E. LEWIN
Copyright © 2013 SciRe s .
112
ramifications of war: 78% in the American case, counting the
religious opposition to war as an ethical one, and 56% in the
Israeli case. However, without under-evaluating the remaining
moral constructive patriotism cites that support peace as a state
of mind (22% in the American case and 44% in the Israeli case),
the meaning of this data is that the moral demand to take into
consideration basic human ethics forms as little as 6% at best
out of the entire number of cites, and no more than 16% of the
constructive patriotism cites. Overall, then, the figures point out
quite clearly that very much like blind patriotism, constructive
patriotism based on criticism of authority—namely political
constructive patriotism—might fail to be based on moral stan-
dards.
Much of the interpretation that lies at the core of this
research is debatable. One might argue, for example, that
opposing the war due to great concern for the fate of close
friends and relatives who serve in Iraq is an opposition based
on solid moral grounds and therefore should not necessarily be
counted as political constructive patriotism but rather as moral
constructive patriotism. To choose another example, one might
also see as moral constructive patriotism the objection to war
for fear of losing financial resources that were originally in-
tended for the war against poverty. These different interpreta-
tions are bound to lead to different analyses of the very same
data and therefore to different conclusions. Nevertheless, even
if the mathematics of a different understanding of data might
produce slightly different results from those presented in this
paper, surely the logic of this study remains clear and stable, at
least throughout the two chosen case studies: During wartime,
the vocabulary of constructive patriotism in democracy may
form a major component of patriotic expressions, yet moral and
ethical thought during wartime are unfortunately scarce—by
any measure, too scarce, even among the critics of violence.
Conclusion
During the final 10 days of the 2006 war the MLRS (Multi-
ple Launch Rocket System) was used to a great extent by Israeli
artillery forces. MLRS rockets are designed to burst into sub-
munitions in order to blanket enemy army and personnel on the
ground with smaller explosive rounds. The use of this weap-
onry is controversial mainly due to its inaccuracy; in order to
compensate for the inability to strike individual targets pre-
cisely, IDF units have “flooded” the battlefield with munitions:
as many as 1800 cluster bombs were launched, containing over
1.2 million cluster bomblets. The sub-munitions that had not
detonated on impact, estimated at 40% of those fired in Leba-
non, remained on the ground unexploded, effectively littering
the landscape with thousands of land mines which would con-
tinue to claim victims long after the war had ended (Tice, 2008).
Had any of the artillery commanders, who had proved them-
selves in Metulla to be constructive patriots, shot MLRS rock-
ets? Unfortunately the answer to that is most likely positive,
and for all we know none of them had ever objected to doing so
in real time. In the Metulla circles there has been much dismay
about the conduct of war, much criticism of military and civil-
ian leadership, but no claims against the moral implications of
having trigger-happily launched the MLRS sub-munitions. As
the comparative empiric data of this research reveal, Israeli
society is probably no better or worse than any other society
experiencing the stress of war. It is precisely for this reason that
the low levels of moral commitment among constructive patri-
ots should alarm worldwide advocates of democracy. The bitter
soldiers gathering in Metullah on August 14th 2006 were not
killers nor were they vicious bandits searching for revenge.
They were patriotic citizens who had been called for duty and
had willingly fought for their country; they were also involved
citizens demanding full answers from a leadership that they felt
had let them down. They were, according to this description,
constructive patriots criticizing the state. But as the casualties
of war prove—criticism is not enough.
REFERENCES
Arskey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists:
An introductory resource with examples. London: Sage.
Blank, T., & Schmidt, P. (2003). National identity in a united Germany:
Nationalism or patriotism? An empirical test with representative data.
Political Psychology, 2, 289-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00329
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hoffmann, P. (1996). The history of the German resistance 1933-1945.
Canada: Mcgill-Queen’s University Press.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity,
and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51,
63-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x
Jupp, V. (1996). Documents and critical research. In R. Sapsford, & V.
Jupp (Eds). Data c ol le ct i on a n d analysis. London: Sage.
Jupp, V., & Norris, C. (1993). Traditions in documentary analysis. In M.
Hammersley, (Ed.), Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Prac-
tice. London: Sage.
Nathanson, S. (1989). In defense of “moderate patriotism”. Ethics, 98,
535-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/293096
Oldenquist, A. (1982 ). Loyalties. Journal of Philosophy, 79, 173-193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026219
Rebhun, U., & Waxman, C. I. (2003). Israel in the early twenty-first
century: Challenging internal and global developments. Israel Affairs,
9, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537120412331321503d
Rothi, D. M., Lyons, E., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). National attach-
ment and patriotism in a European nation: A British study. Political
Psychology, 26, 135- 155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00412.x
Schaar, J. H. (1981). The case for covenanted patriotism, legitimacy in
the modern state. London: Transaction Books.
Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of natio-
nal attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psy-
chology, 20, 151-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00140
Shirer, W. (1964). The rise and fall of the Third Reich. London: Pan
Books.
Slater, D. (1998). Analyzing cultural objects: Content analysis and
semiotics. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture. Lon-
don: Sage.
Somerville, J. (1981). Patriotism and war. Ethics, 91, 568-578.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/292271
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tenet, J. (2007). At the center of the storm—My years at the CIA. New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Tice, S. M. (2008). L ebanon. Journal of Mine Act i o n , 12.1.
http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/12.1/cp/lebanon/lebanon.htm
Viroli, M. (1995). For Love of Country. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wilson, J. (2005). The politics of truth. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf.