Q&A: On Current Events and Innocent Civilians
On Current Events and Innocent Civilians
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael, I’m half asking and half sharing, and I’d be glad to hear your answer/reaction.
It feels to me as if everyone suddenly “discovered America,” and following the unimaginable attack in the south—everyone is now certain that Gaza is like the Nazis, and that Gaza must be wiped out/flattened, including causing major harm to “innent civilians” for that purpose. And speaking of innocent civilians, the atrocity videos are full of crowds celebrating the kidnapping of children and young women…
In my view, I don’t think there is the slightest difference between the Arabs of Gaza, the Arabs of Ramallah from the well-known lynching, the Arabs of Huwara, and the Arabs of Tulkarm. The Arabs are the same Arabs, and the desire to murder Jews is the same desire. And really there is no difference between “erase Huwara” and erase Gaza, except that the former was a taboo phrase two months ago, while the latter is mainstream today.
It seems that everything is based on emotions and gut feelings, not on any orderly, reasoned method. After such a disaster, it is considered acceptable to harm innocent civilians, so that it will echo for years to come that “never again.” But saying to harm innocent civilians before(!) the disaster happens, in order to prevent a disaster, in order to deter the enemy from daring to do such a thing, is perceived as immoral and illegitimate.
In other words: it seems as though after the disaster people talk about Gaza the way Meir Kahane did. But to speak that way before the disaster, or to speak that way about Arabs in another area, is outright racism and “far-right.”
Answer
There is no justification for flattening anything, neither in Gaza nor in Huwara. If it is necessary in order to achieve the objective, then it is permitted, but it is obvious that one must not flatten things as collective revenge. And by the way, there are differences between Huwara and Gaza (which is under a government, and everything happens with its encouragement and through it), but neither here nor there are we talking about Nazis. This is a war, and they are indeed conducting it in an immoral way, and from their perspective also a foolish one, but not every cruel person or cruel group are Nazis. Calling it that cheapens Nazism. There are cruel murderers in Israel too, just as there are everywhere else.
A celebrating crowd does not necessarily know exactly what happened, and it also does not necessarily represent the entire population. Only yesterday I saw two interviews in which hostages from two different incidents said that the terrorists did not kill them because they do not kill children. And this was among the terrorists who came in and murdered people here. So within the population itself there certainly are such people too. There are also some signs of humanity there, hard as it is to say. That does not mean the population is not guilty and should not suffer. It is, and it should, at least insofar as that is required in order to deal with the situation. But it is very important, precisely at such a difficult time, to think and speak with our heads and not from the gut.
I very much hope that our military and political leadership are not acting in the way people sound on social media and in the media, although unfortunately I do not have an ounce of trust in them (mainly not in the politicians, but not in the army either).
Discussion on Answer
1. There are quite a few texts in the world that contain Nazi ideas. The whole question is how far you take things. For example, the Torah’s doctrine regarding Amalek and the seven nations. Kahane’s doctrine and Ben Gvir’s views regarding Arabs, and so on.
2. Indeed, the goal is victory, but one has to define carefully what counts as victory (what the goals of the war are).
3. One should take almost any action for the sake of victory. Still, there are limits.
4. A population that supports terror is not itself a target of the fighting. But it is permitted to harm it if that is required in order to defeat those holding the weapons.
5. International conventions are not a moral consideration but a legal one. It is best not to mix the planes.
1. In the Torah it is not really parallel to the Nazis (because they have the option not to be killed). Also, Ben Gvir and Kahane do not call for the murder of all Arabs, to the best of my knowledge.
5. Don’t international conventions arise from / get influenced by moral considerations?
Some of them certainly do arise from or are influenced by them. So what? There is a discussion in morality and there is a legal discussion.
In Kibbutz Be’eri they murdered babies with pistol shots. There are videos in which hostages who were taken alive and walking were murdered in Gaza. The Hamas charter (see Wikipedia) explicitly contains Nazi ideas.
This is what Rabbi Uri Sherki wrote today. Do you agree with what he says??
Moral principles in warfare:
A. The goal of fighting is victory over the enemy.
B. In order to win, one must take any action that will bring about the enemy’s surrender.
C. The intensity of the action depends on what the enemy sees as a loss. When death on the battlefield is not seen as a loss, but on the contrary as a reward, there is moral legitimacy to strike what truly hurts the enemy and brings him to surrender.
D. A civilian population that supports terror and educates toward terror is an integral part of the legitimate targets of warfare.
E. International conventions are binding on the states that are signatories to them, but against an enemy that does not honor them, there is moral legitimacy not to act according to them.