If this interpretation seems morally dubious to you, then interpret it differently (for example, as Rashi or Ibn Ezra or Radak explain it; see there). Someone who shapes a pretzel out of plasticine can’t complain that it came out hollow.

Tirgitz,
You gave a wonderful example of how people learn morality from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Choose the interpretation that seems moral to you and implement it. That’s why, from my perspective, it makes the most sense to skip the interpretive stage and just apply directly whatever seems moral to you. That’s exactly what I wrote to him.
I understand that you were only commenting to him according to his own approach (and not according to mine, as he himself noted).

Indeed. According to your general approach, that follows automatically, but even without it there’s no room here for the question the questioner asked. Because the question is built on inventions and on an interpretation that is, at the very least, not mainstream commentary. First of all, it was not Moab that exiled the two and a half tribes but Assyria, although there certainly were mutual subjugations and wars between Israel and Moab. When Assyria exiled the two and a half tribes and the ten tribes of Israel, Moab rejoiced at their downfall and taunted them and certainly did not help them (that is what Isaiah 16 and Zephaniah 2 criticize). And afterward, when Babylon weakened Judah, Moab too joined the enemies (and that enters into Jeremiah 48’s criticism). The questioner reads Isaiah 16 as promising Moab assistance from Judah and calls that promise a bizarre moral bar. But the usual interpretation there is that Moab is being criticized for not offering assistance to Israel and, on the contrary, for rejoicing, mocking, and plundering. In other words, there is a broad and readily available interpretation here (in which Israel is not demanding of itself some bizarre moral bar; perhaps it is demanding adherence to a higher moral bar than others, as follows), and the questioner invents or deliberately chooses an interpretation that seems bizarre to him and then expresses astonishment at it.

But there actually is a valid point here, in the opposite direction. The prophets demand of the nations a special nobility of spirit in a way that really is not demanded of Israel. Moab and Edom are criticized for mocking Israel and Judah in their time of distress and for joining their looters, as though the nations were old brothers from ancient times. But Israel and Judah, when they had the power, trampled and crushed Moab and Edom in a distinctive way. David and Ahab subjugated Moab. David and his descendants nearly wiped out Edom (Joab, David’s general, stayed six months trying to cut off every male in Edom. Amaziah king of Judah threw ten thousand Edomite captives from the top of the cliff). And so on — the whole history is soaked with the blood they drew from one another. But when Moab and Edom bore a grudge and also took revenge, the prophets judge them with the harshest severity and prophesy great destruction for them as punishment. That is rather strange. [And one may wonder whether in this matter too people did indeed learn from the prophets to behave this way in our own times.]

Obviously. Because among the gentiles sin and immorality are essential, while with us it’s external. Deep down inside we are pure and spotless.

Maybe on that basis the questioner’s question should be reformulated differently: if we see that the Jewish people demand from the nations a very lofty moral standard — such that even if there is a great deal of mutual bloodshed, still, if the enemy has failed and been defeated, one must help him (that is what the Jewish people supposedly demand of Moab and Edom) — then surely the Jewish people also demand of themselves such a moral standard toward the nations, and when the bitter and cruel enemy falls, we should not rejoice but on the contrary help him. Then the question stands. The criticism of the neighboring nations for mocking and cheering at Israel’s downfall is completely explicit in the prophets and does not depend on interpretation.

But clearly the Jewish people do not demand such a standard of themselves. And even after Israel itself causes the enemies to stumble and defeats them (and it is not always clear whether the cause of the war was enemy provocation or simply Israel’s or Judah’s own drive for expansion), it itself continues trying to annihilate them utterly, and also longs for their total destruction, not just defeat in war. What the kings of Judah did to Edom, for example, does not fall short at all of what Babylon did to Judah. And just as Babylon is wished every evil in the world to the very end, to cut off from it offspring and descendants and infants, and certainly no one would help the Babylonians on the day of their defeat, so too Moab and Edom related to Israel and Judah.

Let me sharpen the point. In the cases of Moab and Edom, the double standard especially stands out — adorning other nations regarding their behavior toward Israel without adorning the Jewish people regarding their behavior toward other nations — but this is a general and very astonishing matter in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
The prophets’ criticism of the Jewish people concerns faith and observance of commandments between man and God, and morality between man and his fellow man — that is, criticism of inward-facing behavior. By contrast, almost all the criticism of other nations is about their outward-facing behavior, namely toward Israel. There is (almost) no criticism of other nations’ inward behavior — presumably because that is of no interest. But why is there no criticism of the Jewish people for outward behavior? Did Israel really sin in every possible crime in its inward conduct, but in its outward conduct there was not a blemish in its deeds? And only all the other surrounding nations had blemish upon blemish in their outward conduct? That is plainly implausible.
In a panoramic view of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), you see on the one hand virtually zero self-criticism about behavior toward other nations, and on the other hand lots of criticism of other nations regarding their behavior toward us. I don’t recall seeing this point raised, so maybe I’m mistaken in my familiarity with the verses. I’d be happy to hear refutations or explanations.

Maybe, as Rabbi Michi wrote (it seems he meant it sarcastically, but I think it’s true), the enemies were bad and wicked. We defended ourselves from them, and when you win, you try to make “the land had rest” for a long time.
So our actions are justified within the framework of the good defending itself.
But why were they so cruel to us? After all, we are not interested in doing them harm, however much they may be our enemies.

* defended ourselves

All the acts of slaughter and murder in the Middle East stem from one single cause: the climate crisis, which causes unbearable heat in the desert region. The terrible heat leads people to violent behavior.

Accordingly, our prime minister did well to leave the heated budget discussions in the Knesset and go to cool Glasgow to solve the climate crisis. Once the climate crisis is solved, everyone will be calm.

Sincerely,
Louvingarta Shamshonberg

Trying to Explain,
You wrote that all the Jews’ wars were self-defense. But here, for example, are the cases of Moab and Edom. David conquered Moab and did some measuring with ropes to decide who would live and who would die. There is no justification of provocation in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and David himself at one point entrusted his family to the protection of Moab. The Sages explain that the king of Moab killed David’s family, and therefore David killed many Moabites. That sounds almost like simply stretching out one’s hand into a raiding party. As for Edom, I don’t know at all what evil it did to Judah that they treated it with such exceptional harshness. The justifications that Israel did or did not have for harming neighboring peoples do not sound to me at all less compelling than the justifications that neighboring peoples did or did not have for harming Israel. All the more so, you can’t criticize them for rejoicing at Israel’s collapse (maybe you can according to pure morality, but that is a standard that was not demanded of Israel). “Moab is disgraced over Chemosh and has become a laughingstock too. Was not Israel a laughingstock to you… for whenever you spoke of him, you wagged your head.” Moab rejoiced because it saw revenge, and the prophets come down on it with full force for that.

Shatzal, I’d be glad, please, to hear your view on the matter itself. Why is there no criticism of Israel for its outward behavior the way there is criticism of the other nations for their behavior toward Israel? [A priori I can see several possible directions. A. There is such criticism — here and here and here. (The oath to the Gibeonites is not relevant here.) B. There is no criticism even though Israel sinned toward others in a way parallel to their sins toward it, because of reason X, namely such-and-such. C. There is no criticism because in this specific area of foreign relations Israel and Judah behaved exemplary. D. Israel is superior to the nations, and therefore it may devour them as it wishes, while they are forbidden to devour it.]

With God’s help, eve of the new month of Kislev 5782

To Tirgitz — greetings,

You are invited to look at Psalm 83 about the “evil neighbors” of the Jewish people: “the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites, Gebal and Ammon and Amalek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre,” who “said: Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more.”

From then until today, the Jewish people are the only nation among the nations whom people want to destroy. The war against the Jewish people is not merely a war of conquest, but an ideological struggle against the people who bear the name of God and challenge the idol-worshipers and their culture, and that apparently enrages them to the point of destruction, so they treat the children of Israel with cruelty far greater than their natural cruelty.

So when they “overflow the measure,” we do not have to be suckers or pushovers.

Regards,
Gerhard Johann Halevi Ernman-Tonberg