The Proper Attitude Toward the Residents of Gaza (Column 635)
The harrowing images from Gaza have stirred harsh protests and criticism around the world. In response, here in Israel we hear comparisons between the status of Gaza’s residents and the seven nations about whom it was said “you shall not let a soul live,” or to Amalek, whom we are commanded to destroy. Such statements have circulated widely in recent months, and not only in religious circles; to a large extent they are a counter-reaction to global criticism. I thought it appropriate to examine these comparisons a bit more systematically and critically (and certainly not “from the gut,” as is customary in our quarters on both sides). Needless to say, the fact that the world’s criticisms are unfair or inaccurate does not mean that every counter-comparison is justified.
The Media Dissonance: Ought vs. Is
Let me preface by saying that, as I understand it, the world’s problematic attitude toward us does not stem only from antisemitism. In many cases it is the product of the picture in which people live (via the media) and thus of their ignorance. In that picture, I might also take to the streets against Israel (I hope). Remember: they see tens of thousands killed in bombings by a powerful and forceful army, including thousands of children; hunger and disease; infants living in tents through the winter without medical care; fighting in hospitals and schools; accusations that the UN is collaborating with terror (which sounds absurd); and more and more. No one there is giving lectures on the history of the conflict and its origins, or on the context of these events. But is there no media bias here at home? Do we examine every issue in the world—and even here—deeply before forming a firm opinion? Did any of us look closely at the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, for example, before forming a firm position on it?
There is a great deal of ignorance in the world on this subject, and of course a disregard for context and relevant facts (the history of the conflict, willingness to sign agreements, the Islamic infrastructure, territorial and historical considerations, the broad public support Hamas enjoys among the Palestinian public, and more). But we should honestly admit that we, too, do not really get the full picture. Remember that the media echoes back to each of us what we wish to hear (this is the phenomenon of media/filter bubbles discussed in columns 335, 451, and others). The “New Historians” began this critical trend, which in itself is blessed and good, as it seeks to balance the slanted picture we grew up on (and it certainly was—and still is—slanted). Of course, to draw conclusions from the new facts, we also need context and an analysis of what those facts mean. Clearly, there is never justification for lies in presenting facts. But a full factual foundation is always positive. In short, someone presenting facts that are uncomfortable for us is not necessarily an antisemite. As long as they are facts, he is obliged to present them and we are obliged to see and know them. Conclusions come afterward, depending on the context and the meaning of those facts. One mistake is to conflate presenting facts with presenting a normative stance; the equal and opposite mistake is to ignore facts because of the conclusions that seemingly follow from them. Both sides err in confusing facts with conclusions—that is, in mixing up the is and the ought.
Returning to us: these horrific scenes and images from Gaza are spared us. The usual Israeli media does not show them, and therefore we are less shocked by them—even though they certainly can and should shock. This, of course, says nothing about the conclusions and how we ought to conduct ourselves. Shock is an emotional matter, and I am absolutely opposed to setting policy according to feelings of the heart. Still, the images and facts are relevant factual input that we lack. The newspaper Haaretz, which by its nature emphasizes those angles all the more (well, that’s its duty as a Palestinian house organ), is dismissed with contempt as antisemitic. But presenting reality is not antisemitism. Forming a position without examining the implications of reality is also not necessarily antisemitism. Sometimes it is just superficiality—though in the case of Haaretz, which is indeed well-versed in the facts, it is to a great extent auto-antisemitism.
So much for the background—or the thesis. Let us now turn to the antithesis, namely the above comparisons. Needless to say, this discussion is entirely on the normative plane (the ought).
Rabbi Sherlo’s Remarks
In our correspondence, Rabbi Sherlo sent me a short post he wrote on this question (on the Facebook page called Zikim, Spark 14), and in his fashion he encapsulates it very well:
“‘As he is there’—‘Judged by his end’”
Two opposing sources serve in the moral discussion regarding the offspring of terrorists:
* The first* is ‘judged by his end.’ We have every basis to assume that, given the education preached by Palestinian society, they will not even have the possibility of not becoming enemies of Israel who seek to annihilate us;
And on the other hand: ‘For God has heard the voice of the lad as he is there,’ and Rashi there, in light of the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah, says: > He is judged according to what he does now, and not according to what he will do in the future. <
Many of Israel’s sages have written on resolving the contradiction between these two principles and have proposed various suggestions. Anyone who wishes to deal with the question of what Jewish morality is regarding this reality must relate to both sources—not to one alone—and of course to a broader envelope as well, from the duty of ‘I shall not return until they are consumed,’ to the prevention of a great desecration of God’s name.
May God enlighten our eyes.
Indeed there is tension between these two sources, though we must remember that “as he is there” speaks of Ishmael who, at least in the biblical view, is expected to have billions of descendants; thus it is difficult to decree annihilation upon them all due to a future projection about Ishmael himself. Moreover, at least by the plain sense of Scripture, he himself did not truly sin but is merely expected to cause us trouble. By contrast, “judged by his end” is said regarding the wayward and rebellious son (ben sorer u-moreh), a law concerning a specific individual who has already sinned, and then perhaps it is not right to take into account a projection about what will be with him in the future.
One can suggest further distinctions. But beyond all such distinctions it is important to understand that these two sources address the question of eradicating evil. The tension concerns how far we may eradicate a person before he has chosen evil, merely because he is expected to do so. Our discussion, however—like Rabbi Sherlo’s, which deals with the offspring of terrorists—does not end with eradicating evil, but with the legitimacy of various means of self-defense. Here the question is: may I kill a child who has not sinned solely because of the future threat expected from him, even before it materializes? From this I understand that the expression “judged by his end” is used here by Rabbi Sherlo only in a borrowed sense. As he himself begins: the idea is to kill them because of the danger they will pose in the future (that they will grow up to be terrorists), not to judge them to death as punishment or as eradication of evil because of their future deeds (as with the wayward and rebellious son).[1] It is true that the phrase “children of terrorists” is not ideal, since the intention is to all children of Gaza, not necessarily those whose parents are terrorists.
A Look at Morality and Halakhah
The Torah contains several commandments to annihilate nations completely: the seven nations and Amalek (I will not enter here into the differences between them). On the face of it, these are very difficult morally: what justifies killing an Amalekite or Girgashite infant? What did he do to us?
I have often discussed the distinction and independence between halakhah and morality (see, for example, columns 15 and 541). My claim is that halakhic directives are not to be tested in the crucible of morality, for their aim is religious, not moral. At times the religious aim obligates us to act in a way that is not moral, and that should pose no difficulty for halakhah. Seen this way, the clash between halakhah and morality becomes not a problem but a conflict—a collision between values. Therefore, it is neither necessary nor correct to base the halakhic directive in moral terms. The remaining question is which side takes precedence, but the mere fact that there are contradictory directives is not itself problematic.
Such a conception opens the door to explanations of the following sort: the annihilation of Amalek or the Girgashites is meant to achieve religious ends; a moral justification need not necessarily be found. True, in such cases the sages usually find ways to limit and narrow the halakhic directive as much as the halakhic tools of interpretation allow, in order to reduce the intensity of the conflict; but there is still no inherent problem.
A Possible Justification
In the third book of the trilogy (Part II, Chapter 5) I explained that notwithstanding the above, when dealing with these commandments there may be room to justify the halakhic directives also on the moral plane. Let us begin with the seven nations. Imagine a nation whose entire purpose in the world is idolatry coupled with brutish, cruel conduct. That is how they educate their children; that is their culture and national ethos. Infants of such a nation are nothing but potential to become such adults, and perhaps there is room to understand the moral justification of a halakhic directive to destroy them, from infant to elder. Although in principle every person has free choice, when we look at them as a collective, it seems they have no future or hope. One can apply here the principle “you shall remove the evil from your midst.” But this truly goes far, because it concerns an infant who has not yet committed any offense, and whose committing one (or not) will be left to his future choice. On the face of it, I would expect the Torah to allow a child born to the Girgashites to choose, and to decree his eradication only after he has chosen evil.
That is with regard to the seven nations. While reading the Torah portion of Zakhor last Shabbat I thought that regarding Amalek the case is simpler. Imagine a nation whose entire purpose in the world is to prey upon others (and in particular upon Israel) and to annihilate them. That is how they educate their children in school; that is the goal of the entire nation—even if those who actually bear arms are only a minority who belong to the Amalekite army. This is merely a division of labor. Their entire existence is devoted to that goal, and for their children too the future seems fairly clear even now. One could of course say, as we said regarding the seven nations, that here too we ought to allow each infant to choose and only then decree his fate after he chooses evil; but in Amalek we are dealing not (only) with sin but with a physical threat to us. Therefore, it is not only a matter of eradicating evil but of defending ourselves from them. Taking into account the Amalekite child’s future choice entails assuming unreasonable risks for us. In such a case there is indeed logic in permitting the blood of every Amalekite, whether directly involved or not.
All this always struck me as a hypothetical discussion far removed from us. Sometimes we think of it in terms of the Nazis in the Holocaust. A Jew in a concentration camp would surely be eager to contribute to the destruction of the German nation as a whole—women, children, and infants. This is certainly understandable and justifiable. But even there, my sense is that it was not an essential feature of their culture, but a pathology that took hold in those years. Germans are not Jew-haters or seekers of our destruction more than any other nation. In those years a mad psychosis took hold there, and they became a nation of pursuers. Therefore, it is difficult to claim that the children who grew up there would necessarily be pursuers when they matured. The fact is that Germans today—the children born then and their descendants—are mostly not like that. So there, killing children is at most in the category of eradicating evil (some compared the Nazis to Amalek), but not self-defense (since the future risk from them is far from clear).
But last October we received a chilling demonstration of a case more clear-cut than the Nazis. Hamas is not more cruel than the Nazis, and I have no interest in entering all the pointless debates about the uniqueness of Nazism versus our other tormentors—both because they are irrelevant and because that sport is not to my taste. The difference relevant to us lies in how deeply this is embedded in the culture in question. In Germany, as noted, it was not the deep, foundational substrate of their culture (for the Nazis, yes; for the German people, no). But among our neighbors in Gaza, this seems very much the case. There is a culture there that contains little more than the desire to annihilate us, and as part of militant Islam in general to conquer the world while exterminating all infidels. They educate their children to this morning and night with astonishingly cruel propaganda, and there is no sign that any of this is going to change. Unlike Nazism, it is anchored in distorted religious conceptions and flourishes in a primitive, benighted environment. All this is a recipe for breeding monsters like those we encountered last October. This does not look like a temporary takeover of the entire people by a party or group. Polls show that the support for these atrocities is sweeping in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and also in Gaza, even nowadays. Many are prepared to endure all the suffering their benighted culture inflicts upon them as long as they succeed in killing and causing suffering to Jews and other infidels. If so, it seems that this is that “people,” and this is its purpose. In such a situation, the justification I described above returns with greater force, far more than with the Nazis. Is it not proper to annihilate this people from infant to elder and leave them neither remnant nor survivor? Are those not correct who claim there are no “non-involved” in Gaza? Clearly not everyone bears arms, and not even all assist those who do, and there is also a minority that does not support them. But the great majority support them and thereby aid them in various ways. Gaza as a collective is a puddle that serves as a breeding ground for monsters. It seems almost deterministic.
The Question of Self-Defense
After all that, it is important to distinguish between a claim of eradicating evil and considerations of self-defense. Self-defense is subject to consequentialist assessment. It can justify killing and causing suffering only where defense requires it. One cannot base upon it a permit to kill uninvolved Gazans unless they pose a danger to us. By contrast, eradicating evil could take us much farther: there one might argue that there is justification, and perhaps even an obligation, to annihilate Gazans as such, irrespective of any danger they pose. But to establish such a thing, one needs a clear basis—halakhically and morally. The verses regarding Amalek or the seven nations are not such a basis, for there does not seem to be a general principle (a binyan av) there. They are the specific examples in question, and even regarding them the decisors limited and narrowed the biblical directives. Therefore, the conclusion that there is here a duty to eradicate evil strikes me as hasty and unfounded. By contrast, self-defense considerations are certainly relevant, and on their basis one might perhaps raise arguments that justify killing children (who will grow to be terrorists or collaborators). In practice, I think even that is excessive. Killing a Gazan child “by his end” seems problematic to me. But there is still room for “softer” considerations.
I have written more than once that, in my view, in the case of Gaza there is justification to do everything necessary to achieve the goals of the war—namely the elimination of Hamas, the return of the hostages, and ensuring security for the entire State of Israel. Whatever is required to achieve those goals is morally justified in my opinion, including starving children and mass killing of uninvolved people (I am not entering here the considerations of global criticism, nor the concern over loss of international support and its consequences, which should not be dismissed). The explanation is that we are dealing with a collective pursuer (rodef) (these matters are detailed in several places on this site. See my article here, and columns 1, 5, 151, and others). The Gazans (and perhaps the Palestinians as a whole) are engaged in a dogged war with us as a collective and are unwilling to let go; therefore, not only those who bear arms are pursuers. All of them have the halakhic status of a pursuer. I explained there, however, that even so there is no justification to harm uninvolved people unless and when doing so is required for our defense; otherwise the rule of “could he be saved by injuring one of his limbs” applies.
This is a “softer” expansion of the rules of self-defense regarding Gazans—but it is still self-defense, not eradication of evil. And even for reasons of self-defense, I do not think it is reasonable to permit the killing of infants per se (not when it occurs in the course of striking terrorists) merely due to the future danger expected from them. Even regarding adults who support Hamas’s actions: support for terror is not an offense that justifies killing. Killing is justified only if it has a practical effect—namely, if it is necessary as part of our defense, and not as punishment or eradication of evil.
Eradicating Evil
Applying the law of eradicating evil or “you shall not let a soul live” to all Gazans is a very far-reaching approach. Until the Torah innovates such a novelty, “you have no more than what it innovated”—do not add to it. This became very clear to me when I heard of the Religious-Zionism party’s opposition to a move to place Gazan orphans left without family or home due to the current war with families in Judea and Samaria (see here). Their claim was that this is a “eclipse of moral lights,” no less, since our hostages receive no similar treatment from Hamas (to put it mildly). Seemingly this would be a pressure tactic aimed at improving the situation of the hostages and the chances of their return—and if so, that would be a perfectly legitimate consideration (as noted above, in my view every step is justified to achieve our aims). But this is, of course, nonsense. Hamas is only too pleased that there are orphans suffering. It photographs wonderfully for them, and nothing would make them less inclined to improve their treatment of the hostages. It is clear to me that this is a Pavlovian reaction by frustrated people who want to take revenge on Gazans and react from the gut. There is no justification to cause suffering to those orphans or to refrain from helping them improve their living conditions if that does not help our war aims. It is merely baseless, unjustified revenge.[2] It is nothing but emotional, childish vindictiveness.
Rabbi Mali’s Remarks
I noted above that a few days ago someone asked me about this matter. The reference was to statements made by Rabbi Mali in a class (see a report here; you’ll see the video is unavailable because it was removed following the criticism), where he compared Gaza’s residents to the seven nations about whom it is said, “you shall not let a soul live.” People understood (rightly or not—I understood from someone who was at the class that indeed rightly) that he meant a sweeping permit to kill Gazans as such.
In my reply I wrote the following:
“‘You shall not let a soul live’ was said about the seven nations or Amalek, and that is that. If he has interpretive innovations, that’s very nice, but to launch a genocide on their basis is too much—especially since this borders on ta’ama de-kra (and at most one could say that is its category). About this it is said: ‘Shall we act merely because we speculate?!’ Beyond that, there is also the law of nations (international law) and morality to which we are bound.”
“Note that I am not speaking of a situation in which it is necessary to harm the uninvolved in order to save ourselves or rescue hostages. It is obvious that this is permitted and required, with no connection to ‘you shall not let a soul live.’ For this there is no need for novel interpretations. It is possible that this is what he intends, and he behaves like all those who delight in finding everything in verses (through no fault of the verses), even when it is a simple argument. But the claim that one should kill them even if doing so is not needed for our salvation is a very great interpretive innovation and ta’ama de-kra. To kill on the basis of such a thing is criminal rashness.”
If his statement was meant as eradicating evil, then indeed a source is required. But the source brought there—“you shall not let a soul live”—is very dubious. And if his intention was necessity on grounds of defense and preservation of life, then there is no need whatsoever for sources and dubious interpretations of them. One must only decide whether it is in fact necessary and helpful or not. Either way, it appears on its face that the statements are unreasonable or at least inconsistent.
[1] In the laws of the pursuer and the burglar (rodef and ba bamachteret) we also discuss “judged by his end,” and there it is seemingly true self-defense; but even there, commentators have already written that the act has a punitive component. In my article in Techumin, “Killing a Thief for the Sake of Defending Property”, I argued that at least in ba bamachteret the permit to kill him is not based on concern that he will kill the homeowner, and the Talmud’s statement to that effect must be interpreted differently.
[2] The same applies to creating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. There is a similar approach among members of the Religious-Zionism party, even though that likely will not truly improve our chances of achieving the aims of the war—both because Hamas is only too pleased with images of suffering, and because the world will be angered and further restrict our fighting. One can perhaps debate this, but the case of the orphans mentioned above seems to me entirely clear-cut.
Discussion
Not exactly. After all, halakha itself also dealt with this. It is a halakhic issue, which of course begins with Scripture, but in these discussions there are also post-biblical layers, as in all areas of halakha. And still, there are extensions that seem far too remote. To apply such an extreme law based on reasoning alone is difficult even if the reasoning is not absurd. About this it was said: "Just because we draw an analogy, shall we take action?!"
First, in Rabbi Mali's lecture (like you, I didn't manage to hear it before it was taken down from the site), he explicitly said that one must obey all army orders and also international conventions.
The problem with articles like yours (or like those of Rabbi Ronen Luvitch, who in a series of articles systematically and comprehensively surveyed the attitude toward Amalek in Hazal) is that you don't have anything your opponents don't have. That is, one can argue against R. M. Soloveitchik's interpretation of the Rambam and claim that the missing phrase "their memory has already been lost" is just a nice homiletic line and that one does not annihilate on that basis, but conversely, according to the opposite approach, the proofs, or the sources in Hazal, are no stronger.
It is hard to argue with the fact that the Torah said regarding Amalek and the seven nations that even infants are to be destroyed. One can argue that this is immoral, or a religious command, or even moral, but that is the command. Is the present case similar or not similar? You did not succeed in saying more than the one who argued that it is similar (= Rabbi Mali). I agree with you that in Nazi Germany the case is even easier. And I assume that if I had entered Magda Goebbels's bunker while she was poisoning her children, perhaps I would not have helped save them, but certainly I would not have shot them. Is that moral? Not sure. But I agree that there there is a strong chance that a few years of denazification would do the job, which is not the case here. Therefore the principled justification – whether moral or not – exists. And the lack of actual implementation – that too exists.
What they will actually do from here on out – is meaningless. I know almost no people who would just kill children (not even on the far right), and if terrorists are hiding in a kindergarten, you too agree to kill them. So what exactly is the practical difference?
There is indeed a tendency (invalid in my view) to express the enemy's pain during wartime. As Naomi Shemer put it nicely:
"There is an argument that the middle verse of 'Jerusalem of Gold' is not humane, because it does not take the Arabs into account.
Amos Oz said: what do you mean, 'the cisterns have dried up, the marketplace is empty'?
It's full of Arabs, it's full of water. Joy and gladness.
What is this: 'and none goes down to the Dead Sea'?
I saw Arab women going down there all the time.
For me, perhaps let's start big: a world empty of Jews is for me a dead planet, I am terribly sorry.
And the Land of Israel when it is empty of Jews is for me desolate and empty.
And I think that…. the Arabs have poets, thank God, and their women poets, very good ones, who can express their longing. I can express only my own longing."
And it has already been said that in wartime the muses die.
And yet, if we do address the real tragedy befalling the Gazans – then the alternative Israel proposes, which is far more humane and which the hypocritical world will not accept, is the option of voluntary or involuntary emigration of everyone who identifies with the Hamas movement (that is, 70% of the Palestinians, according to a poll published by Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the well-known Palestinian pollster; a poll from which one can learn that even today, after the Palestinians have paid such a heavy price for Hamas's crimes, 71% of this population think it was right to carry out the October 7 attack, 70% continue to support Hamas and are satisfied with it. Only 5% — five percent בלבד — think this organization is responsible for the terrible suffering caused to the population).
And as Middle East researcher Benny Morris said (who is not suspected of excessive right-wing bias): "There are circumstances in history in which there is justification for ethnic cleansing. I know this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide, I prefer ethnic cleansing."
………..
Regarding the law of the pursuer, in Mishnah Sanhedrin 73a three cases appear "in which they save by their life." Rambam and Rashi disagreed how to interpret the term "they save by their life": do they save the pursued person or the pursuer? Rashi, who explains the Mishnah there, writes that it means saving the pursuer from committing the transgression ("saving" his soul from sin), whereas Rambam in Hilkhot Rotzeach chapter 1 places the pursuer in the context of preventing the harm that will be caused to the pursued (in effect, punishing the pursuer).
Rabbi, may his strength be increased.
1. Regarding the dilemma Rabbi Cherlow presented, judging someone based on his ultimate end versus "where he is now":
In my humble opinion it is clear that this speaks about an individual person, not about a people whose entire essence from the moment it became known has been nothing but the destruction of the people of Israel.
Do we have any greater presumption than this, that it should be judged based on its ultimate end?
And in my opinion this is what Rabbi Mali was aiming at when he compared it to "you shall not let any soul remain alive."
(After all, it is clear that he did not mean also the destruction of the livestock and materials in Gaza, as with the spoils of Amalek.)
For when one is dealing with a collective/a people that wants to destroy you, what relevance is there here to uninvolved people?
2. The rabbi keeps narrowing the consideration to harming 'the uninvolved'
according to the needs of achieving the goals of the war.
Again, what war are you talking about?
Those whom we did not kill because the goals of Operation Cast Lead had been achieved
are the ones who grew up in terror incubators and returned to kill us on Simchat Torah.
And those whom we do not harm in Swords of Iron because the hostages returned or because we eliminated Sinwar
are the ones who will kill us in another 5 years.
The question here about uninvolved people is not a matter of the goals of this war or another
but of removing the threat entirely and completely. Spare me the war goals set
by those who pumped into us for years that Hamas was deterred.
3. The rabbi's concern (exaggerated, it should be said) throughout the entire column
that every extreme and unnecessary action against the residents of Gaza benefits Hamas
and as if that is what is missing for us now, that Hamas should spread all over the world pictures of miserable orphans etc.
(Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.)
It seems to me one of the things we learned in the latest war
is that blood libels are still on the all-time bestseller list:
bodies of dolls, the bombing of hospitals, the flour massacre, rape in Shifa,
and all the Muslim Brothers rise to their feet
(handing out figs in the market, there there)
Staged videos scorch the internet far more than real ones do,
through lies and manipulations Hamas totally destroyed Israel's legitimacy in the world.
At least remove one worry from your heart: it does not need authentic material.
Even if we provide it with some (I hope)
So what if he said that? Why is that relevant to the discussion? And I'm not even talking about the message conveyed in such a lecture, and the fact that the audience probably understood it was a declaration meant to blur the real message. But as I said, even apart from that, I am speaking about the content itself, halakhically and morally, not about the legality of these things.
Maybe it's hard to argue with that, but the decisors do so very nicely, as I mentioned.
My discussion is a principled one, with no connection to practical implications. But since you asked, you only had to read what I wrote: I gave a practical implication regarding the wicked foolishness of the Smotrich-types about evacuating the orphans from Gaza.
This has nothing to do with muses and songs. I am talking about facts and awareness of them. The claim that one should not be aware of uncomfortable facts is foolish, and certainly has nothing to do with the question of what you write songs about.
Your remarks about transfer are unrelated to the discussion. I can agree with that, by the way. Incidentally, from the data I heard, there is 70% support for the events of October, not for Hamas. In any case, how is that remark relevant to the discussion?
I commented on the punitive dimension in the law of the pursuer in the column and also wrote about it in previous columns. It isn't only Rashi. But of course that cannot be exhaustive, for there is also the law of the pursuer regarding a minor who is not liable to punishment. Clearly there is a component of self-defense there. Except that the self-defense consideration allows us to punish the pursuer even before he has committed the act, and not in a court with all the required legal procedure, which ordinarily is not permitted.
It seems you didn't read what I wrote at all. Everything you wrote here was explicitly answered in my article.
1. I explained my claim very well in the column. I see no point in repeating it again.
2. I explained that too. The goals of the war were defined as three. If they require killing all the Gazans – then good luck.
3. An irrelevant argument. I never wrote anywhere that helping Hamas is the consideration preventing this activity. What I wrote is that beyond the moral prohibition there is no practical consideration here either, and therefore this is wickedness for its own sake.
I have to write here what I foresaw in advance would happen. I wrote that my aim was a systematic and matter-of-fact discussion, and it turns out that the last three comments are not substantive (even if their wording is moderate). The commenters discuss points I did not address, criticize points that were well answered in the column, and turn a substantive discussion into feelings and emotions. It is evident that these things are being written from the gut. Unfortunately this was foreseeable, but I am noting it here for the sake of future comments.
[Anyone who was there at the lecture knew that the discussion was said as a closed discussion, within the framework of a yeshiva conference, and I would expect דווקא from you to fight with all your might for a person's right to say rational and balanced things – that was the impression of those who were there – within a religious lecture. But that is not the subject.]
I didn't see the decisors you brought in your article; perhaps I missed them. You are not doing anything new from a Torah/moral standpoint. The 'Smotrich-style foolishness' is a kind of position (and I'm not one of his fans) – you did not succeed, and did not even really try, to distinguish between the completely innocent and those who are not, and therefore one may grant the opponent (= Smotrich) legitimacy for thinking that this conduct will help the hostages or at least awaken the nations of the world (obviously it helps Hamas; shooting at a kindergarten also helps it, and still there is no choice); for complete disengagement from Gaza; and again, it is not at all clear what the difference is between medical treatment and bringing in fuel for the innocent, insofar as there are such people (there certainly are, and even so you did not define who they are and/or what a reasonable person should do in the case before us).
I see that unfortunately you did not learn the lessons from my last remark, and you are continuing from the gut.
1. The fact that the discussion was closed really does not matter. By the way, it was not closed only to the yeshiva students (I told you I spoke with a person who was there).
2. I certainly fight for every person's right to express any opinion, including Rabbi Mali. I have written more than once that I oppose banning Holocaust denial, for example, and of course banning the expression of Kahanist positions and the like. Where in what I wrote here did you see otherwise? What does that have to do with the question whether Rabbi Mali is right, and whether his words are worthy? Did I say to shut him up? If I criticize his words, does that mean I favor silencing him? Are you sure you're with us?
3. Those decisors were mentioned, not quoted. Everyone knows them (for example the Rambam on calling for peace in the war against Amalek, and much more).
4. One may attribute a "position" to someone who writes incorrect things and uses labels instead of arguments. But I, unlike you, substantiated my words well and showed why his statements are wicked and foolish. I saw no counterargument in what you wrote. And if he thinks preventing the transfer of orphaned children to Judea and Samaria will help the hostages, then he is an even bigger idiot than I thought.
[By the way, you did not speak about medical treatment. On the contrary, I wrote that from my perspective, if he had argued that they should be killed I would understand. But to deny them family care (not medical care) is wicked foolishness. It is advisable to read before responding.]
To conclude, I suggest that this time, for a change, you read carefully and think before you respond. Note that not one of your arguments until now has been substantive.
Let me expand a bit-
I did not write in order to disagree with you but to add. I did not write that one should not be aware of facts, but that articles of the kind you mentioned in Haaretz that keep mentioning facts (on one side, of course…) morning and night serve only the enemy during wartime, and that is why I brought Shemer: in wartime one can be like the UN and bring "innocent facts," both in articles in Haaretz and in poetry (to my understanding, in articles the effect is even greater), but I do not think this is the right time to engage in extensive polemics about them, for the reason that discussion of this serves the enemy, who deliberately wants to cause the Gazans to suffer in order to make headlines and put the Palestinian issue on the table. The claim is not against the enlightening column you wrote, but against the articles in Haaretz and the like that you mentioned.
In the poll published by Dr. Khalil Shikaki, 70% support Hamas.
The connection of transfer to the discussion is in terms of what to do with the facts you mentioned, namely that a tragedy is taking place in Gaza. I suggested that one need not see them as Amalek and annihilate them, but alternatively carry out ethnic cleansing (although that is probably not feasible, just like the proposal to annihilate them).
I am a guest in your forum, and of course it is your right to say what you wish, but to silence and say of everyone who did not go in your direction that he is speaking from the gut – that is not correct, not true (and perhaps also not nice). I will try to keep silent, God willing.
1-2 – I did not say for or against Rabbi Mali. You simply criticized his words, and I simply emphasized that he did give balancing qualifications to what he said, that's all. If your criticism is only of his point of departure (that he claims that according to the law it is permitted to kill and you hold that it is not), then I said that you did not succeed at all (and in fact did not even try) to persuade with any logical argument why he is wrong and you are right. So I don't understand who here is responding from the gut.
3- Okay, fine. One is also allowed to convert a person descended from Amalek. So what?
4 – Again, from the gut. If he thinks preventing the transfer will help the hostages, then he may be mistaken, but that is your position. In the article itself you wrote about this that 'if that were so it would be a legitimate consideration… but this is of course nonsense.. therefore it is clear to me that this is a Pavlovian reaction of frustrated people.' All these sentences are unreasoned, in my view (perhaps I think from the gut and don't understand, but I see in them only the expression of a position). The move from your decision that this is revenge is not reasoned.
Regarding the actual distinction between medical/family – indeed I was not precise, and sorry.
On the substance of the matter, there is no practical difference in it.
1. I wrote that this is the explanation of Rabbi Mali's words, and therefore the rabbi's criticism of his words or Rabbi Cherlow's dilemma is not relevant regarding the people of Gaza.
2. Again, the war aims that were presented – are not relevant to our lives (perhaps relevant to our deaths); a mistake that repeats itself again and again. Those who say there are no innocents in Gaza mean eliminating the Gazan-Arab threat as such, in light of its ultimate end. Perhaps this is not feasible, but it is a legitimate aspiration of those who cherish life.
3. Your repeated insertion that we must not play into Hamas's hands is alive and kicking regardless of what we do, whether right or moral or effective.
You are simply unbelievable. Foolishness? You pity these wicked people? He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful. What luck that I left the army.
As in the verse, "and the pit was empty, there was no water in it" (Jews). When there is no water in it, then there are snakes and scorpions in it (Arabs).
I see that there really is no point in continuing. Arguments are not the playing field here.
Hello Rabbi,
I read the exchange between you and Moshe Cohen, and even though I didn't understand everything, I connected to the following argument:
You write that others argue from the gut, but although your wording is detailed, orderly, and free of emotion – why is the following sentence not from the gut?
"Self-defense considerations are definitely relevant, and on their basis too one can perhaps raise arguments that would justify killing children (who will grow up to be terrorists or helpers). In fact, I still think this is excessive."
At the end of the day it's your kishke against other people's kishke, and when you give unflattering labels to other people's kishke – it gives the feeling that you are doing to others what you write against so much.
Please explain the difference between the position you advocate here and the education the Gazans provide their children about us?
I understand the moral difference (although you claim that you come from a rational position and they only from ignorance and hatred – while ignoring those among them who are not like that and those among us who are) but still, on the practical level, if we can ground a moral position that ignores their suffering for some self-interested benefit, why can't they do something similar?
And if both sides are legitimate in maintaining such opposing positions, that only makes the situation unsolvable while encouraging and legitimizing additional suffering with no escape.
You are conflating categories that have nothing to do with one another. If a person writes an intuitive response, that is not "from the gut." I have written more than once about the relation between emotion and intuition. The two are not at all the same. When someone writes irrelevant things (not merely unreasoned ones), that is from the gut. I do not intend to continue discussing this nonsense any further.
Is that a question to me? I didn't understand what the question is and how it relates to what I wrote.
There is a difference between right and wrong. And the fact that the one who is wrong thinks he is right does not change that fact. Beyond that, I wrote nothing about their being wrong, but about their raising monsters. Maybe it is right to raise monsters and maybe not. You decide that for yourself.
And finally, the fact that some situation is unsolvable is not an argument. So it is unsolvable.
"In our correspondence, Rabbi Cherlow sent me a short post he wrote on this question (on the Facebook page called Zikim, Spark 14), and as is his way he summed it up very well."
You often write that there is nothing to learn from sources, and that there is almost nothing to learn from them for our own day.
Why here do you accept Rabbi Cherlow's learning from the sources?
Just a small corrective note- in the paragraph "What is the justification for killing an Amalekite or Kenite infant? What did he do to us?"
Specifically, Kenite is not the right example, if I am not mistaken; the Kenites are not among the seven nations. I assume both were mentioned near each other in the column perhaps because of the recent haftarah, where it is written that Saul was commanded to save them before the war against Amalek..
Although in halakha one certainly does learn from the sources, here the question is not entirely halakhic. In any case, he did not learn anything from the sources, but rather presented the problem through two apt sources. In my remarks I also criticized his application.
Indeed. I'll correct it to Girgashite. 🙂
The Rambam in Hilkhot Kings and Wars, chapter 6, and likewise in positive commandment 190, rules that even in an optional war, if they are not interested in making peace, one must kill every adult male, and in the war against the seven nations and Amalek one must kill them all ממש. (It is not clear from his words what the law is in a war that is rescue from an enemy.) Can one learn from these sources that it is permissible to kill even innocents? (Or perhaps the Rambam too means killing every male if this is important for the purpose of the war.)
I would be glad for an answer whether anything can be learned from the Rambam?
I assume that if you ask, you would be glad for an answer. I cannot always answer immediately.
As for the matter itself, at most you can learn from the Rambam his halakhic position. That does not mean this is the halakha, because it is not certain that he is right, and it certainly does not say anything about morality.
As for his actual words, killing the males probably has a military meaning. Otherwise, why distinguish males?!
Plainly, for the Rambam this is an explicit verse in Deuteronomy chapter 20, that one must kill every male. Are there opinions that disagree with the Rambam?
If the meaning is military, why must every adult male be killed, including elderly civilians, etc.?
According to the Rambam, does it come out that every adult male who is a resident of Gaza must be killed?
There is no way to draw a line within the males. Therefore there is a principled permission to kill them all. If you see a disabled old man, then don't kill him.
I answered above.
As a secular leftist, the sentence here that interested me most was this one
"I have written more than once that in my opinion, in the case of Gaza there is justification for doing everything to achieve the goals of the war, meaning eliminating Hamas, returning the hostages, and ensuring security for the entire State of Israel. Everything required to achieve those goals is morally justified in my opinion, including starving children and the mass killing of uninvolved people."
This may be surprising, but I agree with you. What I do not agree with is that it is justified for short-term goals like "eliminating Hamas" (which will not happen) and ensuring security (perhaps we will ensure security from Gaza, but we will weaken security on other fronts). The world's attitude toward us is very relevant, because our security depends on it much more than on eliminating Hamas. And even if you think I am wrong, "Just because we draw an analogy, shall we take action?!" That is, is it justified to carry out genocide because we imagine it will solve a problem for us?
And on another subject, you say here that there is no problem if there is a contradiction between halakha and morality. If I remember correctly, I heard you argue that the existence of morality is proof of the existence of God. How do you reconcile these two claims?
Clearly eliminating Hamas is part of bringing security. Elimination is not a value in itself and does not justify any immoral action. In the goals of the war this is not defined as an independent goal. They simply said that elimination is not enough and one must ensure there is security (that no other threat will come in Hamas's place).
The world's attitude toward us is certainly important. I did not understand where in what I wrote you saw otherwise.
Regarding halakha and morality, look for a column on halakha and morality (481?).
I really do not think that security cannot be achieved without eliminating Hamas – one more battalion at Nahal Oz, and starting to listen to the female spotters, would also do the job. And Hamas could have been eliminated without a war, but by economic and political pressure, pursuing its leaders all over the world, and other things that were not done.
Perhaps column 541: Halakha and Morality: The Theoretical Picture
1) Why do you think this is baseless revenge, if you are aware that even after saving them they will not be lovers of Zion? The basis for revenge is not to save my enemy after I have seen what he is capable of. Let him take care of himself in Shifa and say thank you that this hospital is still standing. And would it be moral (theoretically) to send him for treatment in Egypt/Europe?
2) Is revenge not punishment beyond what is deserved according to the law? (extra-legal)
For example: say we have already eliminated Hamas, which is what we "must" do. Now, in order to take revenge, I cut off for the residents of Gaza (in my view they are the fertile soil for all the horrors, and Gazan terrorism will never cease) the electricity and water that I provide, and I send them off to be big boys and take care of themselves.
Hello Rabbi, if I summarize your words very briefly, then I would put it this way: the enemy is Gaza as a collective, and for purposes of self-defense it is permissible to carry out killing even of innocents. At the same time, in your words there is nevertheless a certain reservation.
I wanted to ask whether the rabbi is familiar with an artificial intelligence system called Lavender that the army has used extensively in the current war. If so, I would be interested in your opinion on the use of it.
I will attach a link to an article I just read on the subject.
Yes, I read it. First, these are reports based on rumors, and I am highly skeptical of them. Second, I wrote here about phobias regarding artificial intelligence, and this is part of them. From my impression, even according to those testifying, the problem was not the use of artificial intelligence but the instructions given to it. And finally, I am not at all sure that I oppose this policy/instructions, as described here in the column.
See columns 186, 590-1
So you are basically interpreting "Just because we draw an analogy, shall we take action?!" as the Sages honestly recognizing the limit of their ability to infer conclusions in cases where the practical stakes are large? (That is: "medammin" in the sense of comparing one matter to another.)
If I understand correctly, then the basic issue is whether we are permitted to rule halakhically based on, or inspired by, what is recounted in the Bible. Are we allowed/is it proper for us to decide who Amalek is, and whether the law of annihilation regarding the seven nations still applies today.