In Alana’s post about Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s conference call this morning, she reported his comments about the difficulty of trying to fight a war against an immoral foe while preserving your own morality:
The ambassador said Israel has destroyed many of Hamas’s long-range missiles in its first-stage air strikes, but that they couldn’t be completely successful “because of considerations of collateral damage.” In one case, an Israeli pilot refrained from striking a long-range missile because the pilot noticed children in the vicinity, Oren said. That missile was later launched into Tel Aviv.
The action of that Israeli pilot must be seen as praiseworthy since it showed that even in the midst of a conflict in which his country’s security is at risk, that officer was still concerned about saving the lives of Palestinian children. Even if Hamas hides its forces behind civilians, the rules of engagement for Israel’s soldiers require them not to deliberately place innocents at risk even if it confers a military advantage on the terrorists. That is the sort of decision that is in accord with the values that democratic Israel prizes as well as those of Judaism. But this anecdote raises more questions than it answers. It may, in fact, be an apt metaphor for the problems that Israel faces in its conflict with Hamas. One needn’t be a bloodthirsty militarist or be indifferent to morality or to the dictates of international opinion to understand that the consequences of such a policy may not always advance humanitarian goals.
The moral dilemma here is fairly clear. Choosing not to fire at the Hamas missile site may have saved the lives of Palestinian children who were near the weapon. But what would we think about that decision had the missile that had been spared on account of the presence of the Palestinians kids landed on a school, a school bus or a home in Tel Aviv where Israeli children might be hurt or killed? Unless you believe, as many of Israel’s critics apparently do, that Israelis deserve to be killed but that Palestinians ought to be treated as out-of-bounds for any military action, this is an immoral equation.
It is true that the immoral act would have been the responsibility of the Hamas members who ordered and launched the missile, not that of the Israeli pilot. Those who shelter such weapons behind women and children are despicable cowards, especially when it is understood that their goal is to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.
It should be understood that Israel does not act in this manner because it is under the misapprehension that moral behavior will win it international applause. Few in Israel are that foolish. Despite the calumnies of Israel’s critics, purity of arms is more than a tradition in the Israeli military; it is a strict code of ethics that has informed the country’s armed forces since they were formed. In any war, especially one waged against irregular forces that hide among civilians, noncombatant casualties are inevitable. Yet Israel actually takes even greater care to avoid them than other nations, including the United States, which has been bitterly criticized for drone attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in which civilians have died.
But though ethicists may always treat any military action in which the soldier consciously endangers the lives of noncombatants in order to achieve their military objective as wrong, a decision that enables terrorists to go on killing other innocents is, at best, a morally dubious proposition.
This is more than just a hypothetical about asymmetrical warfare or even a question about a specific incident. This discussion goes to the heart of Israel’s problem in defending its population against a terrorist enemy.
The Jewish state is locked in a struggle with an organization that exercises effective sovereignty over Gaza. Indeed, for all of the caterwauling about the need to create an independent Palestinian state, what Hamas has created in Gaza is just that. Gaza is an independent Palestinian state in all but name. The rule of the Islamist group there is absolute and tyrannical. Yet the unwritten rule of the current conflict is that any attempt by Israel to depose Hamas will be regarded as intolerable even by states that don’t recognize the group’s right to rule there.
But more than that, the international community has somehow accepted the idea that Hamas can wage war across what is regarded as an international frontier against Israel without having to face the usual consequences of such actions. Rather than just a few children being used as human shields for one missile, the entire population of Gaza has been employed for the same purpose for a terrorist army that has no scruples about targeting civilians on the other side of the border. Though it has sought to hamstring Hamas’s ability to inflict suffering on its people, Israel has largely acquiesced to this absurd moral construct and refrained from the sort of action that any sovereign nation would employ were its towns subjected to the sort of pounding that residents of southern Israel–and now even the central part of the country–have come to treat as “normal.”
It should be recalled that before Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made it clear that should the place be used as a launching pad for terrorism, there would be no respect for the status quo and no holds barred in terms of Israeli retaliation. That pledge may have always been more braggadocio than credible threat, but the moment his successor allowed it to go unfulfilled it became clear that Israel had no good options when it came to restraining Hamas attacks.
The problem here is not just that of one principled pilot or even a thousand other such decisions that are being made throughout the conflict by similarly scrupulous Israeli soldiers. Rather, it is the acceptance of a situation in which Islamist terrorists are allowed to behave as sovereigns but not held responsible for their actions. The true moral dilemma isn’t about a missile; it involves a decision to allow a terrorist group to rule over Gaza the way the Taliban once ruled Afghanistan. So long as Hamas control over Gaza is treated as inviolable, the rockets will continue to be fired at Israeli civilians and some of them will be wounded and killed. While the terrorists will be at fault for those crimes, it is an international community that treats the continuation of Hamas rule in Gaza as permanent and inviolable that will truly be responsible for it.
Well done.
FTA: n n"including the United States, which has been bitterly criticized for drone attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in which civilians have died." n nThe US and Israel face this problem together. With respect to the drone strikes, there is no way of knowing whether claims of civilian casualties are true or not. The US faces the same Pavlovian response from the press as Israel. US claims are always viewed with suspicion at best, enemy claims are treated as gospel even if completely disproved by subsequent revelations. n nFor instance, in Pakistan, there is no national army that is a drone target, consequently all targets are civilian by some definition. Claims of killing innocents are unverifiable. Nonetheless the main stream media prints their claims without any implication of the slightest suspicion as to their veracity. n nThe depraved and seditious world press is the primary enabler of the jihadis. It is they who provide legitimacy and cover for the depredations of the fanatics and demonize even the most carefully and humanely efforts at self-defense. Both the US and Israel would be morally justified in obliterating their antagonists, ending the threats, and securing the continued existance of their people.
We fought the Nazis by destroying their cities as they destroyed ours. We so fought the Japanese. We had the power to win that way. If we can't do it that way, then we should institute classes in Arabic and Koran studies. Of course, it is not just the Muslim leaders, religious and political, who are our enemies, it is a traitorous press such as the NY and LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc.. How did we deal with such in WWII? How do we deal with them now?
The media were adults in WW2. n nThese days, they are coddled kids whose parents told them how wonderful they were as they took electives in third world studies and women's issues, while skipping history classes. n n
Israel and the US will always face condemnation no matter what they do or don’t do. We can’t shape policy or tactics according to a desire for some mythical state where that no longer occurs.
Israel and the US will always face condemnation no matter they do or don't do. It's silly and self defeating to align policy and tactics according to a mythical state where that no longer occurs.
Is it moral to endanger countless numbers of your own civilians to spare a civilian that the enemy has cynically used as a shield for its launch site? How may Israeli children were placed in danger by the decision not to destroy the long range rocket? See Rashi on Deut. 20:1.
I do not believe it is possible to have any morality…never mind ethics, decency or truth when dealing with the jihadists, terrorists, Islamic radicals. President Obama knew precisely what he started with his "apology" tour and bowing to lesser beings. He is to blame for everything that happens in this unhinged land: the Middle East!!
I do not agree with the decision of that pilot, but he is following orders. The Israeli leadership has agreed to place a higher value on Palestinian lives than Israeli lives. That is a policy that very few countries would agree with for their own populations. n nIf Israel dropped this policy, they could permanently end the Gaza missile firing continuing crisis in a matter of weeks with a reduction of casualties on both sides (compared to years of additional conflict and repeated large ground incursions). Simply site several heavy artillery batteries on the Gaza border. Give standing instructions to the battery commanders that for every missile or mortar shell fired into Israel, they will fire 10 shells back into Gaza; so 5 missiles fired at Israel, 50 shells fired back at Gaza within minutes. No calls will be made to higher officers, no cabinet meetings, no reserves called up. My guess is that between one to three weeks after the initiation of the policy, Hamas permanently ceases fire. To be fair, the Israelis might want to give the population one week's notice of the new policy. n
regarding: n n " That is the sort of decision that is in accord with the values that democratic Israel prizes as well as those of Judaism. But this anecdote raises more questions than it answers. It may, in fact, be an apt metaphor for the problems that Israel faces in its conflict with Hamas. One needn’t be a bloodthirsty militarist or be indifferent to morality or to the dictates of international opinion to understand that the consequences of such a policy may not always advance humanitarian goals." n nIt is not moral to spare savages, so that these savages will kill your children-there is no moral problem! n n..Saul's failure to obey this command cost him his kingship. Note the commentary on this total destruction later by Samuel, when Saul summons him from the dead through prophetic vision literary tool: n{…} n"18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day." (1 Sam 28)"
You only have deterrence when the other side is AFRAID to attack you. You only generate fear in the other side when the latter suffers a large number of deaths and widespread destruction. n nIsrael has no choice but to KILL every hamas member and leader, every known terrorist; Israel must destroy whole neighborhoods in order to get every terrorist, and Israel must not worry about civilian casualties which, in this case, are absolutely necessary in order to effect a true change of attitude amongst the civilian population which, I believe, is quite complicit in the terror activity and, hence, not really civilians. n nOnly in this event will the remaining civilian gazan population conclude that their focus must be turned away from Israel. n nThis is the only solution – anything less will not work, and Israelis will continue to be killed, injured, and emotionally scarred. n nI do not think that the Israeli government will undertake such steps, but I am confident that every other country, including the U.S. and all european countries, and every other people, on earth would indeed act in this way if they faced the same hardship that plagues Israel.
Jews are the softest touches of all. The Nazis marveled at how 4 soldiers could herd 1000 people into the gas chambers, AFTER TAKING THEIR CHILDREN AWAY.
It is so sad and tragic. n nWhy does our people suffer such disability? I do not even wish to speculate. n nI also wonder why many people use the word "nazi' for the germans and their murderous associates. Why are so many people afraid to say that the germans murdered the Jews. n nDo we say that the republicans, or democrats, are killing (with drones) Pakistani civilians, or does the world denounce americans for these killings? Why should the germans escape culpability for their actions, which are too often blamed on some mysterious, phantom group known as "nazis"? n n
Excellent point. 'Nazi' has been overused, as well, and people's eyes glaze over when the word is mentioned.
I am astonished at the attitude of young Jewish people in America. Look at how they think and feel (80% of them) by looking at the Tikkun website today. They are reviving old-fashioned communism as an ideal, and see Israel as a painful burden. Why is this so?
he is not a rabbi n nLerner received rabbinical ordination in 1995 through a beth din (rabbinical court) composed of three rabbis, "each of whom had received orthodox rabbinic ordination".[1] According to j. the Jewish news weekly, "mainstream rabbinical leaders of the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements" have questioned private ordinations such as Lerner's, arguing that non-seminary ordinations risk producing poorly educated or fraudulent Rabbis.[2] Similarly, some rabbis have challenged Lerner's decision to not be trained for the rabbinate in a classical Jewish Seminary (although Lerner did spend three years as a student at Jewish Theological Seminary) n nHe claims he received rabbinic ordination in 1995 from a Beyt Din (a religious court) of 3 rabbis (each of whom had received orthodox rabbinic ordination, called smicha). ..but these Rabbis are never named. n nHe is a crackpot.
It''s a typo. It wasn't a Beyt Din, it was eBay.
A basic rationale for Zionism is that Jews would be equal and could defend themselves in the same manner as any other people. Sadly because of bullying by the Europeans and lukewarm support by the US, Israel is forced to value the lives of Palestinians over those of Jews. As long as they follow this policy, Hamas will continue to win. Doing a pin point bombing campaign kills a small percentage of Hamas fighters (they get warning before the bombs strike), and destroys a substantial part of their current missile inventory. Give them a couple of years and they easily replace both. In an large ground incursion, the IDF neither has the time or resources to completely take over Gaza City for a month and search every apartment for Hamas fighters. Neither tactic is a permanent solution.
Barak and Lieberman recently stated that removing Hamas from leadership was not one of the goals of the present battle. That may or may not be so. I wouldn't expect them to publicly declare that goal if it were true or not. One goal is a definite MUST. That is retaking complete control of the Philidelphia corridor. When Israel (stupidly) evacuated Gaza in 2005, EU inspectors were left to guard the passage. I understand that they fled when a nearby Arab sneezed. So reliable. With complete control of the passage, Hamas or any other Arab body, will not be able to smuggle contraband so readily. The Egyptians will squawk, but they have no rights there, and, anyway, it is just returned to it's pre-2005 status. There are difficulties in maintaining control there, but they dwarf in comparison to not having control there.
If Isreal continues doing as they have done in the past, they should expect to continue getting the same unacceptable result. Begging and hoping and pleading for peace have not worked. A better result could be had if they demand peace and wage war until whats left of Gaza unconditionally accepts.
Years ago I had the great privilege of spending a couple of weeks in Israel, visiting my ex-wife's grandparents. I'm not Jewish, but I left Israel wishing I was. To say that I admire Israelis is an understatement, and though I initially respond to stories like this with mixed emotions – maybe Israel shouldn't be so concerned about collateral damage, etc. – in the end I can't help but feel awe for a nation that exists and thrives in the Valley of Death – and maintains its admirable humanity. What a people. nWhat I honestly do not understand is why so many American Jews don't seem to care. Am I missing something?
You are a Jew in your soul. Those others that you refer to are either Kapos or just plain schmucks, too many of them, but remember, not all.
"You are a Jew in your soul." Well, thank you.
You guys choke me up
Folks, with respect, Hamas is neither worthy nor interested in peace talks.
The only way for Israel to protect it’s citizens is to
1. push the Hamas led (by *their* choice) ‘Palestinians’ out of Gaza into Egypt, and bulldoze *everything* there.
2. hold Egypt accountable for any strikes from the Sinai
I seriously cannot understand why any rational person can publicly suggest Hamas has any interest in peace. Carter was a fool, and the Arabs knew it.
Best Regards,
I supported leaving Gaza(but not the Philly corridor) because I believed Sharon`s statement. Unless Israel retakes Gaza,the only other option is to follow through on Sharon`s pledge.And cut power and other supplies too at the same time.
Lots of slugs. n nWhat goes through their minds? n nHow do they fall asleep at night? n n
please-don;t make me go there n n:-) ewwwwwwwwww