ONE FOR A HUNDRED, MISERY FOR ALL

By Dejan Krstic

“Human madness is often clever, and like a cat, a cunning thing. When you think it has fled, it may have only transformed into an even more refined form.”  

Herman Melville: “Moby Dick”

The captain of the ship Pequod, Ahab, undergoes a personal tragedy when the white whale, Moby Dick, inflicts a severe injury on him, leaving him without a leg. This experience leaves a lasting psychological scar from which hatred and the need for revenge against the creature that brought him misery are born. Ahab’s hunt for Moby Dick becomes his obsession, a life mission in search of redemption. Ahab is fixated on destroying Moby Dick, turning his revenge into a destructive force that ultimately threatens not only him but the entire crew. While the most famous whale in world literature escaped the retaliation of the mad captain, millions of innocent people have perished in countless acts of revenge at the hands of their tormentors.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE

Revenge is a complex concept, defined as an act of retribution or inflicting pain on someone who has previously caused harm to another. It is present in different cultures, mythology, religious texts, and literary works as a universal motivation for the ruthless actions of individuals, groups, and nations. It represents the most primitive reaction to an injustice endured and is deeply rooted in human nature. However, revenge does not appear among animals, who are instinctively focused primarily on protecting their offspring or pack. The human reaction to suffering goes a step further, involving planned retaliation, which is characteristic only of the “most intelligent” biological species.

In ancient Greece, revenge was a means of achieving political dominance. Driven by the desire to avenge earlier Persian destruction of Greek city-states, Alexander the Great exacted revenge on the Persian Empire. His revenge culminated in 330 BC with the burning of Persepolis, the Persian capital, thereby settling old scores and demonstrating the power of the new Greek Empire. During this period, revenge was seen as an act of establishing honor and justice in a world dominated by military power. Motivated by vengeance, the principle of “an eye for an eye” was introduced into the Roman legal system to punish rebels and antagonistic peoples. Julius Caesar, “by law,” took revenge on the Gauls, whom he considered enemies of Rome.

In the Middle Ages, revenge became part of social and familial obligations, introducing us to the concept of blood vengeance for the first time. This was a traditional customary law in which members of a family, clan, or community sought justice for the murder of their relatives by punishing the perpetrator and his family. In the feudal society, blood revenge was socially accepted. In Scotland and Ireland, for example, customary revenge was a way of maintaining family honor and social standing. In the Balkans, blood feuds were passed down from generation to generation through customary law codes, such as the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini in Albania. Similar practices existed in the Middle East and the Caucasus, in Yemen, and parts of Turkey. Families had the obligation to restore honor and enact justice on their own terms. During the Renaissance and Baroque periods, Europe adopted dueling as a specific ritual, usually to address insult or injury to one’s honor or reputation.

In the 19th century, the idea of revenge took on political and national dimensions. The French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic wars helped shape European nationalism, where revenge was used as a trigger to awaken and strengthen feelings of ethnic belonging. In the early 20th century, revenge acquired a global dimension through inter-state conflicts and military actions driven by past defeats. It became a political and ideological tool that motivated peoples and states to engage in conflicts of unprecedented scale.

The defeat of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) in World War I and the decisions of the Versailles Treaty left the Germans with a sense of collective humiliation. Hitler capitalized on this sentiment to popularize Nazi ideology and promote revenge, which soon turned into an all-out war against the entire world. Revenge thus became a driving force that politicians used to mobilize the masses and justify violence. One of the most horrifying examples of this vengeful impulse occurred in Kragujevac and Kraljevo, where, in October 1941, German troops executed thousands of civilians in retaliation for the deaths of their soldiers. The occupier brutally carried out mass retribution under the principle of “100 civilians for every killed German soldier.”

A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH

The sense of historical injustice over crimes during World War II caused national traumas among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. In the early 1990s, the intellectual “elite,” media, and inflamed masses dug into the wounds of the past, searching for the sins of their neighbors. Political leaders in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina used the awakened nationalism to escalate ethnic tensions. The wars in Croatia and Bosnia became grounds for a series of revenge actions in which all nations committed heinous crimes. Serbs, being the most numerous and militarily the strongest, began to exact revenge for all the injustices they had suffered during World War I and II. Justifying it with the fear of repeating Jasenovac, the Serbian leadership ordered the siege of Sarajevo, which lasted nearly four years, and the massacre of Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. Various events during the Yugoslav civil war demonstrated the devastating power of revenge, used to assert ethnic superiority and heal the complexes of the past.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, shocked America and awakened a sense of vulnerability and the desire for retribution. Al-Qaeda immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the U.S. bombed not only Afghanistan but also Iraq, despite Iraq having nothing to do with the attacks. The “War on Terror” turned into a prolonged invasion, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties.

The first military intervention after the collapse of the USSR occurred in 2008, when Russia intervened in Georgia. Putin supported the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and after the conflict, recognized them as independent states. Thus, Russia ensured its permanent presence and military influence in these areas. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in the Donbas region in 2022 showed that Russia harbored deep frustration over the loss of influence in the region. President Vladimir Putin reacted to Ukraine’s pro-Western aspirations and decided to “correct the crooked Dnieper.” The ongoing war in Ukraine resembles an act of revenge by a betrayed husband towards an unfaithful wife, with no end in sight. The consequences of this divorce are tens of thousands killed and wounded on both sides.

WE BECOME WHAT WE AVENGE

The most recent and simultaneously the most brutal example of vengeance is Israel’s response to the terrorist attack by Hamas that took place on October 7, 2023, during the Sukkot music festival. Over 1,200 civilians were killed in this attack, creating a sense of collective trauma within Israeli society. Soon after, Israel launched intense air and ground attacks on the Gaza Strip. The daily bombardment of this densely populated area lasted over a year, and the number of Palestinian victims surpassed 45,000. The brutal and disproportionate response of Israel to the terrorist attack brings the ratio of Palestinian casualties to one Israeli civilian closer to 40:1, evoking painful associations with known German retaliations during World War II. This event carries a special weight and additional symbolism, as the Israeli community, whose ancestors endured horrific suffering during the Holocaust, today carries out vengeful actions akin to those they themselves once suffered. Initially, the Israeli response to the terrorist attack was interpreted as self-defense, but the continuous and intense bombardment of Gaza brought muted condemnation from parts of the international community and raised many questions about the ethical boundary between defense and excessive retaliation.

Analysts argue that this case represents a moral dilemma related to the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On one hand, Jews, who have experienced genocide themselves, harbor a deeply rooted sense of insecurity and survival, often presented as a legitimate basis for military actions. On the other hand, the use of disproportionate military force against the civilian population in Gaza raises moral responsibility and further illuminates the profound contradictions of Israeli foreign policy. Their military strategy raises a legal and ethical question: to what extent can aggression be considered legitimate defense, and when does it cross into unjust, bloody vengeance?

Reality, unfortunately, refutes philosophical dilemmas, as the catastrophic consequences for the civilian population in Gaza are evident—schools, hospitals, water supply networks, and residential buildings have been destroyed. The humanitarian crisis escalates day by day, with the lack of water, food, and medical aid bringing the population to the brink of survival. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced, and the survivors face permanent physical and psychological consequences of the conflict. Meanwhile, the world’s most powerful nations, led by the United States, support Israeli aggression and fund unprecedented ethnic cleansing and war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Strictly controlled media defend the indefensible, labeling any criticism of Israel’s actions as antisemitism. The final phase of the decades-long conflict in the Middle East resembles a tennis match where one competitor uses a racket and the other a mortar launcher. As long as such rules prevail, the outcome of the match is predetermined, and the endless cycle of violence and revenge, in which rivals alternate between victim and avenger, creates an inescapable vicious circle of violence.

Revenge, as a rule, exceeds the boundaries of rationality and moral acceptability, drawing individuals, societies, and entire nations into an endless cycle of repression. It does not bring true relief nor delivers genuine justice; instead, it creates an illusory balance that may temporarily satisfy the sense of hurt but ultimately leads only to deeper chaos and suffering. Just as Captain Ahab, driven by hatred for the white whale, lost the ability to distinguish justice from his own pain, so do modern states, under the guise of collective responsibility, relentlessly violate all legal, moral, and humanitarian norms. Revenge thus becomes a symbol of the inability to see the broader context of conflict and to find a fundamental answer to the injustice suffered. The only way out of this vicious circle of violence lies in changing collective consciousness and building a global value system that places humanity above the primitive impulse for retaliation… Or perhaps we should seek counsel from animals, who know nothing of revenge.