Was the Passover more acceptable than UN sanctions?

[El_Machinae]

In the Bible story, the Egyptians are being ruled by their unelected king. The king has shown a level of brutality against civilians that warrants that he enact political reforms. In order to pressure the king, the external force decides to kill all the firstborn Egyptians as a way of showing that the external force means business. Whether this is designed to impress, to pressure, or to guilt the king is not too clear.

In the modern day, Iraq was being ruled by a tyrant backed by military force. The tyrant had used unacceptable levels of brutality against civilians, and so the UN used sanctions in order to enact political reform. The side-effect of these sanctions was a skyrocketing of the under-5 childhood deaths. The way these sanctions were intended to pressure Hussein are not entirely clear, but there're a multitude of possibilities.

In both cases, the anti-civilian pressures were followed by a decisive military defeat.

So, which of those two scenarios do you find more acceptable? Which are you less horrified by? Now, 'both' is not an acceptable answer, because you've been hearing about both of these stories for a long time, and I think that you (at least) implicitly more accepting of one event than the other.

 

[kramerfan86]

Less horrified by sanctions because the intentional goal is not to kill a bunch of innocents whereas passover was quite deliberate. its sort of the difference between "killed civillians accidentally in an airstrike" and "deliberated sent a bombing run on a neighborhood". End result is the same, but at the same time I think intentions matter when discussing what is more "acceptable"

 

[Tahuti]

Now, imposing reform from the outside is usually going to fail in the long term anyway.

 

[Zelig]

because you've been hearing about both of these stories for a long time

I've never heard about the bible story before.

It seems worse than modern-day sanctions.

 

[Puck Nutty]

In the Bible story, the Egyptians are being ruled by their unelected king. The king has shown a level of brutality against civilians that warrants that he enact political reforms. In order to pressure the king, the external force decides to kill all the firstborn Egyptians as a way of showing that the external force means business. Whether this is designed to impress, to pressure, or to guilt the king is not too clear.

In the modern day, Iraq was being ruled by a tyrant backed by military force. The tyrant had used unacceptable levels of brutality against civilians, and so the UN used sanctions in order to enact political reform. The side-effect of these sanctions was a skyrocketing of the under-5 childhood deaths. The way these sanctions were intended to pressure Hussein are not entirely clear, but there're a multitude of possibilities.

In both cases, the anti-civilian pressures were followed by a decisive military defeat.

So, which of those two scenarios do you find more acceptable? Which are you less horrified by? Now, 'both' is not an acceptable answer, because you've been hearing about both of these stories for a long time, and I think that you (at least) implicitly more accepting of one event than the other.

You're missing one important point. In the Bible story, God went out of his way to make sure Pharaoh ignored the 6 previous plagues.

After each plague, Moses asked Pharaoh to change his ways, but God forced Pharaoh to say "no". The Bible specifically says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart". So, it certainly seems to say that Pharaoh's decision was not his own, and that God wanted to ensure his plan reached it's final conclusion.

Therefore, it would be like the UN placing sanctions on Iraq whilst ensuring that Saddam had no way to get out from under them. God took away Pharaoh's options, Saddam on the other hand, still had free will.

I don't mean to turn this into a theological debate, but I felt it was necessary to shed some light onto your analogy.

 

[Neomega]

The passover only targeted the families of the oppressors. The sanctions targeted mostly the oppressed and poor. So if I would choose an angle of death killing the firstborn of the oppressive people over the use of sanctions, which really only killed the poor.

 

[Kozmos]

Actually you've made a cunning insight. G.W. Bush was probably using the Bible as a primer on foreign policy.

 

[Puck Nutty]

The passover only targeted the families of the oppressors. The sanctions targeted mostly the oppressed and poor. So if I would choose an angle of death killing the firstborn of the oppressive people over the use of sanctions, which really only killed the poor.

Not according to Exodus 12.

On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

So yeah, God didn't differentiate between the oppressors and the general population. Unless all of Egypt were to be considered guilty regardless of their position in Egyptian society.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So yeah, God didn't differentiate between the oppressors and the general population. Unless all of Egypt were to be considered guilty regardless of their position in Egyptian society.

Duh, of course the whole society is guilty for transgressions against "us"! That's the way people thought back when those verses were written; it wasn't even open to question.

Looking around, I'm not sure much has changed since then

 

[Puck Nutty]

Duh, of course the whole society is guilty for transgressions against "us"! That's the way people thought back when those verses were written; it wasn't even open to question.

Looking around, I'm not sure much has changed since then

Unfortunately true. Exodus is the main reason why I am no longer Catholic. I can't reconcile the pure evil of that story, even if the Isrealites were freed from slavery as a result.

So yeah, economic sanctions = Ok, collective punishment with no recourse = bad.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm actually going to go with the Passover. At least it served some emancipatory purpose, isn't wasn't just cynical power-politics. In the case of Passover, Egyptians died because, apparently, the freedom of the Israelites was conditional on their dying (don't really buy that, I'll be honest with you, but for purposes of argument let's take the story at face value ); it was the price paid for a legitimate cause, so the question is whether it was a necessary price. In the case of the the UN sanctions on Iraq, Iraqis died because it suited the Machiavellian schemes of Western political magnates that they died; it was a manoeuvre in a wholly illegitimate scheme, something that was in itself grotesquely immoral and so permits no debate as to harsh necessities. Unless we're going to be so credulous as to believe that Western opposition to Saddam was ever, in even the loosest sense, benevolent, I can't see one could find it the less objectionable episode.

 

[timtofly]

I am a firm believer in letting God handle every sticky situation. Seems there would be less "man-made" wars. Another debate, altogether, since I am sure there are those who feel that most wars are "acts" of God, or they have been carried out "in-his-name". So basically, we are in the same situation today as back then.

The passover only had death on one side, so thus it was the fairest at least to the "one" side. There has always been death on both sides, even in sanctions. Sanctions did not stop 9/11.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The passover only had death on one side, so thus it was the fairest at least to the "one" side. There has always been death on both sides, even in sanctions. Sanctions did not stop 9/11.

/facepalm

 

[asbestos]

Passover only killed civilians. The sanctions killed civilians and demodernized the target society.

Passover was pursued with an emancipatory objective in mind. The sanctions were pursued for cynical geopolitical reasons - probably to reduce the threat (to foreign interests) of a local hegemon rising to power in an oil rich region.

 

[kramerfan86]

You're missing one important point. In the Bible story, God went out of his way to make sure Pharaoh ignored the 6 previous plagues.

After each plague, Moses asked Pharaoh to change his ways, but God forced Pharaoh to say "no". The Bible specifically says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart". So, it certainly seems to say that Pharaoh's decision was not his own, and that God wanted to ensure his plan reached it's final conclusion.

So basically the biblical situation would be like slapping sanctions on the country while bribing saddam to in fact continue his behavior through multiple rounds of sanctions before you finally slap the final ultimate sanction on his country.

 

[Puck Nutty]

So basically the biblical situation would be like slapping sanctions on the country while bribing saddam to in fact continue his behavior through multiple rounds of sanctions before you finally slap the final ultimate sanction on his country.

Actually, it would be like slapping sanctions on Iraq whilst simultaneously making it impossible for Saddam to meet your demands. Then you kill a bunch of Iraqis and blame the whole thing on Saddam being a stubborn douche. Bribing someone implies that the individual gains something and may be complicit with your plans (which was not the case in Exodus).

God's actions as described in Exodus are flat out evil.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The sanctions were more in line with the earlier less direct plagues.

 

[warpus]

The first is a story that's meant to convey an abstract message rather than report a historical fact; the second is reality, you can't really compare them in a "what was more acceptable?" sense, unless you want to get somewhat abstract, I suppose.

 

[timtofly]

The sanctions were more in line with the earlier less direct plagues.

Are you saying that the passover was the actual attack after sanctions did not work? It is possible that the Hebrews could have left without all that death, and still cross the sea and the sea could have still killed out the Egyptian army, or not, who was chasing them. Is there not bloodshed during any revolution?

About the only difference, I can see, between El_Machinae's comparison is that there were no "repressed" people trying to leave Iraq. As history has shown things got worse after Saddam left the scene.

It seems the Biblical narrative left massive death at first, then the nation would have had to rebuild with a new generation, and they had more space to do so. In Iraq, there was a civil war in which the surviving factions fought it out in a bloody battle. Neither scenario was a pretty sight, but the Biblical one at least left both those fleeing and those left behind a more peaceful solution going forward.

 

[Aroddo]

It's pretty clear that the ancient jews murdered all those children of their oppressors and then blamed it on god. That was a despicable act of terrorism, although in those times no one played nice.
The UN sanctions on the other hand were not designed or intended to kill children. After all, Saddam could have diverted money from polishing his gold furniture to improving the infrastructure, but instead he chose to let his people suffer and blame the foreigners for it.

So, by modern standards the UN sanctions are definitely more acceptable than Passover, which was essentially an act of terrorism.
Although, back in those days killing children was probably no biggie.