Guerilla tactics continued to be used throughout the 19th century, of course, and sometimes worked (like in the Peninsular War), sometimes not (the Boers succeeded in giving the British a rough time and committing huge numbers, but finally lost). Terrorism gained steam after the European revolutions of 1848, but it still could rarely overthrow existing governments.

It’s only with the beginning of the 20th century, with the Russian revolution, the Anglo-Irish war, and so on, that terrorism really came into its own. It still could rarely overthrow a government by itself, but what it could do was make the government and the people so weary and so fearful that they gave up and gave the terrorists what they wanted, or made an occupying power decide that this occupation wasn’t worth it. Like it or not, sometimes terrorism pays off, like in the formation of the Irish Free State and like in Israel becoming an independent state. Also like it or not, sometimes terrorism reaches its limits and has to accept it won’t reach its goals, like Northern Ireland and like El Salvador. It’s hope that it can win that race between a defeat or an unbreakable wall and the other side losing the will to fight on that keeps terrorism as something people keep turning to. If this symposium keeps some people willing to run that race, then maybe in that sense it is unethical, since it keeps people willing to take chances that often result in a great deal of harm and damage, often to those who are innocent or want no part of the conflict.

I might also add that ethical leaders of any cause owe those they lead a duty to realize when the conflict has become unwinnable and then seek an end to the conflict. It should have been obvious to the German high command after Verdun that they’d spilled so much of their field leadership’s blood that they were not going to win the war. It should have been obvious to the Japanese after Midway that their chances of winning the Pacific war had sunk with their carrier fleet and their best pilots. What’s left of the Hamas leadership needs to pull up and think now. Most of their fighting forces are dead or captured. Most of their best leaders are dead. Hezbollah isn’t going to successfully open a second front. All of Gaza save Rafah is taken. It’s unlikely that Israel is going to agree to any kind of ceasefire. The question is do they end this and try to save what can be saved, or do they fight until there is no one left on their side? The answer should be obvious.

P.S. It may be time for Zelensky and his council of autocrats in Kyiv to think about this also. Yes, they succeeded in giving the Russians a VERY hard time, and the Russians didn’t get to treat Ukraine like a speed bump. However, it’s going on three years, the summer offensive last year achieved very little, the Russian army is bigger today than it was at the start of the war, and Putin is not anywhere near losing the support of his own people. What is more, Putin may be a bullying, swaggering tyrant, but he isn’t an idiot, and he’s not going to overreach to the point where NATO is going to have no choice but to get involved. What is more than that, the leaders of the NATO nations aren’t idiots, and won’t put themselves in Russia’s nuclear crosshairs for some oligarch in a t-shirt who keeps asking for more and more and can give no return on the investment.