Sam Harris’s inexplicable defence of Israel

Harris thinks well in certain areas and has interesting guests on his accessible “Waking Up” Podcast. He is good at criticising all religions. After recently deciding to go back to one of the first episodes of his “Waking Up” podcasts (#2 Why don’t I criticize Israel?), I erupted in a paroxysm of apoplexy. So much so that I felt compelled to address some of his bullshit here.

Harris labeled the doctrine of Judaism “unethical and sickening” and “worse than the Koran”. Agreed. However, he then said that “most Jews recognise this and don’t take the text seriously”. This is a problematic statement. You cannot let the Israeli state off that hook because, allegedly, less Jews take the text seriously. Even if most Jews do not take text seriously, the fact is they could. As could members of any religion. This statement infers that just because less Jews do not take their doctrine seriously, that this minimises the potential effects of the doctrine. It is a logical fallacy and a falsehood.

Moreover, there are a number of Israeli settlers who explicitly use their religious beliefs to justify aggressive settlement expansion which has caused, and continues to cause, untold suffering for innocent Palestinians. You do not have to dig too deeply into Israeli history to see their Zionist extremism surface. Yitzhak Shamir was the Israeli Prime Minister in 1983 after he had previously led the extremely violent  Zionist group Lehi. It is shocking to think that the former Israeli Prime Minister was in a paramilitary group before Israel was founded yet oppressed people are frequently forced to resort to military solutions to free themselves. Moreover, think of the Rabbi of Safed who had said, “if they don’t stop we must kill 100,000 even 1,000,000. Whatever it takes to make them stop”. Since Zionism began in 1882, there are countless examples of the Bible being used to justify settlements.

The only reason there are not more Zionists is a statistical one. Taking a position that Israel is morally superior, as Harris does, is an aberration of any human being who thinks about ethics in a cogent manner.

Harris does at least concede that “the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable”. The question is why does he view it as less untenable than a Muslim theocracy, like say Iran? The doctrine is extreme in both cases. The potential is there for it to be exploited on both sides. Furthermore, Iran voted overwhelmingly for a theocracy in 1979. If that is how they wish to live, fine. Israel have stolen land from the Palestinians since the Nakbah, conveniently no mention of that term by Harris, and continue to illegally occupy territory that is not theirs. If anything, Iran’s theocracy is more legitimate than Israels.

“They (Israel) have shown more constraint in fighting against the Palestinians that we the Americans and Europeans have used in any of our wars”. This is where Harris goes off the deep end. Any supposedly intelligent human being that uses the word “restraint” when describing or comparing how the Israeli’s operate in Palestine is to be questioned. I am not sure how any sane person can come to this conclusion. There are countless instances of Israeli brutality. Let us take just one. In 2014, the Israeli air force destroyed a water treatment and sewage plant after they had deliberately intended to destroy it. How can this be viewed as a “constrained” action? It is a war crime, plain and simple. Not an accidental one either. Harris paints this imaginary world where all Jewish war crimes are accidental. They are not. This is a categorical example of a deliberate war crime where the Israeli government specifically targeted Palestinian civilians, of which there was absolutely no justification for. Any civilised society would never target civilians in this manner. It is disgusting to view this war crime as in some way morally superior to the crimes that the Palestinians commit. It is a vile conclusion to draw.

Harris talks about Israel enduring excessive “scrutiny” while having to “defend themselves against aggressors”. I cannot fathom how a person who thinks deeply about morality can come to this conclusion. Israel continue to be the aggressors. They invaded land that was not theirs and have, at every opportunity, sought to expand their territory, at horrifying cost to the Palestinians, who have to accept Israeli soldiers taking their land by force. They throw Palestinian families living on land that they have owned for generations off of it. How can this be justified? It is an aggressive act. In no universe can it be construed as a “defensive act” to deliberately displace people from a house where they are living. Harris’s thinking about Israel as fighting a defensive war is utterly absurd. If you take a person’s land, you are an aggressor. It does not matter if you are religious or not. It is unacceptable. By this Machiavellian rationale, it would have been justified for the American settlers to take the native Indians land. He would point to their “intent” of creating a great society in the future. Doubtless the English thought they were bringing civil society to India, Ireland and everywhere they conquered. It does not matter that the Israeli’s have a secular democratic society. They have no right to take another people’s land. If you believe that nuclear armed, US backed Israeli army are fighting a “defensive” war against the Palestinians, then you are either dishonest or a moron. I will not make any assumptions about which one Harris is.

He acknowledges Israel’s disproportionate killing of a number of innocent people yet claims that this is a “bad” way to think about it, stating that the images of innocent babies being killed is a “moral illusion born of the failures to look at the actual causes of the conflict”. Earth to Sam, the cause of the conflict is not purely religious in Israel. It is due to continued expansion in taking land that is not theirs. There is no moral illusion here. Global opinion is relevant here. Virtually every civil society on Earth points to a two state solution as the way forward. The US and Israel are the only ones who do not want it. They wish to continue to annex land that is not their own. The only illusion here is Sam Harris’s concept of Israel as a benign state with “good intentions”.

Noted Israeli historian Ilan Pappe wrote, in his excellent “Ten Myths About Israel” about how Israel saw targeting civilians as legitimate, “When the Palestinians did resist- as they did in 1987, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2016- they were targeted as soldiers and units of a conventional army. Thus, villages and towns were bombed as if they were military bases”.

Harris goes on to talk about Hamas as a political entity and how they call for the annihilation of the Jewish state. I agree with him in his condemnation of this violent group. Yet, it is blindingly obvious that Hamas must be viewed as a reaction to brutality that the Palestinians endure. His failure to take this into account is revealing. Reading Shehadeh’s brilliant yet devastating “Palestinian Walks” underlines how the Palestinians were forced into militarisation. If somebody keeps violently stealing your land, would you be a pacifist? Of course not.

Contemplate for a moment if Israel had have settled in a remote country in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Imagine there was no people living there. Do you really think that Hamas would be flying out into the Pacific Ocean to kill the Jews? The likelihood is that they would not care. Hamas has been voted into power as a reaction to the violence inflicted upon Palestine. Plain and simple. Geography, not religion, is the issue in Israel.

Harris spoke of the Israeli dropping of a bomb on a beach as “almost certainly an accident” and goes on to state categorically that “they are not targeting children”. So, let us revert back to the example of when Israel deliberately targeted a water treatment plant. This was not an accident. They deliberately targeted children in this instance. They knew they would be affected. There is absolutely no doubt about this. So, we can easily conclude that Harris is wrong in his assertion that Israel do target children. They absolutely do.

Let us not kid ourselves that the water treatment attack was an isolated incident either. The Israeli military systematically attack Palestinians. Consider for a minute the March 2016 incident in Hebron where Israeli soldier Elor Azaria callously and deliberately shot to death Abed al-Fattah Yusri.  Again, we can easily conclude that the Israeli’s do target Palestinians. It is fundamentally dishonest of Harris to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, let us think of the Israeli reaction to this incident. If Harris claims that their intentions are benign and they do not tolerate unethical behaviour, then they would surely have punished Azaria appropriately, right? Why, then, did he receive an 18 month sentence for it? Again, the global reaction from virtually every civilized nation was condemnation. The Israeli response? Netanyahu instantly called for him to be pardoned and referred to the the incident as “painful for his family”. Zero mention of the dead Palestinians family.  I guess in Sam Harris’s bizarre world, this is just another example of Israeli soldiers showing “restraint”.

Harris admits that it is possible that some Israeli soldiers to go “berserk” when faced with Palestinians throwing rocks at them. Again, just watch the video of Yusri’s murder. Azaria did not go berserk. There was no threat to him, there were no Palestinians throwing rocks. Any intelligent person can only come to the conclusion that he thought that Yusri’s life was worth less than an Israeli’s. There is no other explanation. Yet Harris concludes that “we know that Israeli’s do not want to kill non-combatants”. I cannot take this opinion seriously. There is ample conclusive evidence that the Israeli’s do target civilians .

I agree with Harris that Hamas should not use human shields. He says it is morally abhorrent to shoot “non-combatants if you can avoid it”. Yet, we have seen that Israel does exactly that. Both sides do. They shot a wounded Palestinian in a completely avoidable situation. So, because Hamas uses human shields, it “tells us everything we need to know” about their morality. No, Sam. It tells us that both sides have resorted to barbaric acts. All of these acts should be condemned.

“There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel” says Harris, quoting Hamas. This gets to the heart of Harris’s incorrect thinking. He confuses the conflict in Palestine as being a religious one. It is not. It is about the Palestinian right to own their own land. He assumes that Palestinians want to see an Islamist state because they voted Hamas in.

Let us compare the situation in Palestine with Iran for a moment. 95% of Iranians voted for Khomeini’s Islamist revolution in 1979. Does the fact that they installed a theocracy give another country the right to take their land if they would install what Harris would deem a morally better society? Of course not.

If we truly believe in democracy, we have to accept what a country votes for. It is a nation deciding its own path. I can disagree with it, sure, and I vehemently do. But if the majority of Iranians or Palestinians want to live in a theocracy, that is their right. And yet, that is not even what is going on here. Palestinians chose Hamas because they do not see any hope in the face of constant Israeli settlement expansion.

Harris goes on to condemn Muslims who blew themselves up, “just to get at the American soldiers giving out candy at them” in Iraq. Oh dear, Sam. Those nice American soldiers, just handing out candy. Really? US good. Muslims bad.

He then refers to the suicide bombers who blew up hospitals as being barbaric. Again, it is easy for any intelligent human to condemn these acts. He speaks as if the US military is above this kind of action. This despite the fact that they deliberately targeted a hospital in Fallujah during the Iraq war in 2004, justifying it by saying it was a propaganda outlet. I guess that was OK for Harris as the overall “intent” was to bring a civil society to Iraq? What a moronic and morally vacuous position to take. All violence should be condemned equally. We should not prioritise Muslim violence over Western violence as they are religious.

As Chomsky pointed out to Harris in their email exchange, everyone believes that they have good “intentions”. The Japanese viewed their 1937 rape of Nanjing as justified as they saw the Chinese people as being inherently sub human. The Japanese viewed themselves as merely bringing civil society to the China. The fact remains that nobosy has the right to take another countries land.

Harris decided that he “has to side with Israel” as they want to “live peacefully with its neighbours”. Let us remember the definition of the word peaceful:

“1: without disturbance; tranquilly. 2: without war or violence”.

It may be revealing to ask the ordinary Palestinians whether they view their neighbours as peaceful.
Israeli propaganda


About Mick Gilbride

Aside | This entry was posted in Democracy, Hamas, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Podcast, Repression, Sam Harris, Trying to make sense of it all, US, Waking up with Sam Harris, War Crimes. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Sam Harris’s inexplicable defence of Israel

  1. Pingback: Hitchens, Peter: “The Abolition Of Liberty” | Mick Gilbride

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s