Once again, Israel’s use of force in self-defense has disturbed a certain type of political leader with pretentions of moral superiority. It has been reported that, Pope Francis warned Israel’s President Isaac Herzog in a telephone conversation that it is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror.” A statement of this type misses the mark and fails to draw the distinction between real terrorists and their victims who exercise their recognized legal right to self-defense. There is no parity here. In plain talk, this approach is called “both-sideism.” Two legal scholars, David Rivkin and Peter Berkowitz, analyzed this phenomenon in the Wall Street Journal of December 13, 2024. They called it an example of “primitive pacificism,” because of it fails to take into account the Catholic Church’s own theory with regard to the “Just War,” which Israel is now fighting.
There is another problem. the Holy Father’s admonition reflects a failure of compassion but he has company. After the massacre of October 7, António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, declared that, as a consequence of the “Occupation,” Israel got what it deserved. Not the least, the President of Brazil, Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva, accused Israel of genocide, “comparing Israel’s war with the Hamas terror group in Gaza to the Holocaust ‘when Hitler decided to kill the Jews.’” Furthermore, one should not omit the initiative of the South African Government to bring a case before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Warren Goldstein, declared that “If Israel’s war is not just, there has never been a just war” and accused his government of being Iran’s “useful idiots.”
The inability of Israel to satisfy the world’s critics of Israel’s morality dates back more than half a century. In January 1961, as reported in the newspapers in Montreal, the prominent British historian, Professor Arnold Toynbee, “compared from a moral standpoint, the attitude of Israel to the Arabs in 1947 and 1948 with the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews.” He was also quoted to have said that “the Jews have no historical right to Israel.” In response, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Yaakov Herzog, challenged Toynbee to a debate, which took place at McGill University on January 31, 1961.
During this debate, Ambassador Herzog made a memorable statement, which has retained its validity:
But how can two events – the destruction of one third of our people and the Arab refugee problem created by a war started by the Arabs themselves – be mentioned in the same breath? Shall we pass an amendment to article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations on the right of self-defense: an amendment to say that if you are attacked you may resist, but remember, no matter what you suffer in the process, if the man attacking you suffers, you will be condemned by history as having been affected by Nazi influence.[1]
Among such outrageous statements, we must include French President Charles de Gaulle’s infamous press conference of November 28, 1967 in which he characterized Jews as “an elite people, self-assured and domineering.” Dr. Raymond Aron wrote that this sermon broke a taboo, making public expression of antisemitism acceptable again. At the same time, Aron wrote that de Gaulle “went over to the Arab camp.” Enough time has passed for us to appreciate the consequences of his decision. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that he was unfair to Israel and, even more so, to his patrie.
Statements and deeds of this type are not entirely surprising, but they are disappointing because they lack compassion for the real victims of premeditated war crimes on a massive scale. In their condemnation of Israel’s right to self-defense, these connoisseurs of morality betray the Judeo-Christian values of Western civilization, condone barbarism and appease its perpetrators.
[1] A People that Dwells Alone: Speeches and Writings of Yaakov Herzog, (ed. Misha Louvish, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975): 23.
The article was originally published on ynetnews
