Immoral Equivalency

Diplomatic criticism evenly distributed is without meaning.

An op-ed piece written by Michael Rubin in March of 2002 addresses moral equivalency and is just as relevant today. Here are some excerpts:

• The moral-equivalency labeling of both sides as equally at fault is increasingly in vogue at the UN, in European capitals, and at the US State Department. Diplomacy is about smoothing ruffled feathers, not taking sides in conflict. But do morality and equivalence go together? Perhaps, but only if catalyzing conflict and encouraging terror is moral.

• Rather than promote peace, moral equivalency encourages war. When warring parties' positions are automatically morally equalized, then both sides might as well take more extreme stances.
  

• While it sounds noble, the rhetoric of moral equivalency is not only empty, but also destructive. To equate blame is to deny responsibility. And to deny responsibility is to remove disincentive for violence.

• The quickest way to end terrorism is not to spout platitudes, but rather to create consequences.

Full article.