No More “Yes, But”

Decades ago a psychiatrist pointed out to our group that the word “but” actually serves to nullify everything that came before. 

Unfortunately in the world of political advocacy, “yes, but” has become a commonplace.

Those following the news will have seen this story of four recent terrorist attacks against Israelis, and pretty specifically Israeli Jews. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/world/middleeast/hadera-israel-terror-attack.html. 

Reading these reports I’m both outraged, frightened for my relatives (by marriage) in Israel, worried because IS is now targeting Israelis, and yes, tempted to engage in a little “yes, butism.” You know why. Isn’t it tempting to bring up all the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians (well documented) and indeed every other moral failing of Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians one can think of? 

Tempting, but absurd and immoral. There is no justification, no moral reason, for the random killing of innocent people. It is terrorism pure and simple and should draw only one response: utter condemnation. Which is my response to these attacks.

I close by noting that I’m made a statement far broader than the occasion for this post. There are many actions and actors to be condemned in this world, at least to show some sense of human heartedness for all the victims of terrorism. But not to excuse one with another. Not to say “yes, but.”

And this broad statement is something for all of us to contemplate, including myself. Lest “yes, but” become a substitute for needed repentance and change. At least in the Christian tradition moral reasoning cannot proceed absent self-examination, repentance, and change. Otherwise the results are remarkably hollow and unconvincing.

Other condemnations, and opportunities for self-examination, another day. No “yes, but” to terrorism.