Our Selective Moral Outrage

[question everything]

APRIL 21, 2009

Our Selective Moral Outrage
Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?
By BRET STEPHENS
WSJ


Few places on earth have been as systematically brutalized over the past decade as Chechnya. So you might have thought that the Russian government's decision last week to declare an end to its "counterterrorism" operations in the territory would have been an occasion for somber reflection in the Western media. Forget it. It's a 600-word news item at best. Here's a contrast to ponder. Since the beginning of the second intifada in the autumn of 2000, roughly 6,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire. That figure includes combatants, as well as those killed in January's fighting in Gaza. As for Chechnya, there are no solid figures for the number of civilians killed since the second war began in late 1999; estimates range anywhere between 25,000 and 200,000.

(snip)

Maybe the answer is that the Palestinian cause is morally worthier than Chechnya's. But that can't be right. Yes, Chechen terrorists have committed spectacular atrocities, notably the 2004 Beslan school massacre. Yet modern terrorism is a genre Palestinians practically invented. As it is, Chechnya has been suffering grievously under Russia's thumb since the 1800s. (Just read Tolstoy's "Hadji Murat.") If colonialism is your beef, the case for Chechen independence is inarguable. Maybe, then, the answer is that there is no shortage of imagery of Palestinian death, and thus it engages more of the world's attention. By contrast, the Russians imposed a virtual media blockade on Chechnya, and journalists who covered the story, like Anna Politkovskaya, had a way of ending up dead. But imagery need not simply be televised to be vivid, nor does the world lack for testimonials of Russian brutality. "I remember a Chechen female sniper," a Russian soldier told L.A. Times reporter Maura Reynolds. "We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it."

(snip)

Of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inflames the Muslim world in a way the Chechen one does not. But why is that, when so many more Muslims are being victimized by Russia? Then too, why does the wider world participate in the Muslim world's moral priorities? Why, for instance, do high-profile Western writers like Portuguese Nobelist José Saramago make "solidarity" pilgrimages to Ramallah, but not to the Chechen capital of Grozny? Why do British academics organize boycotts of their Israeli counterparts, but not their Russian ones? Why is Palestinian statehood considered a global moral imperative, but statehood for Chechnya is not?

Why does every Israeli prime minister invariably become a global pariah, when not one person in a thousand knows the name of Chechen "President" Ramzan Kadyrov, a man who, by many accounts, keeps a dungeon near his house in order to personally torture his political opponents? And why does the fact that Mr. Kadyrov is Vladimir Putin's handpicked enforcer in Chechnya not cause a shudder of revulsion as the Obama administration reaches for the "reset" button with Russia?

I have a hypothesis. Maybe the world attends to Palestinian grievances but not Chechen ones for the sole reason that Palestinians are, uniquely, the perceived victims of the Jewish state. That is, when they are not being victimized by other Palestinians. Or being expelled en masse from Kuwait. Or being excluded from the labor force in Lebanon. Things you probably didn't know about, either. As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027104509836989.html

[imdjh]

1. K&R

[pocoloco]

2. Short answer......

Israel does opprobrium really well.

[tularetom]

3. God forbid that anyone should criticize Israel

What frickin planet is Bret Stephens living on?

[Jim Sagle]

4. The world of one set of standards for all.

[LeftishBrit]

6. The point wasn't that people criticize Israel, but that they don't criticize other countries that

practice illegal and oppressive occupations - as many do.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Many good points here - there is a lot of hypocrisy on these issues - but a few points

(1) I don't think that the singling out of Israel is just because Israel is a Jewish state, though that no doubt plays a role for some. There are a few other important points, e.g.:

(a) Israel is seen as a key ally of the USA (there is a lot of criticism of the UK for the same reason)

(b) Russia is bigger than Israel, and has more power e.g. in the UN!

(2) British academics have NOT organized boycotts of Israel; some academics have called for them, but all such motions have been defeated or never got off the ground. As a UCU member myself, this constant misreporting irritates me.

[question everything]

7. I have been thinking about this

especially since so many on DU actually cheer Iran's Ahmedinejead, and blame Israel for anything under the sun.

In 1967 France's De Gaulle refused to help Israel, even used some denigrating phrases - I don't recall what. At that time Israel was not a key ally of the USA, yet, when it was threatened when Egypt kicked out the UN peace keeping force from the Sinai and blockaded the Straits of Tiran, no one would stand up for Israel.

When Israel was attacked in 1973 and Nixon ordered supplied to be shipped, no single European country would allow for the planes to land for refueling.

I think that, at least in Europe, good old Anti Semitism does play a role. For several years they had to keep it down, after the Holocaust. But once Israel demonstrated that Jews do not have to always be the victims, the need to apologize for the Holocaust disappeared.

Also, after France ended its colonial rule in North Africa, many Arabs came ashore and started to disseminate their views against Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What an idiotic article that is...

As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia.

Do simple minded twits like this writer ever get sick of shrieking accusations of anti-semitism at the drop of a hat? Y'know, being opposed to human rights abuses and occupations around the world doesn't, as some folk seem to want to believe, involve making up a descending list of worst to least worst and going from there. Or else, my long-term opposition to the Indonesian occupation of East Timor would have brought on cries of hypocrisy from those who "support" Indonesia. Why the 'look over there, hypocrites' line of 'reasoning' appeals to some so much when it comes to the I/P conflict is because they don't want there to be much criticism of Israel at all, and in the case of this article, his gripe seems to involve that what Israel did in Gaza in late December/January copped criticism. Tough shit for him and all like him....

btw, speaking of hypocrisy and selective moral outrage, the writer is engaging in the very thing he complains about when he goes on about Palestinian terrorism, yet overlooks the terrorism carried out by the Tamil Tigers, which was on a much larger scale, much higher frequency and with much more devastating effects, and makes terrorism carried out by Palestinian groups look like the little league in comparison...