Man equals man

[imomus]

"Man Equals Man" is the title of a play by Bertolt Brecht. It's a familiar idea -- that one human life is just as valuable as another one. It's not just the fundamental idea behind communist and socialist thinking, but the idea famously expressed in the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Of course, "created equal" or "equal before the law" does imply a more meritocratic view of equality; it's only equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It's possible to imagine (actually, we don't have to strain that hard) a highly unequal society which still believed that all its members had at least been born equal.

The idea of the equivalence of human lives is also present in, for instance, the speeches of Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN. When he received the Nobel Prize, Annan made a speech to the Swedish Academy entitled "We can love what we are without hating what -- and who -- we are not".

"In the twenty-first century I believe the mission of the United Nations will be defined by a new, more profound, awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion," Annan declared. "What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life, all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations."

It would be easy to assume we were all basically on the same page with Kofi Annan on this question; that one human life equals another, that man equals man. At least in theory, at the level of universal principles. In practice, just about any of us would respond differently to the killing of a family member than the killing of someone in a faraway country, someone we didn't know anything about. Man, at that level of "situation", would not equal man at all. We'd feel that our family member's life was worth at least 1000 times more than the life of some foreign stranger. The difference between a philosophy of equality and a philosophy of inequality would seem largely to be one of situation. Or perhaps a question of strong emotions overcoming rational judgements.

This week the word "proportionate" has been in the news a lot. Figures from Putin to Bill Clinton have condemned Israel's "disproportionate" use of force against Lebanon and Gaza. As Putin put it, Israel of course has the right to defend itself, but its response should be proportionate.

The ratios are interesting. As Mary Ann Sieghart pointed out in yesterday's Times, the ratio of Lebanese to Israeli deaths in the current conflict has been a fairly consistent 10:1. "There were 80 such raids in the early hours of yesterday alone. By late afternoon, some 327 civilians had died in Lebanon, compared with 34 Israelis." In the Gaza conflict, it's 100:1: "Since Israel began its hostilities there, three weeks ago, some 110 Palestinians have lost their lives and countless more have been injured, while just one Israeli has died."

"If this is a proportionate response," says Sieghart, "I’m a satsuma."

So do the Israelis believe that a Palestinian life is worth 100th of an Israeli one? Do they believe that one Lebanese life is worth just a tenth of one Israeli one? This would be narcissism of an incredibly overblown order, family feeling blown up to national level.

One account I read of why Israel responds so extremely to, for instance, the kidnapping of two of its soldiers did, in fact, invoke the idea of family feeling; since all Israelis serve, at some point, in the IDF, it said, a soldier could be anyone's son or daughter. The state responds not in a detached, rational way, but like a crazed parent. There are also many family ties between Israel and the US (many of the vox pop interviews on the streets of Haifa have seemed to be interviews with Americans), which means that the US responds to Israel in this same irrational, situated, "they're family" way. In other words, they buy into the narcissism, the idea that one Israeli life really is worth 10 Lebanese ones, or 100 Palestinian ones.

To some extent, Muslims in the Middle East work by the same logic. That's why, for instance, they blow themselves up as suicide bombers, whereas Israelis never do. One human life, when you're poor and living in conditions of utter misery, really isn't worth the same as a human life living in adequate conditions. So much for "man equals man"; it seems that neither side believes that to be the case, although one side may want it to be.

The American right, meanwhile, is happily poo-pooing the whole idea of a proportionate response. "Americans believe in Colin Powell's doctrine, which holds that "America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all"," wrote Dr Mitchell Bard of the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. "The United States uses overwhelming force against its enemies, even though the threats are distant and pose no danger to the existence of the nation or the immediate security of its citizens." (Right above this article rejecting the whole concept of proportionality there's an ad announcing "The Coming World War: Find out what Nostradamus says about the years 2007 - 2012.")

The "shock and awe" attitude seen here may seem unbalanced -- in fact, totally unhinged -- but attempts are made to balance it by invoking the Holocaust. "What are the Israelis supposed to do? Wait for a repeat of Hitler's death camps?" screams right wing chat show host Mark Levin. "Never again! Never again!" The Holocaust, apparently, justifies anything the Israelis might want to do to anyone, forever. Hitler, somewhere, is having the last laugh.

The defense of non-proportionate responses isn't confined to the Nostradamian right, though. One Republican senator demanded to know "Whoever said a response to the murder of loved ones should be proportionate?" And Tony Blair has incurred the wrath of many members of his own party by refusing to condemn the Israeli actions, despite the fact that even the Conservative leader David Cameron has.

So either the idea of proportionality is out the window -- and with it the most important idea in the American declaration of Independence, and behind the United Nations, the idea that man equals man -- or it's been temporarily suspended, along with other, related ideas like habeus corpus or the right to be innocent until proven guilty, because somebody is attacking members of our family.

But why is Israel "our family"? These little girls, so blithely signing missiles which will kill someone in Lebanon who -- apparently -- doesn't matter, are not relatives of mine. Why do our leaders support the Israeli state right or wrong? Sure, we don't elect families, we're born into our kinship with them, which remains indissoluble until we all die, and endures whatever bad things they do. Maybe, culturally, the Christian religion is what ties us to the Israelis. It's a tragic tie, all the more tragic since the parties to it don't even live by Christian principles; as Mary Ann Sieghart pointed out in The Times, "the 'eye for an eye' doctrine of the Old Testament was not a vengeful prescription but was designed precisely to restrict vengeance to that which was proportionate. The verse did not ordain ten eyes for one eye, which is the ratio the Israelis are currently pursuing." (Some of us prefer the New Testament anyway: turn the other cheek. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.)

I want to end with another quote from Kofi Annan's Nobel lecture, "We can love what we are without hating what -- and who -- we are not". It's about how we ought to hold onto the idea of nurturing equality -- that elusive 1:1 ratio -- because without it we're lost:

"Today, in Afghanistan, a girl will be born. Her mother will hold her and feed her, comfort her and care for her just as any mother would anywhere in the world. In these most basic acts of human nature, humanity knows no divisions. But to be born a girl in today’s Afghanistan is to begin life centuries away from the prosperity that one small part of humanity has achieved. It is to live under conditions that many of us in this hall would consider inhuman. Truly, it is as if it were a tale of two planets.

"I speak of a girl in Afghanistan, but I might equally well have mentioned a baby boy or girl in Sierra Leone. No one today is unaware of this divide between the world’s rich and poor. No one today can claim ignorance of the cost that this divide imposes on the poor and dispossessed who are no less deserving of human dignity, fundamental freedoms, security, food and education than any of us. The cost, however, is not borne by them alone. Ultimately, it is borne by all of us –- North and South, rich and poor, men and women of all races and religions."

Annan was too diplomatic to say it, but he could even more tellingly have contrasted the life of an Israeli with the life of a Palestinian just a few metres away. Nowhere are the "two planets" squeezed more closely together than in the tight, tense grid of today's Middle East, and nowhere do we more need the ideas of equality and proportionality. The ratio we need to aim for is 1:1. Man equals man. My family is everybody.

Comments

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

it's curious that you (and the European Union, and the united nations) are so quick to condemn Israel's "disproportionate" force yet have said nothing of the appalling bloodshed that has been going on for over three years in Sudan.

What are the proportions being used by the Arab Janjaweed militia who have slaughtered as many as 400,000 of their black co-religionists--known contemptuously as zurga ("niggers")--and expelled 2.5 million more?

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan and EU leaders still refuse to call this conflict "genocide." Certain members of the United Nations Security Council are complicit in the genocide. China, Russia, and France are heavily invested in Sudan's two billion dollar annual oil reserves and have blocked and delayed intervention.

I am certainlly sympathetic to civilian casualties killed in Lebanon, but it seems disingenuous for you (and Kofi Annan) to claim to believe in the principle of "man equals man" and then disproportionately criticize Israel while overlooking the 1,000 people being systematically murdered and raped in Sudan every week.

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the 1,000,000 black Christian Sudanese the Arab Sudanese have steadily killed in southern Sudan over the past 10 years.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing that out. The current campaign of racist murder in Darfur is actually the second Sudanese genocide of our age. Two million African Christians and animists were killed in southern Sudan.

This makes Darfur the third genocide in Africa that Kofi Annan is declining to notice. Man equals man indeed.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

So explain Darfur Descending: No Time For Apathy on Sudan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401136.html) by Kofi Annan? Explain all the UN actions Annan outlines in that account?

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

Can I explain it? Since you honestly seem to have no understanding of what it means, I can certainly try. It is a catalogue of the same feckless "mediation" process that has accomplished nothing for the past two years.

What have been the results of all the UN actions Annan outlined in January 2006?

According to BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5155984.stm), Jan Pronk, head of the United Nations mission in Sudan, claims that fighting has worsened since a peace deal was signed two months ago. Only one of the rebel groups signed it and all deadlines for implementing the agreement have so far been missed. The article is dated July 6th, 2006.

While your hero, Mr. Annan, makes meaningless peace treaties, the Sudanese Jihadists continue their mission to make Darfur "zurga-free". Does this surprise anyone? This is Rwanda all over again, in front of the cameras and the diplomats.

Why was Sudan given a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission? Why did that very same Human Rights Commission make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every session? Why does the current UN Human Rights Council continue to make a mandatory review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel every session?

And how does that fit in with Kofi Annan's principle of "man equals man"? How is their criticism of Israel proportionate? How is yours?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I see you have shifted your position. Darfur is no longer a "genocide in Africa that Kofi Annan is declining to notice". It is a genocide he is unable to prevent. You now admit that Annan has made peace treaties (hard to do if you "decline to notice" the nation involved), but describe them as "meaningless". In fact, you are saying something quite similar to what Annan says in that article; wishing the UN could be more effective in the Sudan.

One difference between Darfur and Israel is that one of them is a client state of the US, in receipt of billions of dollars of direct and indirect aid from the US annually -- aid which Israel is encouraged to spend on American-built arms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207066.stm).

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

My position has not shifted. Annan refuses to use the term "genocide" in a simple declarative sentence, such as "Genocide is taking place now." He cannot, he will not, against all evidence, actually admit genocide is taking place, so he contents himself with talking about this frightening reality in the conditional, as in "UN members must protect populations from genocide," as if it were hypothetical and not a terrible actuality.

When I described the peace treaty as "meaningless" I meant simply that it held no meaning for the (lone) rebel group that signed it, and then subsequently ignored it. Similar agreements have been made in the past and they have been similarly ignored by the Janjaweed militias. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you so clearly know nothing about?

You have not provided an adequate response to any of the points I've made, and the responses you have made reveal only ignorance and muddled thinking. Your latest retort: The United States supplies weapons to Israel, but not Sudan. This requires no further comment from me.

Your essay was on the importance of proportionality. So, by your own standards, Sudan is a worse offender of human rights than Israel.

In your zeal to find moral ambiguity here, there, and everywhere, you have managed to forget the original purpose of your own essay, and in the process you've lost perspective of morality altogether.

Are you aware that the Janjaweed claim that they rape African women with "Arab seed" to "destroy their race from within"? Are you aware that the Janjaweed allow parents to choose how their children would die, "burned alive or shot to death?"

Please explain how any of that behavior is comparable to what Israel has done? Can the answer be found in another of your fascinatingly irrelevant links, perhaps?

It would be disgraceful if it were not so absurd that you continue to make the attempt. For your own sake and mine, please stop. I don't particularly enjoy having to explain everything out to you at this point. You should perhaps try reading a bit about it on your own. Best of luck to you, sir.

[glassplastic.livejournal.com]

Ok. Let's say you're right. Sudan is bad as Israel. So what? What does proving someone that the rest of the world has little care for human life mean?

In your next post, you should prove that murder/rape is worse than murder. Or that carkjacking is worse than stealing a car. Cause once that happens, we can all murder and steal cars in peace.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

To summarize:

Momus brought up the principle of "man equals man" in order to bring attention to the plight of Lebanese civilian casualties and Palestinians.

While I am certainly sympathetic to the plight of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, I wished to point out that by his own standards of measuring civilian casualties, Israel was being disproportionately condemned when compared to the massacres and gang-rapes that continue in Sudan.

Instead of acknowledging this unmistakable fact, Momus decided to find yet more ways to criticize Israel and attempted to pardon Kofi Annan for overlooking the third genocide in Africa that has occurred on his watch.

One can only assume that Momus and Mr. Annan do not in fact believe in the principle of "man equals man" and actually value the lives of Lebanese and Palestinians far higher than the lives of black Muslims in Sudan.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

While I am certainly sympathetic to the plight of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, I wished to point out that by his own standards of measuring civilian casualties, Israel was being disproportionately condemned when compared to the massacres and gang-rapes that continue in Sudan.

Look, there's nothing anywhere in the etiquette of argument that says that when discussing one conflict one must automatically discuss every other conflict.

As for this argument that Israel would be wiped out if a 1:1 casualty law (the Old Testamental "eye for an eye") were adhered to, it rests on the idea that real lives must be taken, now, by people with vastly superior firepower, in advance exchange for presumed lives "if the Arabs had a chance". In other words, it's a pre-emptive strike.

It's also a useful argument for any would-be mass murderer: I had to kill all those people because, look, there were more of them than me. Just killing one wouldn't have been enough.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

Look, there's nothing anywhere in the etiquette of argument that says that when discussing one conflict one must automatically discuss every other conflict.

The title of your essay was "man equals man." I am well aware that this is because your essay champions the plight of Lebanese and Palestinians, who you feel are being killed disproportionately.

The concept of "man equals man" is that all human life should be considered equal. As Mr. Annan says, "a new, more profound, awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion."

Yet, I felt your essay betrayed that principle by disproportionately criticizing Israel while overlooking far more egregious atrocities in Sudan--a betrayal similarly made by Kofi Annan.

Why is it that when I brought up Darfur you attempted to prove it was morally equivalent to Israel? And then proceed to exculpate Annan?

Why didn't you instead acknowledge that the Darfur genocide deserved a clear and unambiguous response? It seemed that I actually had to convince you that the Darfur crisis was indeed far worse than the situation in Israel.

That's just silly. Why don't we simply agree that killing is terrible no matter if the civilian casualties are Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, or Sudanese black Muslims? I believe that was the original spirit of the essay and I agreed with it.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Why don't we simply agree that killing is terrible no matter if the civilian casualties are Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, or Sudanese black Muslims? I believe that was the original spirit of the essay and I agreed with it.

Very well, let us agree that. Even Kofi joins us there, I think.

[(Anonymous)]

"One can only assume that Momus and Mr. Annan do not in fact believe in the principle of "man equals man" and actually value the lives of Lebanese and Palestinians far higher than the lives of black Muslims in Sudan."

Or, I don't know, maybe he's simply talking about what happens to be on the news today? Do you value the lives of eighteenth centurty american blacks less because you didn't mention them? or are you talking about problems now? do you hate canadians because you didn't mention them, or are you simply talking about someone else.

your argument is akin to saying that since i'm not out killing rapists, I support rapists.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

Or, I don't know, maybe he's simply talking about what happens to be on the news today?

Exactly. Darfur is rarely mentioned in the news, yet more people are being killed there than anywhere else in the world right now. What better way to uphold the principle of "man equals man" than to draw to it the attention it truly warrants?

And why do Momus' readers seem incapable of absorbing more than one paragraph of what I write? That also deserves to draw to it the attention it truly warrants.

Momus has taken on the impossible task of demonstrating that the Darfur genocidaires are morally equivalent to Israeli soldiers. As I've said, his position would be disgraceful, if it were not so absurd.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

I brought up Darfur to point out the hypocrisy of Momus's moral torch-bearer, Kofi Annan.

By attempting to prove moral equivalence between the Darfur genocidaires and Israeli soldiers, Momus contradicted his own thesis: "man equals man." I was compelled to explain to him the situation there since he apparently has no knowledge of it.

[northrop-fried.livejournal.com]

You're making sense to me, pal.

[loverboy82.livejournal.com]

One difference between Darfur and Israel is that one of them is a client state of the US, in receipt of billions of dollars of direct and indirect aid from the US annually -- aid which Israel is encouraged to spend on American-built arms.

You are contradicting your own thesis. If we are to treat all human lives as equal, what relevance is it whether it is American, Chinese, or Russian munitions which destroys them? How does the origin make it worse or more noteworthy?

These sorts of atrocities should be condemned everywhere, no matter who commits them. Wasn't that your original point?

nickdoro is pointing out the irony in quoting Kofi Annan as a moral authority on this principle. Your own statements belie your hypocrisy.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

For anyone's information, the weapons used in the Darfur genocide are supplied primarily by China and France, and it has been argued by some that those governments should be held partially responsible for the genocide.

Why Momus believes the US origin of Israeli weapons is an argument against my position escapes me, and the matter is hardly worth pursuing.

[cerulicante.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that only the United States and Israel can be responsible for atrocities committed anywhere in the world. Even though Kofi can't bring himself to say anything about Sudan, be sure that he is burning the midnight oil in thinking of ways to assign some sort of blame to the US.

Once this is done, then the international community can say something about it.


Seriously, though, I wish Bush would do something about the Sudan genocide, but if he did, he'd be accused of poking his nose into things and being insensitive to Arabs. When I was in college, I took an African history class and my prof was an expert on Sudan and we learned all about the wars and ethnic divisions that plague that area. What really hurts is that none of Sudan's neighbors seem to be able to do anything about it because they themselves are usually experiencing problems.

Your post is excellent and draws attention to the fact that lefties live in a fantasy world where hypocrisy is "selective intellectualism" and the lamb laying down with the lion is considered not only possible, but mandatory.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

The lamb today has been levelling apartment buildings in Beirut (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm), apparently. But you're in Sudan. Selective intellectualism indeed.

[nickdoro.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you link one article about what Israel has done as if no other country has waged a war with civilian casualties. Similarly, you display a photo (three times in fact) of Israeli children writing on artillery as if there weren't thousands of photos available of Palestinian children dressed as suicide bombers or holding AK-47s. You say that Israel doesn't value Lebanese or Palestinian life yet overlook egregious human rights abuses all over the world.

The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but does it not seem rather unfair that Israel alone has earned more UN resolutions of condemnation than all those offered against all other nations of the world combined? Why is criticism of Israel so disproportionate?

It's not just Sudan. Turkey continues to illegally occupy Cyprus, which has been forcibly cleansed of its Greek inhabitants. China occupies the entire country of Tibet under a government that is neither democratic nor free.

Perhaps Greek Cypriots and Tibetans are mistaken for not flying civilian aircraft into skyscrapers. That might get them some attention. Or perhaps the affairs of Turkey and China simply do not possess the eternal fascination that attaches to the Jewish question.