We always talk about framing our view of the world in moral
terms, and the passing of Yasser Arafat has given us a chance
to show a very clear example of this.
For many years the Israeli government discussed getting rid
of Yasser Arafat. The government ministers openly discussed
killing him or exiling him. Outside powers knew of these
debates and publicly warned against them.
The point was almost invariably made that one reason not to
have gotten rid of him earlier is that he was perhaps the
only Palestinian leader who had the prestige to ensure that
all the Palestinian people would accept in practice a peace
settlement. Anyone else may find it impossible to bring all
the notoriously unruly Palestinian factions to accept even a
good agreement.
This argument is of-a-piece with similar pragmatic arguments.
Another point that was made in Arafat's favor is that the
alternative to him is the Hamas, who are worse. If we got rid
of Arafat, his replacement is liable to be more extreme.
These individual arguments may be challenged on pragmatic
grounds. One could easily argue that even Arafat could not
control the wild factions, or that another could do so as
well, or that Arafat lacked the will to do so even if he had
the power and that may be more important. Similarly, maybe
Hamas will not take over (this should become evident over the
next few months) or perhaps they will turn out better once
they are in power.
This is one of those debates that can be pursued for a long
time without necessarily repeating arguments — like
sports arguments. Both sides have very strong points to make
and the subject is rich and complex and has no simple
solution — and is very important to some people.
However, thus far we have been framing the issues in
pragmatic terms. If we adopt a moral approach, the practical
consequences are much clearer.
Morally speaking, there is no question that Yasser Arafat was
a very bad man. With a traceable responsibility for the
murder of dozens of Jews, he certainly bears organizational
responsibility for thousands. Moreover, the killing of
thousands of Palestinians by Israel in self-defense —
both fighters and the unavoidable innocents who were harmed
because of the despicable tactics followed by the Palestinian
fighters of hiding among and behind civilians — is also
claimed proudly by Yasser Arafat when his organizations such
as the Fatah "claim responsibility" for acts of murder. Not
only did Arafat destroy the economic infrastructure of the
Palestinian Authority by using it for terror, he even skimmed
off for his personal use the aid that outside countries sent,
instead of feeding his hungry people. It is the sign of a
truly evil person when he has brought no good to anyone in
the world, not even to his own people.
Framing the issue in moral terms, it can no longer stimulate
extended discussions. Clearly, so much evil should be
eliminated, and the sooner the better.
However, the moral framework is not divorced from pragmatic
concerns. It would have recognized that in recent years the
practical difficulties — from the opinion of the rest
of the world including our best friend the United States
— have precluded getting rid of Arafat. But it provides
a straight answer and it would have probably recommended
getting rid of Arafat many years ago when it would have
concerned the world powers much less. It could have easily
answered the very debatable considerations against killing
Arafat that were mentioned above.
This is not to assert that the Torah position was to kill
Arafat at any given point. That would have to be determined
by the gedolei Torah whose grasp and judgment is far
superior to what we can offer. Yet this analysis can,
hopefully, show how the matters should be approached, and
illustrate contrasting approaches that are more common.
Morality, as detailed by the Torah, must provide the basic
path on which we travel. It is a very fundamental principle
of the Torah that our success in the world is determined by
our moral behavior. The world is constructed and run
according to Hashem's evaluation of its moral worth. Even in
matters that seem divorced from religion, the moral
evaluation is crucial.
Arafat is, boruch Hashem, an extreme case, though the
extreme nature makes the issues stand out more clearly. Most
moral issues do not revolve around killing.
Lest an improper impression be given from this discussion, we
hasten to add that the ultimate result of a proper
application of Torah morality is true peace: Her ways are
pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace (Mishlei
3:17).
