New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Kidnapping deal

שו”תCategory: moralKidnapping deal
asked 6 months ago

Peace and blessings. I would love to hear your opinion on Professor Avi Sagi’s argument:
 
He claims that the only justification for going to war is the principle of self-defense – we must fight to protect our citizens, present and future. Hence the justification for the war against Hamas, and hence the opposition to the deal as long as it allows Hamas to continue to harm Israeli citizens.
 
From here, he moves on to the claim that Hamas’s situation has not changed in the past year, and that in principle we already achieved a year ago (or a little less, but a few significant months) a sufficiently good defense of Israeli citizens (that is, Hamas lost most of its ability to harm us).
 
Hence, he argues that continuing the war (as mentioned, there is full justification for this) is in conflict with the moral obligation to release the hostages. Because we have achieved sufficient (though not maximum) protection, the decision to go for a deal is the morally correct decision.
 
I add the following to his argument: First, based on the way the war is going, it seems that we are not succeeding in defeating Hamas (whether due to military lack of professionalism or objective conditions that do not allow it). This means that there is no practical purpose for continuing the war, and this strengthens his argument, since we will not succeed in significantly weakening Hamas beyond what we have already done (of course, over 10 years we will succeed to a certain extent, but the progress is negligible). Second, some argue that even if we go for a deal, we will be able to go back to fighting Hamas even if there is a 10-year ceasefire agreement, because Hamas will always give us a reason to attack it. The arguments that say the world will not let us do so do not hold here, according to the proponents of the current argument, since just as we have ignored some of the things we are being told right now, we will be able to ignore them in the future as well. This means that the principle of self-defense will continue to be maintained despite the deal, since we will always be able to attack.
 
 
I am not claiming that Avi Sagi’s argument and the addition of my claims are sufficient to stop the war and make a deal, but I would be happy to hear your position on the entirety of this argument, and for you to enlighten me on its shortcomings (since I know that you oppose the deal) and perhaps also what you agree with (for example, I am interested in knowing whether you claim that the principle of self-defense is indeed the only justification for going to war).
 
Thanks in advance!


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 6 months ago

I don’t accept the assumption. You can go to war to conquer the land, for example. It’s halakhic. Morally, you can discuss it, but it’s not simple either.
Everything else is just a statement disguised as an argument. It is clear that if war has no point and no achievements, I will go to war, even without regard to the hostages. The debate is whether this is indeed the case.
As for the ability to eliminate Hamas in the future, this is a futile argument that is repeated all the time. Hamas was not born today and will not return the hostages to us if it is not clear that we cannot eliminate them later (in my opinion, there is no chance that they will return them all under any circumstances. Such a deal is a delusion that exists only in the minds of the religious believers of the hostages). There is no chance in the world that they will allow us to embark on a new war like this. Even when there was a pretext like the Simchat Torah events, the world is hostile. And without American backing and supplies, and if an embargo is imposed by the UN, we will see a prime minister who embarks on a war of extermination of Hamas.
And finally, we are really not protected now. Destroying tens of thousands of terrorists is worth nothing from a defensive perspective. Hamas is not a military force that threatens our existence, but a terrorist organization that threatens individual people and the settlements in the encirclement (and in fact, the entire country with long-range missiles). It has these capabilities, and it will also be able to improve them in the future (and as mentioned, we cannot go to war on such a pretext).
This is utter nonsense, wrapped in the guise of a philosophical argument. There is no argument here, just a statement, and the statement is wrong. I thought I would dedicate a column to pseudo-philosophical arguments regarding the abductees. We’ll see.


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

איתי replied 6 months ago

The truth is that this is the answer I have - Hamas is wise, and they will not give us the hostages without being sure that we cannot eliminate them afterwards.

In what aspect do you think the war makes sense? Is there any significant progress while we are there?

And also, what other moral argument can justify going to war, besides the principle of self-defense?

And above all, I would love the column you are planning! (:

מיכי Staff replied 6 months ago

I think so. If we don't give up, we will eventually eliminate Hamas. But as long as we haven't eliminated it completely, we haven't done almost anything, as I explained.
Harm to our interests. For example, there is an enemy who occupies my territory but does not threaten any lives. Does that justify going to war? And if he threatens another interest of mine? So how is occupying the land different from that?
By the way, do you have a link to the article?

איתי replied 6 months ago

I hope you are right.
Regarding the occupation of territory, I understand the example. Thank you.

I do not have a link to a specific article in which he speaks on this subject. My information about his position is from many podcasts I have heard with him. He speaks clearly and eloquently, and says a lot of good things in my opinion. If you wish, I can send you a specific lecture in which he speaks on this subject.

מיכי Staff replied 6 months ago

Yes, I know him. Send me a link, at least so I have a reference for the column.

https://www.google.com/url?.sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJ2TuDyDkE74&ved=2ahUKEwi4gIKT0veMAxW4X0EAHfk1GgUQtwJ6BAgLEAE&usg=AOvVaw2eIVR9ytNqM9ZwjtType7L

איתי replied 6 months ago

I know his position from podcast crises. I haven't found a podcast where he really does a systematic analysis of the situation, but you can see here for example (he talks about it until minute 14):

Leave a Reply

Back to top button