A Look at the Current Debate on War Crimes in Gaza (Column 727)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
Yesterday a brief discussion took place in one of the Third Path WhatsApp groups about the claim that we are committing war crimes in Gaza. In recent days, harsh criticism has arisen not only around the world but also within Israel regarding a policy of starvation and a policy of opening fire on civilians. I have also heard claims—purportedly based on field testimony—of orders to fire at civilians with the deliberate intent to kill them without military necessity.
At the outset I wish to say that I am very pleased and proud that such a discussion is taking place at all. It means that people feel responsibility and are not prepared to remain silent in the face of wrongs and crimes being committed here (in their view). At the same time, I am very suspicious of such reports for various reasons. I tend to attribute them to fakes, to hostility toward the government (the “Anyone But Bibi” camp) and the army, all of which lead to biased interpretations of events and reports and to their hasty adoption. Clear fake cases are also being published, which reinforces these feelings.
On the other hand, despite my initial tendency to reject these claims, I keep telling myself that they must not be dismissed out of hand. In my opinion it is indeed unlikely, but we must not close the door to such criticism—perhaps precisely because of its severity. I must be aware that it is very difficult for me to accept these claims, and precisely for that reason I should suspect myself and cause myself to lend them a receptive ear and weigh them seriously.
Examples
I will begin with a few examples. Take, for instance, this video (edited in a highly tendentious way, of course) that reached me yesterday. I warn in advance that it is very difficult to watch. Beyond the images, there are also problematic statements by political leaders and rabbis likening Gazans to Amalek, and by implication effectively issuing a halakhic instruction to wipe out every infant there. There are also articles containing field testimonies about highly problematic behavior by the IDF toward non-combatants. One example is this report. Additional testimonies can be found in this article, and of course there are many more (mainly abroad, on left-wing and pro-Palestinian sites). Needless to say, on the basic fact that there is currently real hunger in Gaza, there is a plethora of reports and stories, with images of children and adults stricken by hunger—truly “Muselmänner”—and I will not bring them here. There is no doubt that there is also quite a bit of fake material on this issue, such as this example that was published just these days, but it is highly unlikely that the whole issue is nothing but fake. The existence of fakes does not mean that the depiction of hunger in Gaza is mistaken and/or false.
The images and videos are truly shocking, and it is hard to remain indifferent to them. It is no wonder that reactions toward us around the world and within Israel are extremely harsh, as they arouse anger, frustration, and intense emotions. This is probably why the Israeli press tends not to publish such images. I myself have tried until now not to look at these materials, and only now, in the discussions of recent days, did I depart from this practice. There is heavy criticism of our press for censoring such images, since it would be appropriate not to block relevant information and to allow criticism of the army and the government to arise and be heard. This is not security censorship but political and moral, and such censorship is hard to justify. Another criticism concerns preventing journalists’ entry into Gaza, which supposedly indicates concealment, and on the other hand does not seem to help much, because the images that reach us now come only from locals—which does not create a better picture for us.
I must say that for some time I have been wondering about my own policy on the matter. Seemingly, I should review all the material in order to form a balanced and unbiased position. Especially as someone who opposes any censorship of any kind, certainly when it comes to heresy in the religious sense, but also against Nazi opinions and others, Holocaust denial, and so on. If so, here too it is expected of me to expose myself to all the opinions, reports, and images, and then form a balanced and well-founded position. This is true of our general situation, but in particular of myself.
On Emotion, Reason, Morality, and Censorship
One of the questions arising in the background of this discussion is the question of moral emotion. More than once I have argued that morality is tied not to emotion but to reason. Emotion sometimes expresses worthy moral tendencies, but we must not let emotion lead us and determine our moral positions. In my last column I noted that I oppose fundamentalism of any kind, and I wrote that in my view fundamentalism usually causes harm. There I defined fundamentalism as placing some principle(s), whatever they may be, above critical thinking: an unwillingness to consider them even when counterarguments arise. In a comment there I was asked what harm there could be in Mother-Teresa-style fundamentalism—i.e., in fanatical dogmatism about morality. Seemingly this creates a morally perfect person who will not deviate from moral principles even if their urges incite them to do so. I answered that I see harm in this every day, since moral fanaticism and dogmatism lead to unreasonable moral criticism of the IDF, the government, and Israel’s policy in this war. In my view, a considerable part of the left is driven by moral fundamentalism—that is, morality rooted in emotion—so they are unwilling to let reasonable considerations alter their emotional inclinations. Almost daily I encounter examples of this when I speak with people who have criticism and for whom I have no way even to present a counterargument. There is no chance they will be willing to consider it at all. This is a direct harm of moral fundamentalism, and perhaps here too one can say that the road to hell (and perhaps sooner, to the Mediterranean) is paved with good intentions.
This is the explanation I give myself for avoiding viewing the shocking images and videos coming out of Gaza. I know that this would affect me greatly and make it harder for me to form a balanced moral stance. Avoidance here actually prevents biases rather than creating them. At the same time, I oppose such top-down censorship. Each person should make their own judgment, but I am not willing for someone in the government or the army to decide for me what I will or will not see, and what I will or will not think. However, I think that within a newspaper’s editorial policy it is legitimate to refrain from publishing such images, so long as there is no governmental or legal prohibition.
The root of the problem is that many think emotional involvement contributes to the quality of moral decision-making, whereas I claim the opposite. Emotional involvement impairs correct moral decision-making. And yet, emotion has a legitimate role in such situations. Once I have formed a moral stance, images and videos can arouse in me the kind of emotion that will spur me to act and not remain passive and silent. In other words, emotion should not take part in forming the moral stance, but it definitely can—and should—play a part in spurring us to act in the direction we have decided upon with reason. This is an important distinction, and in my opinion many err here. They feel that morality is wholly emotion, and that emotion has an important role in moral conduct. The first is a mistake; the second is a confusion. Indeed, emotion has an important role in our moral conduct (see columns 493 and 709, where I discussed psychopathy and the role of empathy in our moral conduct), but this is only in spurring us to act, not in forming the stance itself.
A Priori Considerations
In that WhatsApp discussion I wrote that I regard such reports with great suspicion for several reasons. First, I know the society in which I live, and in particular the IDF, and it is hard for me to believe that orders are given there to commit war crimes (starvation, or deliberate and unnecessary fire on non-combatants). Of course local deviations may occur, but this is certainly not army policy. The fact that we have blabbering ministers who love boastful, harsh declarations—see Smotrich, Struck, Amichai Eliyahu, and others—does not mean they have any influence on army policy (though they might influence certain soldiers). Beyond this, in most cases these declarations are entirely legitimate in my view, and the fact that the media likes to latch onto them in a tendentious way does not impress me. It is true that in many cases it is foolish to say such things explicitly, but in many cases there is nothing wrong in the content itself. In any case, the army’s policy is not set by Ben-Gvir, Struck, or Smotrich, and the important question is what happens in the field, not what this or that minister blathers.
Beyond all this, it is clear that Israel’s interest is that there be as few uninvolved casualties as possible and that there be no hunger in Gaza—not only for moral reasons but also for reasons of interest. The State of Israel does not seek to invite more and more international and domestic pressure that will hinder us in fighting. And of course add to that the fact that it is very difficult to conceal these facts from the public and the press, certainly against the background of the public and political debate going on here. Therefore, a priori, it is not plausible to me that orders are being given to starve or to fire on non-combatants. Add to this the countervailing fact that Hamas and Israel’s opponents have a clear interest in showing that there are war crimes, starvation, and unjustified harm to non-combatants, and you will understand why, a priori, these arguments are suspect and the burden of proof lies with those making them.
Furthermore, anyone who suspects a deliberate policy of war crimes must be assuming that the entire military command and the various security services are cooperating with it. One cannot accuse Ben-Gvir and Bibi of a war-crimes policy without saying that all the heads of the army and security services who carry out these orders are criminals destined for The Hague. Almost no one says this, except for a narrow fringe somewhere on the left. And why? Because it is really implausible. Here it is not only Bibi and Ben-Gvir who are war criminals, but also Eyal Zamir and the entire General Staff, and all the IDF command who for two years have been carrying out war crimes without rising up, without refusing, without resigning. Are we all such pusillanimous nonentities?! Highly unlikely. This is another reason why, a priori, such criticisms are implausible, and therefore the burden of proof is on the critics.
A friend whom I greatly respect—both intellectually and morally—told me a few days ago, with deep inner conviction, that it is clear and known that pilots receive orders to kill civilians in a surgical manner. He even told me that he cannot explain to himself why he would prefer to leave his daughter with an Israeli pilot (several of his friends and relatives are pilots) rather than with a Nukhba operative (though I gathered that in practice he would still choose the former). Think how absurd this is. Beyond its implausibility for all the reasons I described, in the Air Force such orders could pass even less, since the composition of those serving there is known to lean strongly to the left (and in my opinion they are overly punctilious about morality, reaching a distorted morality—see above and below regarding moral fundamentalism). To say that there is a general policy there of killing civilians for the sake of killing is an outrageous disconnect from reality. Here a golden piece of evidence would be required for me even to consider such a claim.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the events of October 7 aroused terrible anger in the public and in the army—and rightly so. There is also no doubt that all the residents of Gaza bear responsibility for what happened, not only the terrorists (see columns 635 and 723 on the principle and its implications). There is no doubt that Gaza’s residents hinder our fight against Hamas, and many also supported and still support its actions (even if now some regret it). It is therefore easy to conclude that all of Gaza has the status of Amalek and that everyone must be destroyed. In column 635 I explained that in my view this is not such an outrageous conclusion at the conceptual level—though in the end it is not correct and certainly not applicable.
By the way, I am quite sure that none of those making such declarations really mean that we should exterminate all Gaza residents regardless of the war against Hamas and without military need. Consider the following question: whether to kill a Gazan infant in a closed room with no external consequences—how many Israelis would say they are in favor? In my estimation, very few; even among the Ben-Gvir crowd it is a small minority. And even fewer would carry it out in practice. In my estimation, statements that “this is Amalek” generally intend what I explained in those columns—namely, that pity for Gaza’s residents must not prevent us from achieving the war’s goals. I explained there that if the war’s objectives require it, there is justification to kill all non-combatants. I think that usually this is what was meant (see also my conversation with Jeremy Fogel and also here). Likewise regarding Minister Amichai Eliyahu’s much-maligned statement about dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza—anyone who listens to the interview immediately sees that there was much ado about nothing.
In any case, the anger that exists in all of us and the statements that follow from it arouse a significant concern that even if there is no deliberate policy of war crimes, the situation invites deviations by individuals, and it is indeed important to be aware of this and to deal firmly with any such deviation. Therefore I also oppose these statements, even though one can argue for their correctness in and of themselves. These speakers have no influence on army policy, but the statements themselves can influence a lone soldier or officer and lead to a local war crime. I am also not sure that the IDF really investigates and deals with every such case with the required severity (I am quite sure it does not). Therefore I am more ready to accept reports and criticism of such exceptional cases (as opposed to criticism of war crimes as a policy).
And after all this, even if a priori it is implausible to accept such criticisms, how can we explain the field reports and the various insiders repeatedly asserting that there is a policy of war crimes and that it is not a local, sporadic, exceptional matter?
How to Understand the Reports
In column 38 I discussed the law of small numbers and used it to explain the reports made by members of organizations like Breaking the Silence and the like. In brief: a soldier or officer who has seen the results of his own actions and those of his comrades in the field—a hungry child with protruding ribs, a mangled corpse of an old man or a woman, a severe rush of people toward food, and the like—undergoes a very deep shock. It is very easy to declare that what we have here are war crimes. Note the systematic confusion that recurs again and again in the discussion of alleged war crimes in Gaza, between the factual question of whether there is hunger and the question of whether we are committing war crimes. To reject the claim of war crimes, it is not necessary to reject the factual claim that there is hunger. There may be hunger, but it is not our fault, since we have no alternative. The fact that both the critics and the IDF/government are careful to conflate the two claims indicates conceptual confusion. The fact that there is hunger is probably correct. It is unlikely that it is all fake. The question of whether it is our fault and whether it is necessary and justified is a completely different question. In fact, Bibi is being accused right now of an extreme change of course: until two days ago there was supposedly no hunger in Gaza, but yesterday he already announced in the media that there is hunger and that we are stepping up efforts to address it with airdrops and increased entry of aid trucks and organizations. It seems that Bibi too linked the two claims, until he was forced to admit the factual claim while continuing to deny our culpability. He was forced to confront this fallacy.
This conflation shows that once we conclude there is hunger, it becomes very difficult for us to argue that it is not our fault and that there is still justification to continue the policy that created the hunger. Emotion biases us and prevents us from forming a balanced and reasonable moral stance. But as noted, this is a fallacy. The factual claim does not necessarily entail the normative-moral conclusion. Not at all. Personally, for example, I am fairly certain there is hunger, and at the same time I believe we are not to blame for it and we do not need to stop the war because of it.
Another reason for these reports is confirmation bias. If someone’s worldview is left-leaning and they tend to think that the war is unjustified, they will be inclined to interpret the situations they encounter in ways that fit their a priori views. Of course, this also applies to the other side. I think there is a strong, though not complete, correlation between the speakers’ worldviews (right or left—soldiers, politicians, or civilians) and their views about the war’s morality and about war crimes. In various past columns (see columns 5, 602, 607 – 608, 635, 666, and more) I explained that this correlation is not necessarily spurious, since the right sees the enemy as a collective and the left as a collection of individuals. Still, I am quite sure there are also biases in perception and interpretation. Add to this the phenomenon I described in column 38—highlighted by Daniel Kahneman—whereby we tend to take a few examples and treat them as a representative sample of a general phenomenon if we have a good story that explains it. Breaking the Silence has a good story explaining why this is Israel’s policy, so it is easy for them to view a few particular examples as a representative sample of a general situation. And again, this could be the case from the opposite side as well. These are possible explanations for the biases, and each person can decide where they think there are biases and where not (and I assume that in this very decision we are liable to succumb to the same fallacies and biases).
Note also that the correlation of the criticism with opposition to the government for other reasons is itself telling. Again and again I find that those who oppose the government interpret every fact accordingly, even when that interpretation has no advantage over alternatives. They generally do not listen to alternative proposals. For example, I brought there a report by the head of an American aid organization claiming that it is all Hamas fakery—no hunger, nothing. I have already read about him that he is a pro-Netanyahu, pro-Trump Evangelical pastor (heaven forfend), and therefore, due to his biases, there is no reason to listen to him. Perhaps that is true, but for some reason I did not find the same skepticism and suspicion of bias, due to agenda, in reports on the other side. The problem is that in every such debate both sides are convinced that the facts are clear and agreed upon, when in reality there is no agreement even on the facts. There is no source of information accepted by all sides, and what both sides share is that they doubt opposing sources and take as self-evident the sources that suit them—and of course they also interpret them in ways that suit them. Thus every thesis becomes unfalsifiable. There is no doubt that similar biases exist in the other direction as well, but I, who strongly oppose the government on various aspects, feel neutral in this debate—in which my conclusions just happen to align with it.
Faulty and Biased Interpretations
Take, for example, the shocking images of hunger that we see in the media. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that these are truthful reports of the situation in Gaza. Still, the moral conclusion depends greatly on where the photo was taken. As far as I understand, most of these images are coming from the northern Strip, where there are supposed to be no civilians. For months and years they have been called to leave that area for the humanitarian zone in the south, where supplies are provided. They chose to remain, so why should we supply them with food? Whoever remained there bears responsibility, and I see no reason in the world to bring in even a crumb of bread. This is precisely how war is conducted—occupying territory and fighting the enemy—while leaving civilians safe places with supplies. The fact that they collaborate with Hamas and do not obey our directives is their problem. I would not bring in supplies there even if there were no other problem. These civilians are physically obstructing the fighting and are practically like militants themselves.
Moreover, bringing in aid does not necessarily reach the hungry civilians. Hamas has a clear interest in creating hunger, so it seizes the aid and does not let its civilians access it. It is very happy about hunger and the deaths of non-combatant populations (it has such an interest—unlike us, whose interest is the opposite, as I explained above). It also makes money from the aid and uses it against us. This is not mere conjecture; there are clear reports that this is indeed occurring. So why does the fact that there is hunger mean that we are to blame? Does Hamas’s abuse of its own people impose responsibility on us? In my opinion, no (I am speaking morally; international law does not really interest me here in this discussion, and it is as clay in the potter’s hands). Are we supposed to bring in more and more aid so as to arm Hamas against us and help the non-combatants seize territory for Hamas in the northern Strip, with our own hands? That is absurd. Especially since the army and government assert emphatically that we are bringing in sufficient aid—so why bring in more just because Hamas is using it?! You can see how great the distance is between the factual question that appears in the images and the normative question. Even if there is hunger in Gaza, that does not necessarily mean there is a moral problem on our part.
One participant in that WhatsApp discussion raised several questions that he demanded I answer:
| * Why use artillery fire to disperse a crowd of hungry people who are coming, in accordance with IDF instructions, to seek food?
* Why concentrate aid at only three hubs where uncontrollable masses are bound to form? * Why do ministers in the government repeatedly declare a desire to starve or exterminate the Gazans? \*There is first-hand testimony from officers in the field: |
I will bring here my preface regarding the very report, and afterward address the three questions (only because they are highly representative of such debates):
| I did not see any field testimony here. One clear thing is indeed stated: there is no fire directed at non-combatants with the aim of killing or harming them. Everything else consists of very general statements, and I am not sure the writer is aware of the full set of surrounding considerations.
It is only natural that emotion regarding harm to Gazans has become dulled, and the reasons appear in his words. Indeed, there is room to make sure we do not reach unnecessary harm. I also assume there are local deviations that should be prevented. But setting an appropriate moral bar is not identical with criticism—and certainly not with the anti-Israeli propaganda that makes vile use of such matters: genocide, war crimes, and other ills. As I wrote above, tendentious interpretations of events are partly born of anti-Israel sentiment and partly of the understandable and even laudable shock at the images, which prevents people from taking the context into account. * Neither of us knows the context of the fire. It is obvious that Hamas is robbing the supplies and is also trying to harm our soldiers. Therefore I do not see what facts you are relying on. Even if it is factually clear that shots were fired at hungry people, that does not say much. The facts would have to show two things to justify such criticism: 1) that genuinely dangerous fire was directed at civilians (i.e., not merely warning fire, and not fire at militants suspected of mingling there) without justification; and 2) that those firing were aware of this—i.e., that it was not a mistake. I do not know the facts, and I very much doubt you know them better than I do. I remind again that a priori this claim is utterly implausible; therefore the burden of proof lies on the critics. * Here too, neither of us knows the facts. I can only surmise that it is very difficult to establish a sterile zone against Hamas, hence there is a limitation on the number and location of sites. Again, you have not met the burden of proof. * I addressed this explicitly above. I will only note that in most of the cases where I heard such criticism the statements were interpreted tendentiously and were not actually said. But indeed, the utterances of several ministers are sometimes foolish. That says nothing about how the army actually conducts itself—and that is what matters. |
It was evident that for him these were facts not in dispute, and the conclusions seemed self-evident. It did not bother him at all that these were highly implausible claims a priori and that they had no factual basis—or at least that the facts were open to many interpretations and much information was lacking. Very strange, especially given that he is a very capable person and I have no doubt he is good and moral (I think this is the phenomenon of moral fundamentalism mentioned above).
Conclusion
The conclusion is that this is a very important debate, and its very existence is most welcome. Yet the way it is conducted is very problematic. I explained why, a priori, criticisms of a deliberate policy of war crimes are highly implausible, and therefore the burden of proof lies with the critics. This is my starting point. But in my estimation that burden is not being met. The facts presented—even those that are not fake—are all highly interpretable and are subject to strong agenda-driven selection. I get the impression that people are not necessarily driven by moral concerns, but no less by the promotion of political agendas (sometimes unconsciously). The emotions are strong—and not for nothing, as we are indeed dealing with difficult situations and images. Still, it is important to let reason rule over emotion so as not to fall into the fallacy of moral fundamentalism.
As for specific cases, it is indeed important to investigate and deal with each one, and I am far from convinced that this is actually being done. Partly because, as is well known, the IDF is not the most efficient organization (caution: understatement!) in any area, and partly because there is an understandable desire to ease the burden on the fighters who are carrying this heavy load and to be considerate of them. That is in addition to the residue left in all of us from October 7 and from the entire war. Still, none of this justifies neglecting to address exceptional cases.
War is an action of a political entity, not of individuals, and therefore the reaction in war is against the entity as a whole, not against private individuals. The distinction between “combatants” and “civilians” is artificial: in war, the opposing side is treated as a collective.
The justification for war exists only when it is defensive – that is, when there is no other choice but to endure war. In such a situation, it is permissible to harm even the citizens of the enemy state, if the harm is necessary to achieve victory, even intentionally (as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Well, that's too crude. But that's not the issue here. See column 635 and my articles in Bezhar Yad about the defensive wall and much more.
Why isn't this the issue? If the only way (with an emphasis on a unit) to defeat the enemy is through enormous pressure on the entire population, isn't that justified?
Now I looked at the same column, and it turns out that you also wrote this:
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, namely the elimination of Hamas, the return of the kidnapped and ensuring security for the entire State of Israel. Everything that is required to achieve these goals is morally justified in my opinion, including the starvation of children and the mass elimination of those not involved (I am not going into considerations of criticism from the world here, nor the fear of losing international support and its consequences, which should not be underestimated). The explanation for this is that this is a collective persecutor (these things are detailed in several places here on the site. See my articles here, and in columns 1, 5, 151, and more). The Gazans (and perhaps all Palestinians) are with us in a stubborn war as a collective and are not willing to let go, and therefore not only those who hold weapons constitute persecutors. Everyone has a persecutor's fence. Although I explained there that despite this, there is no justification for harming those not involved unless and when it is necessary for our defense needs, otherwise the rule of “can save him with one of his limbs” applies here.
And if so, I would appreciate it if you could clarify why in this column you assume that if Gazan civilians are indeed intentionally harmed, this is a war crime?
Very true. But the distinction between mixed and non-mixed is not artificial. The structure is much more subtle.
I agree with the rabbi, but I lack a comparison in the column to what is happening in the world. When the United States fought ISIS in Iraq and Syria, no one counted the bodies of civilians or checked how many people remained hungry in order to accuse the Americans of war crimes. It was clear that a war on a terrorist organization hiding among civilians would cause severe humanitarian distress.
On the other hand, Israel is required to meet a moral standard that no other army has met. Even though the IDF allows aid to enter and takes measures that endanger its soldiers to prevent harm to innocent people, the world is quick to accuse it of starvation and war crimes. This double standard prevents a fair and in-depth discussion like the one the rabbi proposes.
What's the point of putting a shemita in an omelet? What is the relevance of the hypocrisy of the world to the discussion I've had here? Are you sure you spent a second thinking before pouring out your slander on the world here?
The comparison is relevant because it is not appropriate to be moral in a world where no one is moral except you. Would this enemy himself save you with one of your limbs if you had come to destroy him? He would have slaughtered newborn babies. So it is clear that we also have no obligation to save him with one of his limbs and it is morally permissible to kill every Gazan who is in Gaza now (that babies should not be killed, but not because they are innocent and should not be killed, but because there really is no point (and there is a point if it makes their Gazan parents stop trying to murder us) but rather we can hand them over to other nations to raise. Gazan children of 12 are definitely already bad children at this age).
In every war there are war crimes, few or many, from the Russian army to the United States, it is not reasonable to assume that we have been free from them in the last two years.
Even if you do not want to destroy every last Gazan.
The very fact that the government and the army as an implementing contractor, wanted and succeeded in turning 70-80 percent of Gaza into an area unfit for living, destroying the economy, culture, infrastructure (hospitals, houses of worship, residential buildings, government institutions, neighborhoods, cities, fields, businesses), destroying history, identity, the possibility of existence as a collective, the social, family, class fabric, the landscape, the vegetation, the land. In a combination of deliberate intent by the political echelon and by accident. And the failure to stop, investigate and prevent acts of destruction and killing by junior officers and soldiers in the field (as in the cases of killing aid workers, burying their bodies and giving false testimony to the IDF spokesman). Creating the conditions for mass starvation, death from disease, premature birth, collapse of the health system and the collapse of human social order. Why work in a negative way, it would be possible to flood the Strip with food and thus avoid criticism and Hamas would also have no interest in stealing and selling the food.
The most important decision-makers are interested and declare that they are interested in the mass expulsion of as many Gazans as possible.
With repeated statements from those decision makers and not just the public and the media, from the beginning of the war, of wiping out the Amalekite seed, a parking lot, imposing a total siege, cutting off water and electricity, preventing food, wiping out Gaza, destroying everyone, there are no people there, a second Nakba, an atomic bomb, there are no innocents, there are no uninvolved, every baby is a terrorist, occupation, expulsion of settlements, Jewish revenge, “wiping out Gaza, it will be Jewish” – Minister Amichai Eliyahu. Incitement and genocidal rhetoric from rabbis and public opinion makers that many soldiers in Gaza listen to, Yinon Magal, Feiglin, Yossian, many Knesset members, in the press and media channels.
Completion of a process of total dehumanization on the part of the Israeli public and complete apathy regarding what is happening and the value of human life, use of brutal language and adoption of a genocidal culture that historically characterizes societies before committing terrible acts.
And not just talk, but also the implementation of actions, concentration of the population and imposition of a siege - an undeclared implementation of the generals' plan. Lack of understanding that the IDF is currently an occupying force in the Strip and therefore legally, it is responsible for the well-being of the residents, while the decision-makers constantly try to prevent food from entering Gaza and the little it receives only due to the threat of global sanctions from the world. Use of shooting and shells as a means of dispersing residents at the few points for food distribution, and killing dozens at a time. Reports from soldiers about the use of Gazan (Shawavi) human shields to search for mines in abandoned houses. Turning large parts of the Strip into extermination zones without any warning to the residents and killing many residents in the process.
Soldiers now use the term “foreskin” to count their kills. So many videos of soldiers celebrating the eradication of the Amalekite seed, laughing and rejoicing while blowing up infrastructure and hospitals.
“In one incident, the fighter recounted the accidental killing of a family in the Strip: “We were in the extermination zone, we saw three figures entering the area and, as instructed, we shot. Later it turned out – These were 12-13 year old children and their mother. We didn't know. We were following orders”.
Carmela Menashe, “We accidentally killed two children and their mother, we are unable to contain”, Kan 11, 28.7.2024
Holding ceremonies by decision-makers regarding the renewal of settlements in Gaza after the expulsion of the residents. Preventing journalists from entering the Gaza Strip and preventing the possibility of comprehensive coverage of what is happening and verifying data (and then claiming that the data obtained is unreliable and is all lies by Hamas).
Reports that between 60 and 100 thousand people have died so far, most of them women and children.
“Containment” of collateral damage of dozens and even hundreds of deaths in each round of shelling, incessant shelling from the air at a ratio of 1:30 for every junior Hamas truck driver. Reports and testimonies of the existence of torture detention centers in the Yemeni field and in Megiddo, not only of Hamas members, but also of random Gaza residents captured in the Strip, acts of torture, starvation and amputation of organs due to the deliberate denial of medical treatment, as well as deaths. The prisoners who were released due to lack of space and previous deals, most of them seemed to be destitute and physically and mentally damaged.
The official de jure war goals became a cover for realizing a de facto vision of occupation, expulsion, settlement.
Not necessarily with systemic malice (although there are cases like Shuval Ben Natan and Officer Yehuda Wach, who did indeed commit crimes intentionally) but with great and dark apathy towards the mass deaths of civilians.
Ultimately, the army follows orders, and if it is ordered to distribute flowers in Gaza, it will distribute flowers in Gaza. The line between a legitimate action and a clearly illegal order can be blurred in urban combat situations. The darkness of the senses allows soldiers to commit disproportionate, unprofessional, and inhumane acts that will cause them to suffer moral breakdowns later. This is the result of cognitive dissonance between official instructions and the creation of a hidden reality that undermines official statements and affects actual actions and reality.
When an adult hits small children, we do not say that a fight has occurred. We say that an adult is abusing children and hitting them.
It is difficult to be surprised that we are accused of the most serious crime that cannot be named the moment we step outside the bubble of the Israeli media.
https://youtu.be/oar2pm_-xvk?si=9rFashVU511nC_2a
In everything you wrote here, I did not see a single war crime (!). You repeated the anti-Israeli propaganda with all the failures I described. Very typical of the blindness and biases presented in the column.
Would you object to the British bombing the citizens of Nazi Germany (as the Nazis did in London and killed tens of thousands) in order to defeat the Nazis?
I don't think so
This case is no different. Especially after the disengagement and the Gazans' choice of Hamas
Cases like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden are the reasons why international laws were enacted. These are serious war crimes that killed civilians indiscriminately. War crimes cannot be justified by other war crimes.
Mr. Haifai, this is a historical distortion of anti-Western propaganda. What led to the strengthening of international law was mainly the horrors of the Holocaust, not Hiroshima and certainly not Dresden.
Obviously. The whole of World War II led to the rise of international law written by Jews. The atomic bombs, the shelling of civilian populations, and above all the Holocaust.
Good. It's a stupid law and doesn't bind anyone (there was no parliament in the world that enacted this law). And certainly, whoever signed the law is not obligated to a political entity like Gaza that isn't obligated to this law. I don't know why we have to explain such trivial things. The left is completely crazy. Really clueless.
I don't understand why it's clear to people that Hiroshima is a moral crime
Overall, the bombing saved human lives. [The occupation of Japan would have cost about half a million dead American soldiers and it's unclear how many Japanese. {Including a huge number of civilians} And the war would have been prolonged by at least six months] Besides, the Japanese attacked the United States for no reason and simply forced it to join the war, so the consequences are their responsibility.
There are people without talent who wrap themselves in righteousness to be part of the right ”society”. However, when it was time to do Oslo, Arafat stopped being a war criminal but an enemy with whom peace is made….
In short, I think there is no point in relating to people like that
I have a question about the involvement of emotion in moral decisions, and the thought that sometimes emotion can actually direct the mind in the right direction.
They did a study in which they asked two groups of people the train dilemma. The first group was presented with the dilemma in the version that you have to pull a lever, divert the train from its track, and save five people at the expense of one; the second group was presented with the dilemma in the version that you have to push a fat man off a bridge so that he stops the train, which will save five people at the expense of one.
The percentages in favor of pulling the lever in the first group were much higher than the percentages in favor of pushing the man off the bridge in the second group.
From a rational perspective, there is no reason for this difference, but I argue that the difference stems from the emotion that was activated in the second group at the thought of pushing an innocent man off a bridge.
In my opinion, this study indicates a positive effect of emotion. In my opinion, the moral thing to do is really not to push the man off the bridge (and not to pull the lever). In my opinion, there is an example here where the very emotion that was triggered by the thought of pushing the man, sends you to clarify that emotion, and the understanding that it stems from the fact that it really is not the moral thing to do (and thus to the correct decision regarding pulling the handle as well).
I think that sometimes (obviously not always) an emotion can be a good indication that there is a moral injustice here, which invites you to re-analyze the situation intellectually, which would not be possible without that emotion. This is an argument in favor of viewing difficult information (within certain limits), and forming an opinion as opposed to just reading it.
I would love to hear your response to the subject.
Thank you
A strange argument logically. You say that emotion leads to the right conclusion and therefore has value. But how did you come to the conclusion that this is indeed the right answer? Through emotion? So it's circular. Not through emotion? So you see the decision is not through emotion.
Furthermore, you also assume that the difference between the cases is only emotional, but that's really not necessary. We have moral intuitions, and sometimes people mistakenly call them emotion.
By the way, emotion can indeed give moral indications. We have a trait that when something is immoral, our emotion screams. My argument is that we should not let emotion make the decision. Considering our emotional indicators is perfectly fine.
That's exactly what I meant - emotion as a moral indicator, the correctness of which must be examined with the help of reason. Therefore, exposure to information that may activate our emotions (such as difficult videos or pushing a person from a bridge) not only impairs our intellectual analysis, but can also give us a moral indication of the situation (which must be examined with the help of reason).
Thank you!
People like to say “And if it was the prime minister's son who was kidnapped, would he also act like this”? And I always said, if he changed his mind because it was his son, he should have been removed just for that…
And this is part of the problematic morality, (I'm not talking about the families of the kidnapped themselves) that they feel, really or pretend to, a real closeness to the kidnapped and that's why the issue is so painful for them, but it's clear to everyone that if the identity of the kidnapped was only from certain sectors, the absolute majority of the protesters would have no argument at all (maybe just to overthrow the government, etc.’), meaning that their argument is purely immoral…
So thank you very much for refining this point in the debate.
I completely agree. And I wrote this in one of the columns. But there is no need to wait for his removal. If his son were there, he would not be allowed to take part in decisions regarding the matter.
I think it would be helpful to clarify what you consider to be the “level of burden of proof” – what evidence would convince you that Israel is committing immoral acts in the Gaza Strip, not incidentally on the margins, but as part of its main actions.
I personally think that your bar is too high in two ways: a. Morally – attributing too much importance to intentions, as opposed to consequences, in determining whether something is moral or not b. Epistemologically, too high a demand to see that “intention” is proven.
In my opinion, the focus on intentions is very problematic and for good reason – War is a huge event involving dozens of senior decision makers, thousands of decisions, hundreds of thousands of contractors, and millions of actions. It is not possible to perform an effective intention analysis for such a complex system, and in any case it is not even clear how to aggregate. It is therefore no wonder that the discussion boils down to the factual-causal question: a. Is there suffering in Gaza b. Do Israel's actions play a significant causal role in this suffering when considering alternatives.
For that matter, if the only way to completely remove the threat of Palestinian terrorism was to eliminate every last Palestinian, that would clearly not be a moral decision in my opinion, considering the damage caused (millions of dead) versus the benefit received (saving hundreds or thousands of Israelis).
As an aside, the debate over whether Israel or Hamas is responsible is a very strange one. It is certainly possible that both sides are jointly responsible for Palestinian suffering. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.
I don't know what answer you expect. Something that will convince me of this despite the extreme implausibility of it.
Focusing on intentions is essential to moral judgment. A mistake is not a war crime.
Of course, we have a causal role in the situation. Without us, it wouldn't exist. That's not the question. The question is whether that's why we should stop fighting. You're making considerations of comparing results. That's ridiculous. According to this logic, the Nazis should have been allowed to eliminate a few more million Jews, thereby sparing the Allies and the Germans and the Japanese a lot of victims. You ignore the question of guilt, the asymmetry in a state's commitment to its citizens and not to the enemy, questions of guilt and responsibility, and questions of eliminating terror and future deterrence. All of this is measured in your view by the question of how many will die on each side. I've written more than once that if eliminating Hamas requires killing all residents of the Gaza Strip, that's what is morally permissible and necessary.
I am not ignoring, I also weigh questions of guilt, responsibility, asymmetry, etc. in. What is not clear to me is how you weigh them with the question of results, because it seems that for you, as long as Israel is trying to eliminate Hamas, the question of the number of Gazans that will be killed is irrelevant, and this is an absurd claim in my opinion. I read your previous posts, and it was not convincing even then. At most, you showed that it is permissible to kill innocent Gazans in order to defeat Hamas, but not that the number is not important.
I will mention by the way that in the analysis of the kidnapping struggle, you repeatedly emphasize the issue of consequentialism, so I return again to the question – how do you weigh them.
By the way – In your opinion, it was moral and even necessary for the Allies to refrain from fighting the Nazis as long as they were only destroying the Jews of Europe, since the Allies' commitment to their citizens required them not to endanger them just to save Jews who were not their citizens.
I didn't see this weighing. You compared numbers.
I really don't weigh in relation to the ultimate goal of the war. It justifies any number of victims and therefore there is nothing to weigh. In specific cases, there is clearly room for proportionality considerations.
I have no problem with consequential considerations, certainly when it comes to policy and security. Where did you learn that it wasn't?
Indeed, their commitment to their citizens was greater than the one they had towards others. Similarly, a soldier's commitment to his family is greater than the one he has to the country and others, and yet he goes out to fight. This is the moral and security consideration that obliges us to pay prices, certainly when it is mutual (if I don't go to war or fight evil, the world will be worse, both for me and in general – the categorical imperative). But in the case of Gaza, these comparisons are irrelevant because they are the evil. It is not a third party that is harmed when I go out to fight an enemy, but the enemy himself who is harmed (except that they are not involved. But they are part of the enemy). Therefore, this is a preposterous comparison. We keep coming back to the same point, that the comparisons made here are unreasonable because the assumptions they make are fundamentally unreasonable. They ignore the specific context in which they are being discussed.
Ten-year-old Gazans are not part of the enemy, they are victims of Hamas, in the same way that German Jews were not part of the Nazi enemy, but their victims.
Indeed, there are ideas so stupid (morally) that only intellectuals can hold them.
Roy Shulman?
Are you a real person? Not a robot?
Do you really not understand what the difference is between German Jews and children from Gaza? And if German Jews really continued to live in Germany and did not flee from it as soon as it started a war with Poland, then the Poles can rightfully harm German Jews (they certainly saw themselves as Germans for all intents and purposes). I wouldn't cry for them in such a case.
Hello Rabbi Michi.
You do indeed claim in your summary that there may indeed be some degree of hunger, but this is not the responsibility of the IDF/state, but rather the responsibility of Hamas. You might even agree to argue that this stems from our inability (to protect the aid from Hamas and for the benefit of the citizens) but not from policy.
This is certainly an argument that I can live with in peace.
However, the common argument from the right whenever moral claims are raised against them is: “It didn't happen, and if it did, what happened?”. This happens with the famine in Gaza, which is sometimes presented as a policy of pressure on Hamas, and in the past with the incident of the injuries to prisoners in the Yemen field, with settler violence, and most recently with Milibicki.
This is an argument that is so characteristic of people who lack a moral backbone: they try to deny first, but not out of a moral renunciation of the act but only to escape the threat of judgment, and in the process they are already preparing the ground for the denial to fail and bring up the argument that there is no flaw in the act at all (and sometimes the opposite! It is the moral act). This internal contradiction is so ridiculous I don't understand how people and entire communities aren't ashamed to criticize them. That's why a priori I have a hard time believing the facts they present and their moral standards.
This is a fallacy that I think the right falls into more than the left (although you often claim symmetry in the failures of the parties) and that's why the kings of the right manage to hold on despite moral sins, big and small (because with them “First of all, it didn't happen and if it did, what happened?”) while the left beheads its leaders for small and big (the well-known erasure culture of the extreme left is a symbol of this) both political heroes and cultural heroes. Self-criticism is an important element in the study of truth and morality, and it is missing to the point of non-existent on the right.
All the best!
Ketura
Hello Ketura. First, I don't see any contradiction in this form of argument: there is no hunger and even if there is, we are not to blame for it. My argument was that just because there is hunger doesn't mean we are to blame.
Regarding the assessment of who is less honest and moral, I see no point in getting into it. Let's agree that both sides are in a serious problem on the matter.
The head-butting on the left has absolutely nothing to do with their moral sensitivities.
Just one. I have no well-founded and general information about what is happening in Gaza. Just an impression. I presented in the column my considerations as to why the burden of proof is on the critics. The conclusion is not firm, it's just that they didn't lift the burden of proof.
For me, the feeling works the other way around. All of this, the October 7 events are perceived by me as a strong blow whose members are identified by me as members of the progressive left and as punishment for the party known for its three serious offenses and as the fulfillment of my prayer a month before the events. Well, give up your fear for all your actions, and your terror for everything you created (quite the opposite of the principles of your teaching in all areas). With all of the above, the feeling and anger at the anger that has been created in me since then is so strong that it is indescribable. And when I see the above pictures, it only makes me feel good. If I could press a button and destroy Gaza without anyone knowing, I would do it calmly and peacefully while I read your post, let's say about growing lettuce in the territories, and do it like the mitzvah of taking the four species and feel morally exalted.
In the PA, in my understanding there is a significant and perhaps fundamental stage here in the development of the ’Jewish people and Judaism’.
Truths are something that this movement has been concerned with since its inception.
It is clear to me that there is a flood of relationships within the group / Jewish people.
The possibility of discussing in a matter-of-fact manner has never been easy, especially with the charges that arise today.
It seems to me that we have an opportunity to understand, learn to direct and produce the next stage. I do not have a rabbit in my hat. I have some thoughts.
As for the concrete matter, which for me is part of the above.
There is a process that proposes to destroy us. Both from the outside and from the inside.
The ability to argue, to justify and especially to be right – rises to the surface in extremes.
We, the Jewish people / Judaism are invited to be the scapegoat in Gaza.
The difficult beginning [7.10] told of the power that will come after. The ability to divide versus the ability to unite.
To me, it's like the human body. The ability to unite is healthy, the ability to divide is sickening.
Are there or are there difficult moves in Gaza?! There are. Are Jews doing this on purpose? No
Are there forces that confuse everyone? It's clear to me that they are.
The pressure systems from so many directions on leadership and citizens are almost impossible. Reactions from pressure are almost always biased reactions. It's hard to be objective in such situations, and the feeling that I'm expressing what will save the world is also very strong!! Did we say self-righteousness?!
And in the PA, the anti-Semitism that has been absorbed over many generations is coming to the surface. Of course, among us too. As we know, the justification for anti-Semitism is multifaceted and 'correct'.
There are those who recognize that pressure can be an advantage. It can also produce impressive capabilities of expectancy, relevance, and especially focused effectiveness (an important issue) in the long term. For me, this is an essential part of the Jewish idea = comprehensive solutions for the medium and long term.
Emotion / mind? In my many years of complex acquaintance with the human body, the systems are integrated in a way that is impossible, I have examined the issue with many factors, to know where the boundaries are. Where does it begin, end, mix, influence.
So here is the beginning of a substantive discourse in a concrete aspect and perhaps this will enable a substantive discourse in broader and for me the main aspects.
Thanks for the discussion
Torture, starvation, and deliberate denial of medical care in the field in Yemen, isn't that a war crime?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd
Using human shields to clear landmines, isn't that a war crime?
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/magazine/2024-08-13/ty-article-magazine/.premium/00000191-4adf-d633-a393-cfff82830000
The “collateral damage” of women and children that has long since surpassed the number of Hamas members killed, isn't that a war crime?
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14378610
Burying the bodies of 15 aid workers who died from IDF gunfire in a mass grave in Holot, while the ambulances were legally marked and had their headlights on, giving false testimony to the IDF spokesman about this, isn't this a serious concern for a war crime?
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2025-04-16/ty-article/.premium/00000196-3cfb-daed-a3d7-7efb03f90000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Android_Native&utm_campaign=Share
And if there are claims here that the articles come from left-wing newspapers. So let the IDF be respectful and allow credible foreign journalists to enter. You can't hold a stick at both ends. In any case, only these newspapers cover these actions, we certainly won't see these claims in the mainstream Israeli media.
The IDF is currently an occupying force in the Gaza Strip, it's not a matter of whether I like it or not, and whether the aid reaches Hamas or not. Once you are an occupying force, you are fully responsible for the well-being of the residents under your control, and not just to "allow" the passage of aid, but also to provide it in terms of the law. There is no way here to make a counter-claim in terms of international law.
Enough of the righteous stupidity. There are no such things as war crimes. There are only crimes. If war is justified then there is no crime in anything bad done to the enemy and if not then war itself is a crime.
Exactly.
There is a serious concern about war crimes, and the concern is growing because they are lying about it and not seriously investigating it.
I partially agree, and I even wrote this. But note that the reason that it is not being addressed and that it is being glossed over (if indeed it is) is the unbalanced and unfounded criticisms that raise concerns that nothing will help and that we will always be blamed. In my opinion, even if this is true (and it certainly is true), it still needs to be investigated properly, but I think that is part of the explanation for what is happening.
It is very worth seeing Professor Danny Orbach's research on the subject. Link: https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/213hebweb1.pdf
It seems you didn't read the column and are just using the stage for repeated propaganda over and over again. It's clear that you're upset, and that's understandable given the situation, the photos, and the reports. But I explained in the column that emotional turmoil is not an argument.
I considered deleting it, but because of the importance of the discussion and the propaganda that is taking place everywhere, I decided to address it briefly anyway.
General introduction.
First, I wrote that I don't deal with international law. It doesn't really bother me for many reasons (it deals with wars, not terrorism. It is subject to interpretations and is often biased and unequal, and more). My discussion is moral.
Second, general statements without context and without clarifying the facts don't help me. When the evidence is supposed to establish both facts and intentions. The fact that someone reports and gives interpretations of events doesn't make the matter a fact. I explained in the column why these interpretations tend to be biased.
Third, you treat those not involved there as if they were innocent civilians. They are not. First, many of them support Hamas' actions and even elected it. Second, they are responsible for its actions because they are the residents and it represents them (it is the one who rules there). I have explained several times in the past that it does not justify killing them just like that, but it does justify killing them and harming them and their property when it is necessary to do so in order to deal with Hamas. I think there is no problem with that. I referred to my columns in which I explained this in detail.
Fourth, I wrote that local exceptions are expected, and the question is whether there is such a general policy and whether exceptions are addressed. I wrote that I think there is unlikely to be a policy, but I also have the impression that the handling of exceptions is lacking (and I also explained why).
Now, briefly, to your words.
Carrying out torture, starvation, and intentionally preventing medical treatment in the field in Yemen is not a war crime?
Absolutely not. It depends on what the purpose of the torture and starvation is, if at all. If they needed to extract information from them, for example? Regarding the Nuhwats, the most correct thing to do would be to kill all the Nuhwats and that would be it. Treating them medically is a war crime. This is the morally necessary step.
Using human shields to clear mines, isn't that a war crime?
Absolutely not. It's better for them to die than for soldiers.
The "collateral damage" of women and children, which has long since surpassed the number of Hamas members killed, isn't that a war crime?
The numbers in this context are meaningless. It is permissible to kill as many as necessary to treat Hamas. Incidentally, parallel data on the fight against terrorism in such areas show that we are in a better situation than previous incidents by the Americans and the British, for example. Our insane caution with warnings to the population before bombings and before physical entry in a way that disrupts our ability to fight is unreasonable in my opinion.
Burying the bodies of 15 aid workers who died from IDF gunfire in a mass grave in Holoth, while the ambulances were legally marked and with headlights on, and giving false testimony to the IDF spokesman about this, isn't this a serious concern for a war crime?
If this is true, there is indeed a problematic act here that requires examination. And here too, note that the act itself depends on the context (they use cars and medical personnel that are completely marked for their purposes, so I really don't admire such general statements). The cover-up is indeed problematic, and we need to check who ordered it and punish it. But a cover-up is not murder. Rather, it is a problem that is mainly disciplinary and tactical. In light of indiscriminate criticisms like yours, I can very well understand why they are trying to cover it up, even though in my opinion it is unjustified.
The IDF is currently an occupying force in the Gaza Strip, it is not a matter of whether I like it or not, and whether the aid reaches Hamas or not. Once you are an occupying power, you are fully responsible for the well-being of the residents under your control, and not just to “allow” the passage of aid, but also to provide it in terms of the law. There is no way to make a counter-argument in terms of international law.
I wrote that international law does not interest me. I am interested in eliminating Hamas and I have no problem harming innocent people to the extent necessary to achieve the goal. And certainly not to provide them with aid that is used against us and that is not provided on our terms but in places where they have decided to settle.
I am referring to this paragraph of yours:
“This is the explanation I give myself for refraining from viewing the shocking images and videos coming out of Gaza. I know that this will greatly affect me and make it difficult for me to formulate a balanced moral position. Refraining here actually prevents biases and does not create biases. At the same time, I oppose such censorship from above. Each person will make their own considerations, but I am not willing for someone in the government or the army to decide for me what I will see and what I will not, and what I will think and what I will not. But I think that even within the framework of a newspaper's policy, it is legitimate to refrain from publishing such images, as long as there is no such government or legal prohibition.”
1. You are afraid of watching because it will blind you morally and you will be forced to follow your emotions, but this link between watching and an emotion that is immoral is much less strong than what you write. To understand and get an idea of what we are doing in Gaza, you need to see a little with your own eyes and smell it up close and not just be satisfied with reading in an air-conditioned room over a cup of coffee.
To understand what it means to kill “tens of thousands of children and women,” you need to see and feel what it means to have lots and lots of dead children. There is a perceptual gap here, not just an emotional gap.
2. Government or military censorship is certainly bad, and I agree with you on this, but you write that it is legitimate for a media channel to avoid such publications. It is clear to you that what mainly motivates all mainstream channels and press in Israel (maybe except for Israel) to avoid giving an idea of the dimensions of the suffering in Gaza is mainly a commercial economic consideration, the public does not want to hear about the suffering in Gaza.
I am a realist, I understand that money is the main motive of almost all bodies in the world, but I would not call for the legitimacy of a media channel from hiding the truth solely out of economic interests. We have a poor media in this sense, like many media outlets in the world.
1. Disagree. Knowledge of what is happening is relevant. The shock of watching causes biases.
2. A media channel does what it wants, including biases and interests. This is free media. It also broadcasts Big Brother and not series about science and philosophy. I am against dictating to media channels what to broadcast. If you are not satisfied, don't watch. I am definitely against censorship from above that forces things on us and on the media.
1. It's not just watching hungry children. There is a lack of verbal and textual information in the Israeli public regarding the dimensions of the suffering in Gaza. Whether this is justified or not is a separate discussion, but there is indifference at best and a disregard for the value of human life at worst.
2. Just to be clear, I did not write that anyone should be forced to broadcast something. I am an advocate of freedom of expression. Simply put, media that only presents half the picture just because it is afraid of a mass abandonment of viewers is simply trash media. I understand that there are economic considerations and there are constraints and interests, etc., etc., but it does not do the basics of what a media body is supposed to do.
1. We repeat ourselves. The question is whether this bias is better or that.
2. Tell me something I didn’t knowi
To clarify your position, I would appreciate your consideration of the following two points:
1. Let's say that before October 7, an Arab would eat about 2,000 calories a day, and since then he has eaten an average of only 700 a day. This is a kind of starvation. But the question is, is there a moral problem here?
2. What is the proportionality with which innocent people (such as those who know that they are completely innocent citizens) are allowed to be killed when one terrorist is eliminated. Is a ratio of 1:1, 1:10, 1:100?
Is this addressed to me?
1. I explained everything. A stupid question because it depends on countless parameters.
2. There is no numerical answer to this. In general, eliminating Hamas justifies killing any number of Gazans necessary.
You can't kill the entire population and say, "But we didn't really mean it, so it's not genocide." By what moral standards and set of values can this be justified?
Once we have descended into such logical abysses, it is time to end the discussion.
You don't have to watch shocking images and horrifying videos to form an informed opinion. People have worked hard to compile comprehensive and well-organized documents on the situation in Gaza. There is, for example, the meticulous report by Professor Lee Mordechai. There are also well-organized publications by the UN World Food Program (WFP), which is considered a reliable and professional agency. From the column you wrote, it does not appear that you have made any effort to read these or similar documents.
While you accuse others of irrational sentimentality, the opinions you present are not based on data or an informed analysis of facts but on speculation and gut feelings.
I hope you find a UN document that deals with reading comprehension. Maybe you can improve it because right now the situation seems dire.
You should also review documents like the one that debunks the nonsense of Shel Lee Mordechai: https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/213hebweb1.pdf
Welcome to the Genocide class
Let's explain the difference: Genocide is genocide. If we destroy the entire population of Gaza as part of this war, then it is the killing of a people. An evil people who want to kill our people and must be killed before that happens.
I was happy to help (although the fact that you don't understand it yourself casts great doubt on whether what I wrote will help you understand).
So is it permissible to stop genocide only after it has happened?
??!!!
That's what he's telling you. It's not genocide, it's justifiable killing of a people.
I am generally impressed by the column and the comments that there is a classic dispute here between a modernist like Rabbi Michi and postmodernists like the leftists.
The modernist has values that determine what is right and what is wrong, and therefore, as soon as it is clear that Hamas is not right in this war, every citizen who voted for it is responsible to some extent for its actions. And it is also clear that the State of Israel has the right to occupy the Strip, enter hospitals if they are used for terrorism, and so on.
The postmodernist has no way of determining what is moral beyond the question of suffering, and therefore on October 8th, Israel was right, but as soon as it appears that the balance of suffering is leaning in favor of the Gazans, the balance of morality immediately leans against Israel, simply because at the end of the day, they suffer more, and therefore we are the immoral ones.
On the official level, the leftists will not admit that this is their perception. They will wrap it up with talk about non-involvement and the like. But what is implied here is that their standard for determining what is moral is different from the beginning. They have no distinction between a just and unjust side. They have no concept of taking responsibility, like if you choose Hamas, you are complicit in its actions. They see the citizens on both sides as people with completely equal rights, while it is clear that the immoral side is responsible for the situation of its citizens, while the moral side is allowed, if necessary, to try to eliminate terrorists even at the cost of risks to the population.
The reason the left makes more use of images and emotional shock is directly related to the above issue.
If the measure of morality is suffering, it is necessary to know who suffers more. If the measures are other, one must be careful of initial emotional identification with the sufferer
The things are well known and publicized. It is just not clear why Rabbi Michi continues to see these leftists as brothers and part of the Jewish people while they do not believe in the existence of collectives at all (except for the collective to which they belong – a collective that hates (other) collectives….). And he tries to be in the middle in a blind and obsessive way
“A citizen who elected him is to some extent responsible for his actions”, what do you mean elected him? Are you referring to the general elections that were held 20 years ago? Half of the residents of the Gaza Strip are under 18, they couldn't vote for him.
Are they responsible for his actions? Maybe the residents of Israel are also responsible for the fact that the government started a war with Iran and now Iran can bomb population centers because we supported the war and voted for Bibi. Maybe it can also wipe out the neighborhoods around the Kirya base on the grounds that Israel is “placing its headquarters within a population center”.
Maybe Iran can even claim that Israeli citizens are legitimate targets because they all serve in the regular army, in the reserves and work in the production of ammunition at Rafael, so there are no uninvolved people and if they don't bomb a soldier on his way to the mall, then he will attack Iran later, so they need to be killed.
“And it is clear that the State of Israel has the right to occupy the Strip and enter hospitals if they are used for terrorism and so on”, is this right infinite and does not depend on anything or proportionality? 70% of the infrastructure and buildings were completely destroyed, why did Israel have the right to do this?
“They do not distinguish between a just and unjust side. They have no concept of taking responsibility, like if you chose Hamas, you are an accomplice in its actions.”
Only a donkey does not change his mind. When reality and facts change, I change my mind and do not repeat myself over and over again. Justice comes and justice goes, you can lose your justifications if your policy does not work and causes destruction.
This is not a matter of balance of power, the government's policy does not promote an alternative to Hamas and the data seems to indicate that the intention is expulsion and not really a victory over Hamas, but rather to "drain Gaza" and nothing more.
Gaza has not elected Hamas for twenty years, and the only reason they have remained in power for so long is that it was in Bibi's interest to prevent a Palestinian state, for this ambition, he was willing to cooperate with a terrorist organization. They should have collapsed and been thwarted long ago.
You sound – or read – like a lawyer trying to justify a serial killer and prevent a sentence of five electric chair. The same reasoning technique that not only doesn't hold water, but doesn't even hold water vapor.
We are tired of refuting these arguments to the merits of an argument.
I don't know if this is directed at me, but I'll address it briefly anyway.
I definitely meant the elections then, and also the support today. The Gaza collective is guilty of this and therefore responsible for it, including the babies. I've explained this more than once, and I understand that we don't agree.
Indeed, the residents of Israel are also completely responsible for the wars the government launches. Where did you see an argument here? That's indeed what I think. If the Iranians were threatened (and they aren't) and had no other way to escape (and they do), they have the right to kill all of us, down to the last baby. This is even without everyone serving in the army and Rafael. Everything you're trying to exaggerate is nothing more than a banal and simple statement.
I explained here that there are no proportionality considerations in relation to the elimination of Hamas. There can be such considerations when it comes to killing this or that terrorist. Israel can and should destroy all of Gaza if that's what's needed to escape Hamas' threats.
The donkeys in Gaza have not changed their minds. They simply took the bait and do not want to bear the cost of their actions. And even if the donkey changes its mind, it really does not matter whether it is guilty and/or responsible for the current situation.
Regarding the government's policy, I really do not agree, but this is a pointless debate.
Here is the inevitable exaggeration of the Ral”B cult: Hamas would have fallen long ago if it were not for Bibi.. All nonsense is nonsense. He has a contributory guilt, but to say that he is guilty of Hamas and without him it would have fallen is not even a joke. Just superstition.
A word in the sand…
Just to add that the concept of proportionality is a repetition of what I read above about the balance of suffering.
Proportionality is the weighing of damage against damage or suffering against suffering without at all addressing the question of how the suffering occurs [i.e. who attacked and who defended themselves. Who is facing an existential threat and who is not. Who is right and who is not. Who is democratic and who is not.]
{And more: If we all admit that Hamas is not democratic, then it is actually the first occupying body in the Strip and has a responsibility to its citizens long before Israel, and it cannot be said that Israel is occupying the Strip when in fact it came to liberate…}
May I, Rabbi Avraham, offer the following idea:
Your interpretation of the Gemara's validity can be an excellent tool for examining the issue. If I have understood your general idea on the subject correctly, then we are taking a specific situation, filtered from all the surrounding background noise, and according to which we examine the issue before us.
According to this method, we will imagine that we had a state in the dark years of the Holocaust and we had the military and operational possibility to respond against the Nazis' actions against the Jews (in a certain sense, and most opinions agree on this, Hamas' actions are worse than the Nazis' actions). Some of the questions that arise today would have arisen then (from today's perspective!). Wouldn't the questions that arise today regarding our actions in the Gaza Strip have seemed to us then as mere trolling? Would anyone take them seriously as a matter of moral debate?? Haven't we introduced ourselves into a kind of mental chaos as a result of the need to hit each other? That's the picture in my opinion.
There's something to it.
“It is not reasonable to me that orders are given to starve or shoot non-involved” – That is basically your entire argument: that it is not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to me either. It sounds more like the “spirit of the commander” – The ministers and rabbis say “Amalek”, the soldiers who shot non-involved are not investigated and certainly not punished, so it happens. Just like that. Because no one stops it.
I wrote myself that such cases may exist and should be addressed, and I even added that it is unlikely that they are being addressed properly (for various reasons). The discussion is not about that. And in general, when a claim is unreasonable, it does not mean that it is not true. It just puts the burden of proof on the person making it.
Except that if the whole issue is a few cases {even a hundred} of war crimes committed by soldiers, there are no war crimes here at the level of military conduct and it is impossible to say that Israel is committing war crimes.
It is clear that there is no indication of systematic war crimes, not even close to that. Even the destruction of the buildings in the Strip is during fighting and clearing the area, and the road from here to war crimes is very long.
I just saw a video of a Gazan boy crying that he and his mother are alone in the south and it's hard for them without their father who is in the north of the Strip.
Everyone understands why their father is in the north! He didn't go herding donkeys…
So to say they are in danger is cruel! There are defined areas where they can be and as far as I understand if everything was going normally they would have more than enough…
It is clear to you that there are war crimes and that they are not being handled properly.
Regarding the famine, it is quite clear that there is famine in Gaza (to one degree or another) and even if Hamas is to blame for the famine, the IDF is a contributory factor to the famine. In my opinion, much more so than the contributory factor of the children in the Strip.
As you yourself wrote in one of your comments about Iran, “Indeed, the residents of Israel are also fully responsible for the wars that the government launches. Where did you see an argument here? That is indeed what I think. If the Iranians were threatened (and they are not) and had no other way to escape (and they do), they have the right to kill us all, down to the last baby” that is, if we have a “other”way To be saved, we have no right to kill those who are not involved – and this is precisely the point that there is not a single person in Israel (except perhaps Bibi) who thinks that the war is being waged properly, whether it is the Bibiists who blame the entire world (literally) and his wife, or whether it is those who think like Feiglin about occupation, expulsion and settlement, whether it is leftists like you who say that the Gazans should be offered some kind of political horizon, or whether it is extreme leftists who think that on October 8th we should have signed peace agreements. The equal side is that no one thinks that a 666-day war is in any way in Israel's interest.
And in general, you constantly try to portray those who think the war should be ended as if they are some fundamentalist (or church) who does not think rationally. There are very good arguments for ending the war, and they are usually even more rational than continuing it. If there is one consensus across the camps, it is that the way the current war in Gaza is being conducted is a failure - so the obvious conclusion is to end it in some way (or at least try additional ways).
The IDF is not guilty of contributing to the famine in Gaza because not only is it not to blame, but it is what must be done.
The biggest problem the article raises –
Quote:
A friend I greatly respect, both in terms of intelligence and morals, told me ….. that he cannot explain to himself why he would prefer to leave his daughter with an Israeli pilot (several of his friends and relatives are pilots) as opposed to a terrorist who is comfortable’ in her.
Think about how delusional this is.
I agree with Rabbi Michael Avraham's assessment of his friend's level of intelligence.
I also agree with his words about how delusional it is.
Well – the question is how a person of valued intelligence, and also moral –
comes to such delusions.
And he is probably not alone. In my opinion, this is our biggest problem.
They call it hatred and ego. There is hatred for people who believe in collectives, including the people in knitted kippahs, especially the big kippahs. And when it turns out that you are wrong and these fascist primitives are right, then the ego does not allow you to admit your mistake…
Ehud Barak had no problem justifying attacks by Palestinians against Jewish civilians in the War of Independence, but today he accuses the IDF of war crimes…. And there are many more like him
I was talking about serious people, as Rabbi Michael Avraham testifies to.
Ehud Barak and all IDF officers may have a personal relationship with Netanyahu (how is it that he
takes the place we deserve?)
Serious people have the biggest egos and the greatest hatred.
A difficult problem indeed. I mentioned it for a reason. Living in a bubble.
Hello!
In general, I very much agree with what was written in the column, but I would like to ask for clarification and clarification on the place of emotions in our decision-making mechanisms in the context of the “emptiness of the analyst”. Without going into the whole discussion, I start from the point of departure that in a certain way we all operate from “internal” axioms or dogmas, which can be formulated as a priori synthetic sentences in Kant's terms or as initial axioms on which the analytical discussion is conducted and from which it begins. The question is where the line is drawn between “intuition”, “emotion”, “axiom” or even “belief” in the sense that they all stem from a strong a priori internal recognition.
It is clear to me that there are irrelevant emotional biases, but when I want to make this argument, I feel that I need to clarify where the basis for even the most rational decisions is without a rational explanation (since then it is not the first axiom of the process), and what distinguishes it from irrelevant internal feelings, however strong they may be.
My question is: How can we distinguish between irrelevant emotional biases in the decision-making mechanism that you spoke about and between “emotions” or “belief” an irrational “axiom” that is legitimate and will guide us even as rational and consistent people?
If you can demonstrate on our test case – that would be appreciated.
Thank you very much!
I dedicated a column to the difference between emotion and intuition. See there.
Self-diagnosis of when it is emotion and when it is intuition is up to each person regarding themselves. I do not have diagnostic tools.
But after understanding and internalizing that these are indeed two different tools, it is easier to distinguish between them.
I recommend the article by Professor Danny Auerbach. Link: https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/213hebweb1.pdf