Q&A: Sde Teiman
Sde Teiman
Question
Completely unrelated to the Military Advocate General's Corps. What do you think about the affair involving the soldiers? What punishment would be appropriate to give them assuming they abused a terrorist? Should this have been publicized, or should everything have been kept quiet in order to avoid smearing IDF soldiers around the world and increasing antisemitism?
Answer
They certainly should be punished, since they violated orders. First of all, there is a disciplinary problem here. But I do not see any essential moral problem here. Those Nukhba terrorists should get a bullet in the head. So there is definitely room to conceal the matter so as not to stir up antisemitism among those who hold distorted moral views according to which Nukhba terrorists have rights. But punishment in secret will not achieve the deterrent goal of preventing future incidents of this kind, nor will it prove to the world that we have an effective judicial system. So practically speaking, it is probably not worthwhile to hide it.
All this is if it is clear that these are indeed Nukhba terrorists. But the very decision of those soldiers that they were Nukhba terrorists, without a trial having been held and without this having been proven, is problematic. Maybe they are mistaken and the man is being held there by mistake? Therefore in practice it is not right to do this without a trial. There should be an efficient and speedy trial, and all of them should be executed. The abuse is unnecessary, although I do not see a moral problem in it. There may be a moral problem only in the sense of what it says about the abuser. Someone who has a desire to do such things is not a very elevated person.
Discussion on Answer
There is no difference between killing and abuse. These creatures have no rights whatsoever, so it really makes no difference what happens to them. As I explained, the problem is at most from the standpoint of the abuser, not from the standpoint of those who were abused.
As I understand it, your position regarding morality is that morality is a certain relation toward the other person (Kant), and not the cultivation of virtues (Aristotle). If so, why is there a moral problem in the fact that a person who abuses others corrupts his own soul? That seems more like a human problem, not a moral one.
Also, I wanted to ask in the context of suffering—even animals, for example, have no rights whatsoever, and yet we still have a moral prohibition against abusing them. If so, why is it morally permissible to abuse Nukhba terrorists? It seems more reasonable to me to say that causing unnecessary suffering (of course only to creatures that feel physical or mental pain) is morally wrong. That way, one can justify not abusing animals (even if killing them is permissible), and likewise not abusing a Nukhba terrorist unnecessarily (even if killing him is permissible and appropriate).
So call it a human problem rather than a moral one. That is what I wrote.
Animals do not deserve to suffer, and there is no reason to abuse them, even though they do not have rights. That is an obligation on us, not their right. So there too there is room to discuss semantically whether this is a moral problem or a human one (in that terminology). Nukhba terrorists do deserve to suffer, and of course they have no rights whatsoever. So they are worse than animals. True, this needs to be done in an institutional way and according to the decision of the relevant authorities. And indeed there is no reason to abuse them. They should be killed.
Why do you not see a moral problem in abusing a Nukhba terrorist? In your opinion, is it permissible to do whatever we want to Nukhba terrorists for years, without there being any moral problem in that?
For that matter, I agree that they should be killed (if only a death penalty law for terrorists would pass).