Q&A: Abortions and Harm to Uninvolved Civilians in Gaza
Abortions and Harm to Uninvolved Civilians in Gaza
Question
On the one hand, you argue that it is forbidden under any circumstances to kill a doubtful living being whose status as a living creature is itself disputed—that is, even if it has severe disabilities and will cause great suffering to its parents (in most cases only to its mother), to its surroundings, and even to itself. And even though it is not fully alive, it is still forbidden to kill it. On the other hand, you support military actions that kill tens of thousands of civilians, even though it is clear that no other lives will necessarily die otherwise (I’m not buying this spin that thousands of Israeli civilians will die in the future). You also do not support a hostage deal that would save living civilians, and instead prefer a glorious victory over that (in my opinion it will be a glorious failure, but that’s a separate discussion). In short, I’d appreciate some clarification regarding the sanctity of life and the value of life in your view: when does the value of life (in the case of a fetus, a doubtful life) prevail, and when does it not?
Answer
I wanted to say that this is far too general a question, but it would be more accurate to say that I don’t see any question here at all. If you want to ask something focused, please formulate it clearly. I’ll only add that a request for an encyclopedic entry on a certain topic is not a question and will not be answered.
Discussion on Answer
I asked you to formulate a focused question. The only question asked here is whether I think that… My answer: no. You should improve your analogies. At the moment they are in a sorry state.
I’ll try one last time. Your main argument against abortions is that the fetus is considered alive, and the value of the fetus’s life overrides the convenience of the mother and her surroundings, even if the price is the destruction of the private lives of the mother and the fetus itself—and all this when we’re talking about a fetus that even you admit is not fully alive (which is why you are lenient in a case of rape). On the other hand, you oppose a deal that would release living, unharmed hostages, and it is clear to you that if there is no deal they will all die, even though if you look at the lives that will be lost later as a result of the deal, they will in all likelihood be far fewer numerically. So I ask again: when does the value of an individual life override other considerations, and when does it not? Because I assume that you too agree that in a deal we could save many more lives than without a deal, which at most would bring us national honor or things of that sort.
You still can’t get past the barrier. A foolish analogy that you repeat again and again without managing to improve it.
The comparison between the value of a baby’s life and the lives of the hostages is a very small part of the picture. The question is what stands against it. You invented arguments about national honor out of your fevered imagination, and with that you think you’ve closed the comparison? Are you serious?
In a deal we will not be able to save anything. First, because Hamas agrees to no deal. These deals exist only in the psychotic imagination of the Kaplanist protesters. And even if it did agree, it would be only at a price we must not pay: many lives and loss of territory. And it also isn’t giving us even the slightest hint who is alive and who is dead, and because of the hysterical and self-destructive demonstrations of these days, there’s a good chance we’ll end up with many more bodies.
So no, there isn’t the slightest shred of connection between the two sides of the ridiculous comparison you made. But that is probably part of the same psychosis I’ve been writing about. A systemic madness that causes people’s brains to shut down.
Again with this crude lie from Channel 14. I’m surprised the Rabbi fell for this disgusting lie whose entire purpose is to serve Netanyahu and Smotrich. There is a deal on the table in two stages, at the end of whose second stage there would indeed be a full withdrawal from Gaza—and that’s exactly the point: from the Right’s perspective, withdrawing from Gaza is like giving away the entire Land of Israel. If from your perspective a full withdrawal from Gaza would exact a price higher than the lives of the hostages, that’s a different matter, and that too can be debated. I was talking about the current proposal, in which we would indeed withdraw completely from Gaza and get all the hostages back, assuming most of them are alive (I hope), and assuming the price we pay for the withdrawal will not be higher. Besides, I understand that even under the current framework it would still be possible to enter Gaza from time to time afterward, just like in Ramallah and Shechem, and there too there are many armed men—the difference is just that they are less organized and don’t have battalions like in Gaza.
I’d be glad if the Rabbi would explain about that territory. As far as I know, the deal in question did not involve giving away the border kibbutzim or anything of that sort. It was about handing over an area we haven’t been in for 19 years. And regarding the north, I assume this deal is not connected to it at all, and meanwhile it seems that despite the war Hezbollah has already gotten the area even without a deal 😅.
I’m done. Talking to a wall is not among my current hobbies.
One more thing: if the goal really is the collapse of Hamas, then at the same time there should have been discussion of a governing alternative in Gaza. Since that isn’t happening, it looks more and more as though the goal is simply to continue the war indefinitely. In the end, when the state collapses, we’ll see whether your path was indeed the right one.
Don’t you think there’s a contradiction between the fact that you oppose the killing (murder, in your view of course) of a fetus, which you agree is not fully alive, and the fact that you don’t support saving living hostages and do support military actions that will kill thousands of civilians, even though the lives those actions will save (by not making a deal and by carrying out military operations) will not necessarily be numerous? And if we count all the lives of the soldiers, it comes out that overall we’re likely to save far more lives if we don’t wage war and do make a deal instead (including civilians in Gaza, hostages, and soldiers). My point is that for you the value of life is very flexible, and I’m trying to understand when you put it at the forefront of your considerations and when you do not.