Right and Wrong, and Palestine, 9/11, Iraq, 7-7...

If we are to judge acts of political violence, be they terrorist attacks or "wars on terror," we must judge them by the same moral principle, insists Honderich (emeritus, U. College London, UK) in this work of political philosophy. The moral principle he proposes is the Principle of Humanity, which says that one should rationally act so that humans, all humans, are not deprived of a decent length of life, bodily well-being, freedom and power, respect and self-respect, goods of relationship, and goods of culture. Applying this moral yardstick to George W. Bush's "War on Terror" and associated events, he arrives at uncomfortable conclusions for British and American politicians and their supporters. He argues that the Zionism and the Zionist terrorism that aided in the founding of Israel had their wrongs, but their rights outweighed those wrongs. However, in going beyond the 1967 borders, Israel and its American enablers are now engaged in what Honderich terms neo-Zionism, which is not only wrong but to a certain extent justifies acts of Palestinian terrorism. Similarly, the attacks of September 11th were wrong and Osama Bin Laden can justly be condemned for them (even more than the highjackers themselves), but the US must recognize that in promoting neo-Zionism it has a share of moral responsibility for the attacks as well. Further, the September 11th attacks should be seen in the context of other violations of the Principle of Humanity, such as the failure of the rich world to address poverty in Africa, which kills far more humans daily than the September 11th attacks, or the Iraq War, which is simply state terrorism. He concludes with similar reflections on the March 7th, 2005, train bombings in London. Annotation c2007 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Ted Honderich is Grote Professor Emeritus of Mind and Logic at University College London and visiting professor at the University of Bath.