If the long-term aim is security, don’t give ayatollahs the response they want

Revenge is, by definition, pointless. It cannot undo whatever wrong we have suffered. It can only expose us to further harm. Yet the desire for revenge is hard-wired into all of us.

The evolutionary biologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson studied 60 different cultures around the world and found that in 57 of them, there was an institutionalized practice of blood feud or physical retribution.

“What our survey suggests,” they concluded, “is that the inclination to blood revenge is experienced by people in all cultures, and that the act is therefore unlikely to be altogether ‘absent’ anywhere.”

Why has the human race evolved this purposeless and debilitating instinct? The answer is obvious. Although vengefulness after the event may be purposeless, having a reputation for vengefulness is not. If other members of the tribe know you will hit back twice as hard, they are more likely to leave you alone.

The shift from an ethic of massive retaliation to one of self-restraint was the single most important step toward the orderliness of modern society. As Steven Pinker put it: “A culture of honor — the readiness to take revenge — gave way to a culture of dignity — the readiness to control one’s emotions.” This cultural change allowed for the institutional change that, more than any other, has reduced violence, namely a readiness to surrender our right to retribution to the police and courts.

Might something similar work among states? There is no supranational police force, and the machinery of international law, other than prohibiting war crimes and protecting diplomats, is necessarily limited since a democratic global government is impossible.

But Pinker’s point is that the attitudinal shift precedes the institutional one. And there are indeed signs that many countries have adopted “a culture of dignity.” They have voluntarily foregone the use of certain forms of warfare — sowing minefields near population centers, for example, or using poison gas.

These things are easier to do if you live in a safe neighborhood, as most Western countries do. In the Middle East, a reputation for hitting back is more important.

When Saddam Hussein acted as if he had weapons of mass destruction, Western intelligence agencies believed him — with, as it turned out, catastrophic consequences. But Saddam was living according to the code of his own region. He needed his neighbors, especially Iran, to believe he would retaliate disproportionately against any aggression.

Which brings us to Israel, where there is a lively debate about whether to respond more aggressively to Iran‘s drone attack. On one side stand those like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, who wants to be avenged through “a crushing attack.” On the other are those like Benny Gantz, the minister without portfolio currently being touted as a possible replacement for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who believes the swing back toward global sympathy for Israel, including in Arab states, is “a strategic achievement which we must leverage for Israel’s security.”

Gantz is making a more unpopular case but a more moral one. Christianity goes further than the other two Abrahamic faiths in elevating forgiveness over justice, but the difference is one of degree.

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” the Book of Leviticus 19:18 says.

“And verily whoso is patient and forgiveth — lo! That is the greatest of things,” the Quran 42:43 says.

Proportionality is not just a moral imperative. It is a wise strategy. If the mullahs ever got their hands on atomic weapons, Israel would face annihilation. The most important question for Israel is how to prevent that happening. Other than what one assumes is a continuing program of targeting facilities and nuclear scientists, is the best response to launch “crushing” attacks from a distance or to aim for regime change? Is it to seek vengeance or to strengthen the regional coalition against Iran — by, for example, continuing to normalize relations with Arab states?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The same question might be asked of Gaza. If the long-term aim is security, should Israel subordinate concerns over civilian casualties to the aim of eliminating Hamas fighters? Or should it aim, instead, to eliminate Hamas’s ideology by arranging for an alternative government in Gaza, supported by a regional coalition and committed to a long-term policy of deradicalization?

When Hamas carried out the abominations of Oct. 7, it was aiming to provoke exactly the response it got — a prolonged ground war that radicalized a new generation and turned international opinion against Israel. It cannot be tactically wise also to give the ayatollahs the response they want.