You don't have to be a Star Trek nerd to grasp the real point of this post. I don't count myself as one. For this bit of insight I'm going to retrofit something that Spock famously said in the 1982 movie The Wrath of Khan with one of the original series episodes.
No, it's not the episode in which Khan appears. It's one of the ones some fans consider the greatest episode of all: The City on the Edge of Forever. This one involves not just romance and saving the universe but time travel and a difficult decision to make in a form of galactic trolley problem.
This post will contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen this yet and want to first see it, go ahead and then return to this post.
The story gets going pretty quickly when Dr. McCoy stumbles through a time portal and ends up saving a woman named Edith Keeler (played by Joan Collins) from being run over in what turns out to be Chicago in the 1930s.
This is not an alien version but the real past with major consequences for the future.Those consequences soon come to light.
Here's the clip in which Spock shows what happens in this alternative timeline:
The way to hell was paved with good intentions
When Edith is spared the accident, she goes on to found a peace movement that is influential enough to prevent the US from entering WWII when it did. Germany succeeds in developing the atomic bomb first and wins the war. That's very bad with consequences that extend to the present of the Enterprise crew.
So even when Kirk declares, "I believe I'm in love with Edith Keeler," Spock responds, "Jim, Edith Keeler must die."
While he doesn't invoke the Vulcan saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one," as he does in the 1982 film, this is definitely what's understood. One woman's life cannot outweigh consideration for the lives of billions of people under a monstrous regime that is extended many years and retains influence on generations.
When war is the only moral option
Star Trek is set in a more enlightened future in which humans have advanced beyond engaging in war themselves, though they do still have to fight to defend themselves from hostile alien forces. However, as the show was actually produced in the early 60s, its creators and actors had first-hand familiarity with the horrors of WWII and the possibly-well-intentioned-yet-still-deluded people who were pushing to avoid war at any cost.
The thing about that "any cost" is that it can end up being an even more terrible price than the war itself, horrendous as it was. A regime bent on genocide becoming a world empire is worse, as they see from the way the sustained ramifications of the change in history.
In fact, there were highly influential people like this, ranging from Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler for what he thought was the assurance of "peace for our time" to isolationists who may have really had antisemitism as their motive like Charles Lindbergh. Then there were countless others who were still haunted by WWI and believed that anything had to be better than that.
They fell into the same mistake that Edith Keeler does, and in reality the US entered the war very late only when Pearl Harbor forced it to take direct action. Over those years of delay, Germany continued to gain ground, and the people of England suffered terribly. Plus the Final Solution got underway, and 6 million Jews were killed, along with 5 million other undesirables, including the Roma people.
In the early 1960s, people were well aware of this relatively recent history, and that is reflected in this Star Trek episode. It comes to the clearly logical conclusion that even a good person end up doing something devastatingly wrong and has to be stopped for the sake of the many and many generations. Though it breaks his heart, Kirk prevents McCoy from preventing Edith from stepping in harm's way, thus allowing her to die as predetermined and for history to take the right course without Germany winning WWII.
The moral imperative to combat the evil of terrorism
So what has this got to do with the present? In a situation in which one set of people feels justified in attacking another because they feel slighted or they just want what they have, or they believe in jihad, it is an untenable position to say that the attacked people cannot fight back because war is bad.
Yes, war is bad, but allowing evil to grow and flourish is even worse. Taking a passive stance, as so many Europeans did when Hitler extended his empire, make you complicit in evil.
That's the point of that episode. It was not acceptable to just let this alternative time line run its course. Kirk had not only allow an innocent woman to be killed but take an active part in preventing her from being saved. That was the only moral action under the circumstances. Refusing to do it would have been immoral, condemning billions just to be able to say, "I didn't kill anyone."
When people declare that the 9/11 attack was justified because the terrorists who did believed the United States needed to be taken down a peg, they are being immoral. An attack to kill thousands of innocent civilians simply because they are associated with an entity you hate is evil. Certainly, the United States went after the people behind it, and no one accused it of a war crime.
Dangerous naivete or just a double standard for Jews?
But when it comes to Israel, suddenly there's an impossible standard to meet of putting the lives of the attacking side ahead of your own men, women, and children. People seriously say that Israel may not bomb Gaza because civilians, including children are there. They may be as well-intentioned as the fictional Edith was, but what they propose is just as damaging.
"How can you (correctly) condemn the recent attack on Israeli citizens but say nothing about bombing civilians in Gaza.
Civilians whose food & water supply is cut off and who cannot escape.
HOW."
Chawla is presenting the false argument of two wrongs don't make a right here. That's not the case in war. Certainly, Israel will not rape, torture, and mutilate women, children, and civilians and make snuff videos of such events.
But to expect them to supply electricity and water to the people who continue to hold hostages they threaten kill on video and who continue to lob rockets at civilian areas and who slaughtered 400 cows to destroy the country's milk supply and who bombed the storehouses of food to create a shortage is frankly immoral.
It's literally empowering the people sworn to destroy you to do so because of some mistaken idea that Israel's own children's lives count for less than any other children's lives. Are they to be allowed to continue to perpetrate such atrocities unchecked because they use their children as human shields? That leads to more and more violence -- not peace.
Get the context right to understand the heinousness of what happened this past Saturday. Children were deliberately targeted and most brutally slaughtered, not to mention the women who were raped, and the other tortures and mutilations applied to the 1200+ victims of the most savage attack since the Holocaust.
And do not dismiss this with a naive thought like "Well, yes, that was terrible, but it already happened. Vengeance will not bring back the victims."
You think the worst is over? Think again. While this attack is definitely the worst to date, there's nothing final about it.
In fact, over 700 admitted Hamas supporters openly held a live meeting today on Twitter (X). I took a screenshot of the group the session called "I refuse to condemn the Palestinian resistance." Taking lessons out of Goebbels' playbook, they rationalize exterminating, torturing, and raping Jews. The Nazis claimed to have reasons for their genocide, as well.
What Churchill said
This is evil that must be checked. The Allies had to bomb Germany and harmed many civilians, including children, in order to win the war. It wasn't pleasant. They didn't relish the bloodshed, but they certainly celebrated the victory over evil forces, and this is the same situation in which Israel is at present.
This is why the rhetoric coming out of Israel right now that people are deliberately misconstruing as a call for genocide at worst or collective punishment at best is really an echo of what Churchill said during WWII.
"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.
"If we can stand up to him all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands; but if we fail then the whole world, including the United States, and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more prolonged, by the lights of a perverted science.
"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, 'this was their finest hour'."
House of Commons - 18 June 1940
There is no ethical imperative to keep your citizens in danger of murder, rape, torture, and being taken hostage to avoid any civilian casualty on the other side. No one would ever dream of demanding of anyone other than Jews who have barely made it through the 20th century genocide attempts.
Espousing a false moral code to limit what people can do to check evil allows it to flourish and for more innocent victims to fall prey to it. That is not the way. It's putting the needs of the few ahead of the many, to the ultimate devastation of all. That's the real lesson here.
I'm now reading The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson. As I remember from reading Dead Wake and Devil in the White City, Larson's style infuses the feel of a novel on straight history (though he's not quite as much fun to read as the somewhat fictionalized Kopp Sisters series).
One thing that struck me early on (p. 75) was why Churchill so valued Frederick Lindemann AKA The Prof, as summed up in one brief observation:
The Prof delighted in coming up with ideas that turned conventional beliefs upside down. Once, as he walking with a colleague, Donald MacDougall, he saw a poster that admonished, "Stop that dripping tap," an exhortation meant to conserve water and thereby save the coal that fueled the water-distribution system. As he walked, the Prof began calculating the cost in energy, wood pulp, and shipping needed to produce the paper for the poster. "and Of course," MacDougall recalled, "Prof was right in his initial suspicions that it all added up to enormously more than was going to be saved by the posters' advice being followed."
Yet, those who put up the poster feel they are fulfilling a patriotic duty and would delight in castigating the waste of others. We see that over 75 years later, we repeat the same exact error. If anything, we've gotten worse at elevating virtue-signaling that actually takes up more resources than the ones that are saved by the recommended actions.
If you're interested in history, (and a family that made film history) or if you're interested in how events get reported during and after a war, then you really should readAlone: Britain, Churchill, and Dunkirk: Defeat Into Victoryby Michael Korda. For me, tt crystallized certain aspect of British history, the country's view of itself in relation to the rest of Europe, and what was highlighted in films of the WW II. Then, of course, there is the issue of how you truth can be more effective at boosting morale than false propaganda.
.
Class divisions was not altogether absent from British consciousness, Korda notes, despite the attempts to put differences aside to work together:
The spirit of wartime unity between the rich and the poor was not altogether a fiction, but it was nothing like as strong as it became portrayed later on in British propaganda, let alone in films and eventually television. ... British class warfare was ever so slightly suspended during the war, but by no means eliminated. (451)
That particular issue is at the center of the book that was quickly adapted into a film, both with the title This Above All.
As for the position the Brits saw for themselves within Europe, it is in the book's title. Though the country started its involvement as an ally to others, the big shift it found at Dunkirk was that it was free to focus on its own needs in the war, a feeling that Korada finds repeated in the Brexit vote:
King George VI spoke for the whole nation when he wrote to his mother Queen Mary after the fall of France, 'Personally, I feel happier now that we have no allies to be polite to and to pamper.' Dunkirk is not unrelated to the emotions of those who demanded 'Brexit,' the British exit from the European Union in 2016. There was a national sense of relief in 1940 at leaving the Continent and withdrawing behind the White Cliffs of Dover. (p. 461)
To return to another film of the time, They Met in the Dark features the song, "Toddle Along" at least three times. The lyrics stress exactly what the British felt got them through the war, carrying on, even when the going gets tough. This is what Korda finds in the experience of Dunkirk and why the truth worked better than any lie could: "Churchill did not need a propaganda minister like Joseph Goebbels -- he was his own best propagandist, and his instinct that the British would rally when their backs were to the wall was proved correct." (432)
The British press embraced that approach, too, and that is why even a retreat could be seen not as a loss of honor but a symbol of the nation's resolution:
By now the British press was finally reporting on the Dunkirk evacuation with relative frankness." He cites the description of the withdrawal with a description of the "difficulties" involved. Then he say, "The piece marks a significant change from the Ministry of Information previous policy of manufacturing good news for home consumption and downplaying disasters, and also the first step in in the transformation of Dunkirk form a humiliating military defeat into a proud national epic even as it was taking place. 'Grin and bear it' might have been the new motto fro Britain, in which the ability 'to take it' rather than any significant victory, became a source of national pride, and even optimism." (439)
