Oak Park Temple
B'nai Abraham Zion

1235 N. Harlem Avenue
Oak Park, IL 60302
(708) 386-3937

On Moral Relativism and the Sin of Appeasing Aggressors

Rosh Hashanah Morning 5764, Rabbi Gary S. Gerson

Moralists generally rub me the wrong way. Take, for example, former Secretary of Education William Bennett. You'll remember that Bennett, who has written numerous books on virtue, was revealed for his compulsive, high-stakes gambling. Once caught, Bennett said "I've gambled all my life, and it's never been a moral issue with me."

I agree with the editorial that offered Bennett support, but only on the condition that he no longer burden us with his high-toned moralizing ever again.

I suspect that most of us, whatever our sins may be, are not moralists the like of William Bennett. In fact, I'll bet that if anything, we are more apt to be moral relativists. Relativism, the view that ethical truths depend on individuals and the groups holding them, is one of the first "isms" to which we were exposed in college. We learned that mores are determined by our time and place in history, culture, society, and religion. And, having experienced first hand the oppression of the host societies in which we lived, liberally-minded Jews were among the first in this country to honor persons and peoples treated as "other". I am proud to be one of these Jews.

And yet, I'm a rabbi, and our tradition authorizes and instructs me to challenge myself and others to do what is right and good, and to not relativize away that which is evil.

So let me begin by telling you about a Jewish student who goes to Yale. Every so often a person comes along and says something so profound, that she deserves our praise. Well, not too long ago, Ms. Alyson Horenstein, in defiance of her classmates and her culture, arrived at an insight. The insight was that some things are right and some things are wrong. She arrived at this insight all by herself -- not because of the education she has received, but in spite of it .

Let me explain:

Alyson Horenstein wrote a column in Newsweek in which she tried to come to terms with what for her and her friends at Yale was the most troublesome question that came out of September eleventh, namely, did anyone really do anything bad on that day?

This is not a question that most people had much trouble with, and that is Ms. Horenstein's point. She was surprised and bothered to find that, in the wake of the September eleventh murders, many of her classmates at Yale felt the need to struggle with the question, "Did anyone do anything objectively wrong when they murdered the thousands of people in the Twin Towers?" The problem that her peers were having was that to address this question would mean having to make a moral judgment, and to judge others is for some of Ms. Horenstein's classmates, and, in fact, some of her professors, the greatest of taboos.

The first commandment in the culture of moral relativism is that: thou shalt not be judgmental. And so, many moral relativists were discomfited to deal with the events of September eleventh.

Horenstein writes that the first response at Yale on September eleventh was shock, horror, and anger. But, she tells us that by the next week, as the shock began to fade, so did the sense of being confronted with evil.

Student reactions, as expressed in the Yale newspaper and in class, pointed to the differences between our culture and the culture of those who did this act, as if to say that people who live within one culture have no right to judge those who live in a different culture.

Ms. Horenstein explained that she and her classmates found it so hard to judge or to condemn because they were educated to be non-judgmental. She writes: "I came from a school in Manhattan where I studied with students who came from a great variety of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, and we were tutored in an open-minded curriculum."

When I read about the way she was educated, it reminded me of the old story about how a second grade teacher brings a rabbit into the classroom, and asks the children: "Is this a boy rabbit or a girl rabbit?" And the children say: "I don't know. Let's vote on it." In second grade, she writes, "we were taught that the Inuit of Alaska were essentially just like us, even though they carve caribou hooves and that the people in Central Africa are just like us, even though they eat human flesh. In third grade, the teacher told the class a story in which one boy kicked another and then she explained that the moral of the story was not that the kicker was bad, but that he "had feelings inside him that sometimes led him to do mean things"." In high school, Ms. Horenstein and her classmates agreed that although they personally found the practice of female genital mutilation to be abhorrent, they must accept it as part of the culture of other societies.

But in the days after September eleventh -- as she listened to her classmates and her professors offer explanations and justifications for what had happened -- as she heard them say that the hijackers did what they did because of the poverty in the Middle East, or because of United States foreign policy, or because of the high value that their religion places upon martyrdom -- as she listened to all these explanations, Alison Horenstein had an epiphany. It struck her like a bolt of lightening that despite all the cultural diversity that she had been taught to value and respect all her life, some things in this world are right and some things in this world are just plain wrong!!! She wrote: "Just as we should pass absolute moral judgment in the case of rape, so we should recognize that some other actions are objectively bad, despite all the differences there may be in cultural standards and values. To me, hijacking planes and killing thousands of civilians falls into this category."

Wow! What a bold, counter cultural, politically incorrect thing that is to say -- that murdering thousands of people is bad!! Where did she get such a radical idea?

But wait. A lifetime of instruction is not sloughed off quite so easily as that. Alyson Horenstein's bold moral judgment is not quite as bold as it seems. Look at her conclusion again: 'to me it is wrong' is what she says. In other words, hijacking planes and killing thousands of people is not objectively bad after all. It is just bad IN HER OPINION. Indeed, she hurries to reassure us that she has not committed the ultimate heresy of saying some things are right and some things are wrong. She qualifies her statement by saying: 'TO ME IT IS WRONG BUT OTHERS MAY DISAGREE'. Others may disagree? -- That murdering thousands of innocent people is wrong? Is this really a matter of opinion? Is it that she happens not to approve of murder, but that she does not want to take away the right of others to approve of it if they wish? Is it really so relative? Is it like saying: some people like tomatoes and some people don't; some people like to commit murder and some people don't? And everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Then she goes on to say: "It is less important to me where people draw the line than it is that they are willing to draw it at all." Does that mean that if she draws the line at the murder of thousands of innocent civilians and someone else draws their line at the murder of hundreds of thousands, they are just as entitled to their opinion as she is to hers? That they may be just as right as she is, and that no one has the right to tell anyone else exactly how many innocent civilians have to get killed before we declare it immoral?

Here you have an obviously intelligent, obviously moral person, trying nobly and painfully to think her way out of the intellectual and moral cul-de-sac into which the miseducation she has received all her life has put her. In the end, she can't quite do it. She can't judge.

And so I wish her well in her efforts to overcome her education. Push on, Ms. Horenstein, push on. Go the last mile. Go out on the limb and say it -- SAY IT -- 'Murder is wrong!' Say that murder by terrorists is wrong and not just in your opinion . Others may disagree with you, Ms. Horenstein, but go ahead, draw the line! Draw it where you know it belongs! Dare to judge!

I wonder: is Ms. Horenstein in synagogue now or not? I don't know, but if she is, I hope that she is paying attention to what the prayer book says, because the prayer book, from its beginning to its end, is judgmental.... Not about little things -- not about things that are a matter of taste or opinion. On those things, the prayer book and the faith that it embodies is tolerant and open minded. But when it comes to the big things, when it comes to the sins that stain, warp, and spoil our lives, the ones that poison our souls, shorten our lives, and harm our relationships with each other, on these, the prayer book is very judgmental. So judgmental that it makes us say over and over again, together, Al chet shechatanu lifanecha -- for the sin that we have committed against You.

Notice that it doesn't let us get away from our responsibilities by saying: Dear God, it really isn't my fault that I stole some money; after all, I am poor, so it is understandable that I stole.

Or: Dear God, it really isn't my fault that I gossiped. After all, I have all kinds of conscious and unconscious drives within me; I have low self-esteem and I have a deep need to be liked and so it is understandable that I gossiped.

Or: Dear God, it isn't really my fault that I cheated. After all, I have a lot of hormones inside me, and I live in a culture that is so X rated, so it is really not my fault that I cheated.

It does not let us say: Dear God, I know that showing disrespect for parents was a sin back in the old days, but it is not considered so bad in the society in which we live now, and so it is really not my fault that I did it.

The prayer book does not let us use any of these cop-outs. Instead, it makes us judge ourselves, painful as that may be to do. It makes us say we have sinned, and we admit it. It makes us say, we have sinned and we are sorry. It makes us say, we have sinned, and we will try to do better next year.

What the prayer book teaches is the very opposite of what Ms. Horenstein seems to have learned. The prayer book teaches that some things are right and some things are wrong.

And it teaches us that if other people disagree, if they deny that murder, robbery and rape are wrong, well, they have a right to be wrong, but they are wrong, nonetheless. For these things are wrong, not just wrong in my opinion. They are inherently and objectively wrong whether the culture knows it or not.

That, to me, is the great contribution that Judaism has to offer to this bewildering world in which we live. To a world that is so open-minded that anything goes; to a world that is so non-judgmental that nothing is forbidden, so long as it is popular. But Judaism comes and says: No! Some things are right, and some things are wrong! And once a year we are bidden to examine the differences and decide which we shall do.

There is a prayer that we shall say on Yom Kippur: Al chet shechatanu lifanecha -- for the sin of appeasing aggressors. In recent years, these words are not said in vain, for t here are some who are guilty of this sin.

For example, there are some who seem to feel that we should not pass judgment on the terrorist attacks that have been launched against Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Brigade- that we should refrain from judgment concerning these attacks against innocent Israeli civilians.

They engage in the same kind of moral relativism as does Ms. Horenstein and her classmates. They fall into the media canard of calling these bombers "militants" rather than "terrorists", and they find their way into condoning if not legitimating their attacks. In fact, some become apologists and supporters who would even shield them from justice. These are Jews, who appease aggressors, and in so doing, become a fifth column against the rest of us. Take, for example, the International Solidarity Movement - ISM.

ISM presents itself as a "non-violent" group concerned with the welfare of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza . Two months ago, temple member Mark Segal wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune which is very instructive about the true nature of ISM. Mark wrote: " Uli Schmetzer's article (July 15, 2003), "In Troubled Palestinian Town, an American 'Martyr'," focused on the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist with the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement. Without diminishing the tragedy of Ms. Corries's death, it is important to also recognize that the ISM is an active adjunct of the "Second Intifada" that has brought misery and death to so many Israelis and Palestinians.

ISM, ostensibly a proponent of non-violence, appears from their website (and press coverage) to be something very different, using non-violence as a means to support a broader "armed struggle." This "armed struggle" is, in fact, a campaign of murder and terror against Israeli and other civilians in Israel , the West Bank , and the Gaza Strip, a large proportion of whom are women and children.

The ISM website states that: "we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle." Elsewhere on its website, the ISM trivializes the horrific campaign of suicide bombings and shootings as " occasional acts of Palestinian violence." Thank you, Mark, for bringing this to light

In addition to supporting the destruction of Israel , the International Solidarity Movement also supports suicide bombings. Perusing the website, I found the following statement: "As a solidarity movement, we are committed to working fully in support of the Palestinian people's resistance movement. We unconditionally support Palestinians' human right to resist occupation and oppression by any means necessary ."

To bring home the real character of the ISM community, listen to the words of Ms Charlotte Kates, a New Jersey activist in this group. When asked about whether ISM's support extends to violent means, she replied, "We support Palestinians' right to resist occupation and oppression, and do not feel that it is our place as a solidarity movement to dictate tactics of resistance to the Palestinian people."

When asked, more specifically, about suicide bombing, Ms Kates replied that she does not see anything wrong about it. In her own words, "Why is there something particularly horrible about "suicide bombing" - except for the extreme dedication conveyed in the resistance fighter's willingness to
use his or her own body to fight?"

What is so very disturbing to me is that some of ISM's "activists" are Jewish. And some of them are local. One, who grew up in Oak Park , was recently brought to an Oak Park Public Library by local peace groups. Whether out of malevolent intent or simply out of misguided relativism, what was heard was the execrating and vilifying of Israel .

And it was many of the same appeasers of aggression who recently sponsored a speaker from the "Electric Intifada", again resulting in the denouncing of Israel .

Now if such activities were uncontaminated by anti-Semitism, I suppose that some of them could be chalked up to naïveté. But among the signs that have appeared at local "peace" rallies are ones that distort and incite - like " Israel = Apartheid". How different are these signs than the ones that have appeared particularly on campuses throughout the country, anathematizing Israel at every turn, demanding university divestment of Israel-related investments. Just how far are the bearers of these signs from those who physically attack Jewish students as at San Francisco State University , burn synagogues, smash the windows and deface the walls of Hillel centers, and distribute anti-Semitic tracts, including the claim that the Talmud gives a Jew permission to violate any non-Jewish female over the age of 3?

In all fairness, there are some of the supporters of ISM and of the Electric Intifada and their kind who regularly and perfunctorily decry Palestinian terrorism. We've all read those pro forma utterances.

But let us not forget that, at the very best, these are the same people who have swallowed the notion that what Israel does to protect itself is morally equivalent to what the terrorists are doing. They ought to remember whom we're fighting, and what we HAVE NOT DONE. Have we blown up their restaurants in order to kill as many unarmed civilians as possible? Targeted their public transportation? Celebrated on our campuses after we blew their pizza parlors to high heaven? Rewarded the families of homicide bombers, and turned murderers into religious icons? Have we lynched, to the glee of hundreds standing outside, Palestinians who have made their way into Israel ? Have we destroyed their religious sites as they did to Joseph's Tomb and Jericho 's Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue? Have we had fireworks displays, as did the Palestinians in Hebron in mid August as they celebrated the bombing that killed 23 and wounded over 100 innocent souls in Jerusalem ?

No matter how grievous some of the mistakes that the Israel Defense Forces may have made, and yes, there have been too many, do they really want to make this comparison? Do they really believe that it is a policy from the "top" that civilians are to be systematically killed? And let them be very careful before they answer. Even if the policy is to play very serious hardball with the terror organizations in the knowledge that civilians will inevitably be killed, that's not the same thing as consciously and purposefully seeking to kill civilians. Don't we have the right to expect that those who would identify themselves as Jews have the ethical and intellectual nuance needed to make this distinction?

Another thing about those who appease aggressors - they are wont to say how much they "love Israel ". They say they love Israel , true, but in the very next sentence, they preach hatred of the State and its government, which they claim has long oppressed another people. Is that what's really going on here? Of the myriad responsibilities the government has, and in the midst of everything the Jewish people is facing in this hour, that's their read of what Israel is? Their basic, instinctive reaction is that Israel is now in the business of oppressing another people?

They don't seem to understand that what is going on in Israel is the business of trying to stay alive. They see it as simply about oppression. And because of this, then I see no difference between them and whoever else in the
world that would do us in, with no regard for the history that created Israel , or for the dream -- however insufficiently fulfilled -- that this homeland represents.

Even the committed Israeli left has had to rethink its views in light of this war. Take Benny Morris, for example. Morris, one of the key figures among the Israeli New Historians, has done more than almost anyone to document the roles of the Hagganah and the early IDF in the expulsions of Arabs from their villages during the War of Independence. In doing so, he has aroused the ire of many centrist and right wing Israelis. He, of anyone, would seem to devoted to settling this conflict and giving the Palestinian people the home they deserve, right?

Right, except he looks around, and realizes that there's no chance for that now. He reads the situation, and realizes that this isn't about fairness, it's about our destruction. So, he's bagged that hope. Listen to him in his own words: "I have yet to see even a peace-minded Palestinian leader, as Sari Nusseibeh seems to be, stand up and say: 'Zionism is a legitimate national liberation movement, like our own. And the Jews have a just claim to Palestine, like we do'..I don't believe that Arafat and his colleagues mean or want peace -- only a staggered chipping away at the Jewish state."

What will it take to get for those Jews who appease aggressors to understand what the Israeli left has had to learn?

And so I want to thank Ms. Horenstein for helping us to recognize moral relativism in its ugliest form - in the radical chic, arm-chair kind of intellectualism that desecrates the lives of those who have been slaughtered by terrorists - who see them as merely "the collateral damage" of a liberation movement." Never mind the fact that such terrorist attacks have gone on from the very founding of the Jewish state, and even before - with the sole purpose of making the Holy Land Judenrein.

There are some truths in this world that are real, and binding, and absolute. We keep them because they are at the basis of all human civilization. We keep them because they are the foundation of our faith and our peoplehood. And we keep them because they are right, true, good, beautiful and binding upon us and upon our children, and upon our children's children.

And if we flaunt them, we do so, at our peril, because a world cannot survive for long, in which everything is relative, in which everything is a matter of opinion, in which nothing is judged wrong, and in which nothing is ultimately right. That way lays chaos, confusion and anarchy.

May we learn here this day, the lesson that is at the heart of our Torah, which is at the heart of the Jewish community, and which is at the heart of our civilization -- that there are standards and that there are values and that there are obligations that are binding upon us all. For if we learn this truth, and live by it, how much saner and how much safer our people, our homeland, and our world will be.

With thanks to Jack Riemer, Mark Segal , and Daniel Gordis