Walzer's Thick and Thin Morality and the Israel–Palestine Conflict

Introduction: The Significance of 1948 and the Land

"Some years," J. K. Galbraith once wrote, "like some poets, and politicians and some lovely women, are singled out for fame far beyond the common lot." For the Middle East in general, and for the people of Palestine in particular, 1948 was clearly such a year. It was the year in which the British Mandate for Palestine terminated, a Jewish state was established, thousands of Arab Palestinians became refugees, and regular armed forces of Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries entered Palestine–Israel and clashed with Israeli forces (Bregman, 2000). In the same way, some land masses seem to carry a higher level of importance than others. Such is the case with a small strip of land lying along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Israel — or Palestine, depending on the year the map was published — has been a place of conflict since the first recorded histories of the region, over 6,000 years ago. The Arab peoples claim it as their homeland, and the Israelis claim the same. The land holds no significant natural resources, as oil resides in nations to the south, and there are no deposits of gold or other minerals to spark the debate. The significance of this patch of land has only one measurable value: it is the symbol of one nation's right to exist. To the Israelis, Israel is their homeland and a symbol of how a small group of people can overcome centuries of persecution and trial and still have a place to call home. For the Arab people, on the other hand, the land belonged to them before a tribe of enslaved people migrated out of Egypt across the desert, and thus they believe it should still be theirs.

Bregman's Historical Framework

Ahron Bregman's book is a history of the conflict. Beginning in 1948 — when, in a few short days, Israel became a country by United Nations mandate — and continuing through the present, Bregman outlines both the what of Israel's fight for a nation to call its own and the why of national heritage. The Israelis fight as if their very existence depends on it, because it does. Without a land to call their own, the Israelis would become similar to the Native Americans of the American West — a disenfranchised people desperately trying to hold onto the past without the resources to build a future.

Walzer's Thick Moral Reasoning

"There are three sides to every story," Mark Twain once said. "Your side, my side, and the right side." The history of the Middle East, woven in Bedouin banners and divine scrolls, is a history rich in interpretation. Michael Walzer's book Thick and Thin digs into the psychological reasoning behind those things which we are willing to fight and die for. His views on moral argument provide a colorful lens through which to consider the Middle East conflict.

According to Walzer, we hold to two different bases for developing moral judgment. The first type he calls thick moral reasoning — a culturally connected set of ideals upon which a people base their sense of identity. Thick reasoning is referentially connected to specific events in time and space. It is like the metal girders that hold up the superstructure of a bridge: strong, interconnected, detailed, and specific. Thick moral reasoning subjects all other arguments for courses of action to itself, and promotes itself above the rest. It carries the reason for our existence and the identity through which we find personal worth and meaning.

Thick reasoning, therefore, is the logic by which we will fight and die for our own land, our own culture. Without it, we have no foundation to validate our existence; psychologically, without thick reasoning, we have no existence. Israel's deep-seated desire for its land is thick reasoning. The people identify themselves with this specific piece of the globe. Whether they base their desire on divine right or historical record, the land of Israel is part of their personal, social, and cultural identity. Before the exile, the slave nation that settled in Israel were only slaves, with nothing to call their own but the hope of freedom. The land represents that freedom for Israel — and therefore it is land over which they will fight and die.

Conclusion: Moral Imperatives and the Prospect for Peace

The moral standard we choose for ourselves should be the basis by which we understand the world. But in Walzer's worldview, we maintain two sets of standards in order to function in a world of conflict. The Middle East is a prime example of a group of peoples who, in their own worldview, are willing to fight and die for principles of nationalism and justice. Unfortunately, those same nations are not willing to extend respect to the thick moral pillars that make up the cultures of the entire region — and it is this failure of mutual recognition that keeps the conflict alive.

References

Bregman, Ahron. Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947. Routledge, 2000.

Phil Books. "Review of Thick and Thin." 2000. Available from: http://www.phil-books.com/Thick_and_Thin_Moral_Argument_at_Home_and_Abroad_0268018979.html.

Walzer, Michael. Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. University of Notre Dame Press, 1996.