Every ideology has a central value to which its supporters aspire. Socialists aspire to economic equality among all human beings. Communism aspires to cooperative means of production and to equality. Liberalism aspires to equality before the law, and Capitalism to free economic competition. Anarchism aspires to eliminate one person’s control over another, etc.

For pacifism, the supreme value is human life - the sanctity of life.

From this flows the behavioral requirement not to attack human life or, in other words, to avoid the use of physical violence. Pacifism posits the behavioral requirement not to use violence: one must not murder, kill, steal, rape, or coerce through violence. All these are basic moral requirements. This is the basic difference between pacifism and most other ideologies. This ideology is similar to vegetarianism in that it places behavioral requirements upon its advocates. A vegetarian who eats meat, ceases to be a vegetarian. So it is with pacifism: if one is driven to use violence, one ceases to be a pacifist. For the vegetarian, the avoidance of meat products is essential, and in this the vegetarian is different from those who act to prevent cruelty to animals. The latter want to avoid harming animals, but they are not committed to vegetarianism. For the pacifist, avoiding violence and non-cooperation with it (as in army service, for example) are essential for his identity as a pacifist. In this the pacifist is different from the peace movement activist, who may serve in the military and accept the basic security conception upon which it is based. If an activist in the peace movement robs and kills within the framework of his military service, this will not prevent his being a peace activist. But a pacifist who does these things ceases to be a pacifist, even if he continues to advocate the sanctity of life.

Ideology Versus Morality: Ends Versus Means

I will try to explain the difference that I see between ideology and morality. Ideology deals with a realistic situation: aspiring to create a situation of equality among human beings (socialism), or free economic competition (capitalism), etc. Morality, on the other hand, presents principles of behavior: what is and is not permissible in relations between human beings. One must not murder, steal, rob, lie, rape, etc. Because these are the aspirations of pacifists, pacifism is a moral ideology - an ideology that tries to achieve a reality in which human beings sanctify human life, and treat each other in a moral way.

Morality deals with the conscious intentional behavior of human beings. Each human being can impel moral behavior only on him/herself. Because the pacifist avoids doing or participating in acts contrary to morality and conscience, the pacifist refuses to carry weapons and to serve in the military. Indeed in many countries pacifists are imprisoned, and I fear even killed, when they refuse to obey the law requiring them to serve in the army. From this we understand that for the pacifist, the moral value of not harming human life takes precedence over the law of the state. In this respect it is possible to say that there is an anarchist element in pacifism.

The military is an organized body to which the state gives legitimacy to use immoral means in order to obtain its goals. Soldiers learn to follow orders while abrogating their moral judgment. They are trained to use methods of violence in order to kill individuals and masses efficiently. It seems to me that the most terrible crimes committed by human beings against other human beings were committed by soldiers blindly following orders. The basic legitimacy conferred by the state upon the military is the necessity for defense against aggressors. In fact, however, the army enables the state to do things that it would not otherwise dare to do - and which have nothing to do with defense. On the contrary, these are often acts of aggression which lead to war and to the state’s subsequent need to defend itself. Pacifism is unwilling to accept any systematic legitimacy for violence, and just as it requires moral values at the inter-personal level, it also requires the state to act according to these same values.

Here an additional element is worth mentioning. I call it the "He started it" syndrome. Almost all violent confrontations among nations or individuals are created through a process of escalation. Because either one or both sides use violence, which is immoral, each side feels the need to blame the other. So the aggressor always blames the other side for starting it, and for forcing him to defend himself - which in turn gives the aggressor the legitimacy to use violence. Pacifism tries to prevent this vicious circle and the legitimacy given to violence in the guise of defense.

At this point it is worth noting the difference between pacifist movements and other peace movements. It is said that idealistic movements aspire to achieve situations where they are no longer needed - that is, where their goals have been accomplished. Thus when peace is achieved, a peace movement will either cease to exist, or will change its goals. In contrast, a pacifist movement will continue to exist even after peace is achieved, because it is not struggling against a specific war, but rather against the very conception of using violence as the basis for security, or as a basis for relations among states or individuals.

An important element in pacifism is its opposition to weapons. Weapons are tools for carrying out violent acts, and they change conflicts - which without weapons would be much less dangerous - into deadly confrontations claiming many victims. It is said that a weapon is only a tool and that the moral question pertains to the intention of the user and not to the tool itself. Thus there are those who justify the use of weapons for self-defense, but not for aggression. It is also claimed that many tools which are not weapons can be used as weapons. I argue that weapons are tools created to enable the implementation of acts which, in themselves, are not moral. While most weapons can be used for other purposes than causing harm to life, they were not created for these purposes. The weapons producer creates a tool for carrying out a violent act. From the very outset there was an immoral intention. The producer of drills, on the other hand, creates a tool for making holes. The producer of hoes creates a tool for working the land. Someone who uses a drill or a hoe as a weapon is acting against the intention of the producer; whereas a murderer who uses a gun is acting in accordance with the intention of the producer.

There are different kinds of pacifists. Some come to pacifism out of religious conviction, and others out of conscientious moral persuasion. There are those who see it only as a personal issue, and those who relate to political and social questions through a pacifistic prism. There are pacifists who advocate additional ideologies, such as socialism, anarchism, vegetarianism, liberalism, nationalism, and of course various religions. The shared element in all of them is that in pursuing the realization of their ideologies the ends do not justify the means. Means are just as important as ends. The pacifist who works or struggles in support of an ideal will only do this by means of non-violence; whereas another idealist or believer can choose between violence and non-violence. For the non-pacifist, the choice of non-violence is tactical; for the pacifist it is strategic.

The Importance of the Pacifist Message in Light of the Past and the Present

When examining the history of religions and reformist ideologies (liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchism etc., in contrast with nationalism, capitalism, fascism etc.), we encounter a strange phenomenon. People come wanting to bring improvement and betterment to humankind but in their efforts to do this they cause indescribable suffering, which in many instances brings on disaster rather than advancement. Here it is sufficient to mention the Crusades and the Inquisition, which were carried out in the name of the religion of love, Christianity, which at its outset was pacifistic. Or we might recall the terrible bloodshed that characterized the French Revolution and various communist revolutions. Great experiments to improve human life brought disastrous and terrible human suffering, not to speak of such ideologies as nationalism, fascism, and capitalism.

The danger inherent in the reformist (and other) ideologies is that in their attempts to make things better their advocates adopt the principle that "the end justifies the means." Idealists with good intentions think that in the name of the good they want to bring humanity they may use whatever means they choose, without any moral limitations. Too often in history we have seen how the ideology becomes more important than the human beings for whose sake it exists. We see how a situation similar to fascism - which places the state or the nation above human beings - is created among idealists who are opposed to fascism, when they are willing to sacrifice other people for the sake of their supreme goals. The process that was created to try to make things better for human beings, ends with human beings losing their importance in the face of the revolution. We have seen too many times how, in the name of the revolution, human beings were sacrificed and their most basic rights ignored.

In this way a gap is created between the existing reality and the desired reality, which will not necessarily be achieved. The criminal acts committed by idealists are the existing reality, while the good they want to achieve is by no means certain. Again and again throughout history, we have been left with the criminal acts without the desired outcome.

Pacifism, because of the moral principle on which it is founded, provides an answer to this problem and offers an idealism that is not dangerous. There can be no end that justifies immoral means. Means are as important as ends, and every act must stand up to moral criteria. Human life and human rights are of supreme importance. And if the desired goals are not achieved, at least no damage has been caused.

Just as ideologies can cause blindness to moral judgment, so too the phenomenon of loyalty to an identity group can lead to "moral blindness" toward crimes committed by this group. Many Israelis, for example, were extremely sensitive to the human rights violations against Jews in the former Soviet Union, but completely ignored the violation of the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel. At the same time, Israeli communists who struggled against violations of human rights in Israel, ignored human rights violations in the Soviet Union. Pacifism demands an alertness to human rights even when our own identity group violates the rights of others. Group loyalty cannot make us blind to moral judgment.

Nuclear Weapons: Reaching the Point of Paradox

The biggest danger facing humanity today is of the use of nuclear weapons. Humanity itself has created a danger to the very existence of life on earth.

Since time immemorial, the human conception of security has been based on the conception of violent force. Violent force has always been seen as necessary to guarantee existence: the more force, the more security. With the accelerated development of science and technology, weapons developed apace. The arms race, also driven by this conception of force, is supposed to give more and more security. And since everyone wants greater degree of security than his rival, the conception has now reached what I call the point of paradox. I will give you an example of what I mean: If a vegetarian wants to absolutely avoid harming life, s/he will have to stop eating food from plants, because plants are a form of life; s/he will have to stop walking lest s/he step on nature’s creation and kill it; and s/he will even have to stop breathing, because there are germs in the air and some of them will of course be killed in her/his body. And so from the desire not to harm life, there emanates the denial of one’s own life, and actually the denial of all life - because life always exists at the expense of the life of others.

Nuclear weapons have brought the conception of security based on violent force to its point of paradox. Nuclear weapons were produced in order to guarantee absolute security, but they actually lead to absolute insecurity. Because, God forbid, if an all-out nuclear war were to break out, it is doubtful that any life would remain at its conclusion. And here is the paradox of every conception of security based on violent force: what is intended to provide security, in fact, constitutes a threat to existence. In the case of vegetarianism, reaching the point of paradox endangers the individual human being, while in the case of the conception of security based on violent force, we stand today before the danger of the extinction of all life on earth.

There is an other interesting and dangerous phenomenon: Those who engage in the production of weapons always justify themselves with the argument that the other side is producing weapons, or may produce them ("He started it"). Thus they claim that they are producing weapons in self-defense. Conventional warfare has led to the creation of an ethical code of war, according to which armies are only supposed to attack the armies of the other side. Attacks against unarmed civilians are considered war crimes. When this is done in a massive way, it is considered to be a crime against humanity. Conventional weapons enable their users to distinguish between fighting and non-fighting forces (even if they choose not to do so). In contrast, nuclear weapons do not enable their users to make this distinction, and thus change the essence of war altogether. Instead of a war between armies, it is of necessity a war against a civil population. However, those who engage in the production of nuclear weapons - and who thus threaten the existence of life on earth - use the same arguments to justify their acts as do the producers of conventional weapons. The development from a conventional dimension of force to a nuclear dimension has not been accompanied by the development of a new dimension of morality, which will defend us from the force we have created.

From a Balance of Fear to a Balance of Trust

In this situation pacifism offers a different basis for security, one that is intended to eliminate the danger we face today. In the conception of security based on violence, fear is the central component. The enemy’s fear of what the other side will do to him if he attacks prevents him from attacking. From this it follows that each side must establish a strong army in order to strike terror on the other side, and if the threat of terror is not enough to prevent war, the army must be strong enough to defend itself and to win. Of course these circumstances give rise to an arms race, for each side must ensure that the other side does not achieve a power advantage. With the development of science and technology the arms race leads to the development of non-conventional weapons, including nuclear weapons - and this brings the entire conception of security to its point of paradox. In other words, the paradox of total insecurity is inherent in, and derives inevitably from, the basic logic of the conception of security based on violent force.

In contrast, in the pacifist conception of security, the central component is trust. Since each side knows that the other side poses no existential danger, neither side needs to attack first, or to establish an army or produce weapons. Each side does need to be sensitive to the needs of the other, in order to avoid steps that might lead the other to acts of desperation. The state itself has no means of force to enable it to carry out actions which might lead to war. The pacifist conception of security does, however, offer methods of applying pressure on the other side. These include: the exposing of negative acts, or the intention to carry out negative acts; non-cooperation; boycotts; various kinds of non-violent opposition; third party intervention, etc. But these methods do not threaten the existence of the other side or its existential interests. This new conception of security is known today as "Civilian Base Defense" or "Social Defense," and there is much research from different countries available on the subject. Finally, it seems to me that only by adopting these new methods of security, and by changing the conception of security based on a "balance of fear" to a conception of security based on a "balance of trust" that we will be able to ensure the continued existence of life on our planet.