In early February, the media displayed a video of the death
of a Jordanian military officer, First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh, who was burned
alive in his jail at the hands of an Islamic terrorist group called ISIS
(“Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”). The pictures shocked the conscience of
every civilized country around the world. The reaction of the Jordanians was
swift. King Abdullah immediately ordered the execution of two ISIS terrorists
held in a Jordanian jail, a suicide bomber wanted back by the militants and another
top lieutenant of al-Queda. The Jordanian air force also bombed a number of
targets in Syria.
Many people around the globe appeared to support the
reaction, including most of my students at the Ethics class I teach at
Framingham State University. Their argument: They did it to us; we will do it
to them, even in stronger terms. However, the reaction did not sit well with
me. I immediately thought of the Biblical command: “You shall not seek revenge
or bear a grudge against your neighbor” (Lev. 19: 18). Similarly, the Book of
Proverbs teaches us, “Do not say, ‘I will do to him what he did to me; I will
pay the man what he deserves’ ” (24: 29).Was it ethical of the Jordanians to
react in such a knee-jerk fashion?
Jewish commentators discuss extensively the implication of
the biblical command found in Leviticus, knowing full well that the Bible also
recognizes the validity of lex talionis (“tit for tat”) introduced in
the ancient Near East by the Code of Hammurabi of the 18th cent. BCE
(see, for example, Ex. 21:23-25; in the Code of Hammurabi, #195ff).
For the biblical commentator David Z. Hoffman of Berlin (d.
1921), “taking vengeance” implies immediate revenge, whereas “bearing a
grudge” means nursing hatred in one’s heart, awaiting a later opportunity to
inflict damage on the perpetrator. Both are prohibited by biblical and rabbinic
law, with some going to extremes, such as Sefer Ha-Hinukh, The Book of Mitzvah
Education of the 16th century (Barcelona, Spain), arguing that
whatever happens in life is because of God’s doing, and “should a man inflict
suffering or pain on him (the victim), let him know in his soul that his bad
deeds were the cause” (#241).
I cannot go that far. I do, however, maintain that revenge
does not accomplish anything, except for the immediate satisfaction that one
feels in one’s heart. But that is not a civilized answer. If every person who
suffers injustice tries to get even, there will be no end to the cycle of
violence. As the Talmud states, “He who takes vengeance or bears a grudge acts
like one who, having cut one hand while handling a knife, avenges himself by
stabbing the other hand” (J. Ned. 9:4).
I understand and appreciate the anger that victims have
towards their perpetrators. The question is whether revenge is the best
response. In Eleni, a remarkable book written by Nicholas Gage (1983), the
author tells the story of how his mother Eleni was executed for arranging the
escape of her children from their Communist-occupied village in Greece. Decades
later, as an adult, Gage sought out the person responsible for her death. He
found the culprit in South America, but when he met him in person, he couldn’t
find the strength to take revenge, and moved away. Recently, Martin Greenfield,
a tailor who survived the Holocaust has revealed how he came inches away from
assassinating a senior Nazi’s wife, but his conscience saved him from stooping
to the level of the SS (Daily Mail, Nov. 2014). I think this reaction is difficult but correct. Revenge corrodes the soul and
destroys the humanity of the victim. Sometimes, it is better to let things go away.
You don’t have to remain friendly with the perpetrator but, from now on, you
must be vigilant, and move on.
What do you think?
Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino.blogspot.com
Feb.6, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment