Extra-Judicial Killing: Is it Ever Morally Justifiable?
Trust Calvin L Smith to never skirt around the “toughies”:-
Extra-Judicial Killing: Is it Ever Morally Justifiable?
Here’s a thorny one. The last few days have witnessed frenetic media activity concerning the alleged assassination by Israeli agents of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel several weeks ago. Though we don’t know exactly what happened, and probably never will, it is not unlikely Israel is behind al-Mabhouh’s death (though, ironically, with the possible assistance of senior Hamas defectors, which further muddies the waters). After all, al-Mabhou had been on Israel’s most wanted list since 1989, when he was directly involved in the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers. Consider this interview with Al-Jazeera last year in which he described the killing of the soldiers. Clearly, then, al-Mabhouh had blood on his hands, and however one views extra-judicial killing it is worth noting the biblical principle that those who live violently often die as a result of violence (Matthew 26:52 cf Genesis 9:6). Hence, Jesus’ call for His disciples to be peacemakers seems all the more poignant.
Yet unless one is a complete Christian pacifist (which I am not) there is arguably a time for violence. Whether defending one’s home or family, fighting for country in a just war, or challenging unprecedented evil, for example during the Second World War, it appears violence is sometimes inevitable. Which brings me back to extra-judicial assassinations: if just war, defence of loved lones and standing up to evil is theologically justifiable (which I believe it is), why not, then, extra-judicial killing of the guilty? It is not as if there is no biblical precedent for it. Two cases in particular stand out in the Bible: Ehud’s assassination of Eglon, king of Moab, and the death of Sisera, commander of the Canaanites (detailed in Judges 3 and 4 respectively). Significantly, the Bible records these as divinely approved, even divinely assisted. Yet the Old Testament does not justify extra-judicial killings carte blanche. A notably example is Joab’s assassination of Abner for reasons of personal revenge (2 Samuel 3:26-30), for which Joab himself eventually paid the ultimate price.A perusal of the Old Testament seems to yields a pattern concerning when death and violence (including extra-judicial assassination) is permissible. War, self-defence, exacting justice from those with blood on their hands, or the extra-judicial killing of tyrants or those engaged in the wholesale and systematic oppression of God’s people Israel all seem to be justified as far as the Old Testament is concerned. Meanwhile, David himself differentiates between blood shed in peace and war (1 Kings 2:5). Yet killing for personal motives or revenge is condemned, while throughout the Old Testament the shedding of innocent blood is one of the gravest taboos evoking divine wrath (eg Dt 19:11-13, 27:25, Ps 106:34-42, Pr 6:16-19, Is 1:15). This Judaeo-Christian value remains an important defining feature of society today, which is why, I think, modern Israel receives wider, albeit begrudging support for the targeted assassination of men of violence with innocent blood on their hands (for example, as in the case of the hunting down of the Munich terrorists), compared with when her assassinations also result in the deaths of the target’s wife or children, or nearby innocents. Meanwhile, so important is the justification that exacting justice must be limited to those who have shed blood that Hamas, cynically, seeks to justify targeting Israeli women by virtue of the fact that they have all served in the Israeli army through national service (whether or not they ever pulled a trigger in anger). I am reminded of the revenge courts swiftly set up immediately following the victory of the Sandinista guerrillas in Nicaragua, which handed out death sentences for rape and murder to people simply because they were once members of Somoza’s Guardia, having been found guilty of “crimes against the Nicaraguan people” despite the fact they had committed no such crimes.
So going back to the Old Testament, violence and war and even extra-judicial assassinations seem to be justified, providing they meet various criteria. Yet in response some Christians will inevitably claim, ”But we’re now in an age of grace, a time in which the ethical teachings of the New Testament prevail.” I agree this has a very important bearing on how Christians view violence and war (and extra-judicial assassinations). In fact, so important is this argument that I do wonder if Christian pacifism is at least more consistent than those who seek to embrace parts of the Old Testament yet ditch others in light of New Testament teaching, which seems somehow disingenuous. Surely it is all or nothing? For my part I struggle with the notion God has suddenly changed in the New Testament era, becoming so much more benevolent and less wrathful. Not only does such a view give credence to the ancient Gnostic heresy which viewed the god of the Old Testament as evil, it also completely ignores a New Testament war motif highlighting Christ’s return to this world one day as conquering king. For my part, I’m not sure the Old Testament necessarily sets out ethical guidelines for how the world should behave anyway. After all, the Tenakh records God’s dealings with the congregation of Israel rather than the world as a whole, and as such I remain unconvinced the Old Testament is necessarily normative for society as a whole. I am no theonomist or neo-Puritan, who seek to make the Mosaic law the law of the land. For that matter, this is the case with Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. They are given to the congregation which is the Church, rather than society as a whole, and while ethical in nature they only find their utlimate fulfilment and expression among those who follow Christ.
Apart from the current media fenzy concerning events in Dubai, why am I so concerned with establishing whether or not extra-judicial killing is ever morally justifiable? Is it because, as a friend of Israel, I want to justify Mossad’s actions? No. It is because sixty-five years ago a young German pastor at Flossenburg concentration camp was stripped naked and executed, hanged by piano wire. The reason? He was part of the failed conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. The pastor’s name? Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His theology? Throughly New Testament, thoroughly “age of grace”.
Which raises a dilemma for Christians: Did Bonhoeffer get it wrong, or might we be interpreting parts of the Bible, notably the New Testament, incorrectly when it comes to war and violence?
Personally (and I know this may not be popular) I agree with Calvin that God most certainly did not undergo a sudden “change” of attributes and personality, come the New Testament period.
I know many Christians would disagree with any justification for extra-judicial killing and there is a sizeable section of Christianity that advocates pacifism always.
This (in my opinion) is because folks are majoring on just those parts of the Bible that suit their chosen worldview, rather than allowing the entire body of Scripture to form their worldview.
God is a wonderful realist when it comes to dealing with humanity, unlike some of His followers.
February 18th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
You wrote on Harrys Place, “I know Monty and it will be the same all across the Islamic world, as they “cleanse” their lands from “undesirable” types….”
Of course, the reverse is actually the truth. God’s Chosen People have cleansed “undesirables” from Palestine and refuse them the right of return. They even put up an apartheid wall to keep them out, while stealing the Palestinians’ water.
February 18th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Cristian my Arse
I notice that you didn’t have the bottle to post your above comment over on Harry’s place…I wonder why???
February 18th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
>>> I notice that you didn’t have the bottle to post your above comment over on Harry’s place…I wonder why???
Actually I did. But Harrys Place did not have “the bottle” to publish it. You see, they don’t like being told what they don’t want to hear.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
But Harrys Place did not have “the bottle” to publish it. You see, they don’t like being told what they don’t want to hear.
Or perhaps they don’t like trolls.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
>>> Or perhaps they don’t like trolls.
Yes, they certainly label people who point out inconvenient facts as “trolls”. No question about it.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Yes, they certainly label people who point out inconvenient facts as “trolls”. No question about it.
Which inconvenient fact is that? That Arabs who did not flee at in 1948 are today citizens of the State of Israel, entitled to all the protections of law embodied in that state?
The problem with you comment is that it is so propagandist that it actually has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. i.e. It is a complete and utter lie.
Let me ask you arshole, how many Jews were allowed to return to their homes in East Jerusalem and Judea/Shomron during the Arab hegamony of those territories. Why should Israel be held up to a standard of behaviour that its protagonist are not required to hold.
How many Jews today live in Yamit, or Gaza.
Your moniker says it all.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
>>> Let me ask you arshole, how many Jews were allowed to return to their homes in East Jerusalem and Judea/Shomron during the Arab hegamony of those territories. Why should Israel be held up to a standard of behaviour that its protagonist are not required to hold.
Well that is a complete red herring. Where did I say Jews should not be able to live wherever they want? They should, of course, but not at the expense of Palestinians.
The fact is, Israel was created through one of the most grotesque acts of ethnic cleansing in history. The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in squalid refugee camps are testimony to this fact. The denial of the Palestinians the right to return is flagrant denial of their human rights. The bulldozing of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem is a flagrant denial of human rights. The refusal of planning permission to Arabs in Jerusalem is a denial of human rights. The siege of Gaza is a flagrant act of cruelty. The bombing of Gaza was a war crime. The creation of ethnically pure “settlements” in the West Bank is an echo of the Nazi creation of “judenrein” settlements and a complete abomination.
Why does Israel get away with this? Because it suits the interests of Israel’s backer, the United States. But the question is, for how long? As world opinion wakes up to the horrors of Zionism, and the sheer arrogance of Israel (as seen in the recent actions of Mossad) Israel is becoming more and more of an embarassment.
If you try to state these facts at Harrys Place, you get banned. Why? Because it is inconvenient. Not to Jews in general but to the pro-Israel Jewish elite.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
The hundreds of thousands of “refugees” living in squalor in refugee camps are testimony to:
A) The lack of charitably of their Arab brethren how have cynically used them as political propeganda pawns in their struggle against Israel. The Arab world, who share religion, language, history and culture with the “Palestinian refugees” have made no attempt whatsoever to alleviate their poverty or to assimilate them into the broader population of their countries. Au Contrary, the Arab nations have deliberately prevented any form of absorption into their countries, deliberately sustaining and prolonging their impoverishment, and suffering over several generations.
B) The continued existence of Palestinian refugees status as a generational inheritance also reflects the double standard as it applies to Israel and the Palestinians. Normally refugee status is limited to the people that actually flee, and reasonable attempt is made to resettle refugees in other places. The definition of “refugee” does not provide for an inherited status accept as it applies to Palestinians. The Palestinian’ shave their own, unique, UN agency whose mandate is to sustain rather than solve the refugee issue (UNRWA). As I mentioned above, the easiest solution to the Palestinian refugee problem is to allow the refugees out of the camps and to allow them equality of citizenship in the countrie were they reside today. Most of these “refugees” were actually born outside of Israel. And as noted above, are all but indistinguishable from their host neighbours, linguistically, religiously and culturally.
Your rant about the siege of Gaza, again speaks to great propaganda, but is rooted in lies that have no bearing on reality. In fact Israel provide Gaza with electricity (which is largely unpaid for) fresh water (dito, and the infrastructure for its delivery is being systematically destroyed by the Hamas regime in the quest to build missiles to attack and provoke Israel), food supplies etc. The squalor that Palestinians live under in Gaza, such as it is, is a direct result of their “government” action and policy (again I refer you to one example, of tearing up the water pipes to build munitions, and for provoking Israel into war which the Hamas Government new was neither in the interest of its citizens nor one they could materially benefit from).
As for war crimes, I categorically reject the idea that Israel systematically committed war crimes in its actions last year against Hamas. Hamas, again acting against the interest of the average citizen of Gaza, used the citizens of Gaza as human shields (do you doubt this) as it prosecuted its actions against Israel. While Israel has an obligation to minimizes non-combatant casualties, it has no obligation to commit national suicide, or to endanger her civilians or soldiers because the tatics of her enemies effectively mean that she cannot avoid civilian casualties. It was a direct consequence of Hamas tactics that resulted in Gazan deaths during the conflict. But then again it was Hamas’s intention that Gazans be killed by Israel, for its propaganda value. They know that fools like you will swallow their line, hook line and sinker.
Israeli settlements, “ethnically pure”; Clearly you have never been to Israel, or a settlement.
As I said, your moniker suits.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Aren’t you guys having this argument in the wrong place? The core of this topic is extra-judicial killing, not Middle Eastern politics or who can out atrocity who.
And “Christian My A***” — does it surprise you that websites will not publish your posts? Your nickname is calculated to be offensive and your words to inflame. Why should reasonable intelligent adults wish to debate with you?
The thread asks some fundamentally important questions, which deserve to be treated with respect. Is that too much to ask?
————————-
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s dilemma is a tough one. Surely there is no “right” answer. A rationalist might justify the killing of one person to save many; the lesser evil preventing a greater evil. But how do you square that with the Commandment “Thou shalt not murder”?
Coming forward to the present day, are Mossad justified in the extra-judicial killings they are alleged to have committed? I’m sure lawyers will get rich arguing for one side or the other, and unfortunately there are uncomfortable echoes of Bonhoeffer. Looked at from Israel’s perspective they could justify this killing as a lesser evil preventing a greater evil. I suspect though that the defence will be that a state of War exists, and that al-Mabhouh was a legitimate target.
My view: Painful as it is to say so, I think the killing could be justified. But I’m not sure I would be able to do it.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:12 am
Jim,
You are correct, the Discussion with A*** is out of place, however Calvan left and responded to the original comment. I will however not discuss it further.
In regard to Bonhoeffer, clearly there was a correct answer for him. Hitler and his cabal were clearly evil incarnate, beyond moral redemption, and intent on prolonging the suffering of the world. Killing them was not an act of murder, rather it was an act of justice. At times an individual’s action fall so far beyond the pail that vigilante action is justified.
In the story of Phineas (Lev 25:6,9), Phineas kills the Israelite, engaged in an act of moral defyment of God by having sex with a Moabite woman in public, likely as part of an idolotorous practice, while Israel was being smitten with a plague. Phineas’s actions, extra-judicial as they were, were aimed at stopping the very act that was causing an existential threat to the Israelites. The Israelite in his morally repugnant behaviour was bringing the wrath of God upon all of Israel (actually, more realistically, he was challenging the moral authority of Moses, thus dividing the Israelite people, either way, equally as harmfull for them). Killing quashed Gods anger and saved the entire nation.
At the heart of the matter is not a notion of “lesser evils” but rather the need to combat evil. If by killing Hitler, or some Hamas leader, evil is eliminated, then the action is justified on its own.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Hmm. Let me get this right. Are you saying Phineas was justifed in killing the Israelite because he was having sex with a Moabite in Public? And that as a result of this God lifted the plague? I have to admit I struggle with Leviticus. There are some truly strange stories and instructions contained therein.
Incidentally can you check the reference. The one you gave and it does not appear to be correct.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:16 am
No, what I was trying to clumisly say was that Phineas was justified in killing the Israelite because he was engaged in an action that was calculated to lead to the death of others. Which is the point, ordinarily vigilanty action is prohibited and immoral, but at times when the saftey is others is in peril, not only is precipitous action desirable, it is the morally correct response.
Will check the ref and get back to you
February 20th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Sorry it was Numbers 25:6,9