The Movement for Reform Judaism

Most Israelis are agonizing over how to defend themselves against terrorists without giving up on traditional Jewish values that affirm the sanctity of all human life and teach humane conduct in all situations. Hence the many conferences, articles and television programs about the issue. Last Tuesday night the producers of the popular TV magazine Politika assembled a group of Israelis to discuss the matter again.

The first to speak was Professor Asa Kasher, the ethicist of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), who recently headed a committee that updated the code that guides the military in Israel. The update was an attempt to teach conduct in the face of the intifada. Realizing that normal rules of war may not apply when fighting guerillas, the IDF nevertheless wanted to enable its officers and soldiers to act as ethically as circumstances permit.

A couple of panelists found it difficult to see how one could act morally under conditions of occupation. They feared that the ethicist’s guidelines would become a kind of fig leaf for indiscriminate IDF action. Others believed that even in the face of guerilla war there are moral principles that could and should be observed, even though they might differ from ordinary rules of engagement.

A mother who lost a son to terrorists brought his photograph to the studio and argued along the lines that only harsh military action on the part of Israel could prevent other mothers losing their children. There is a view in the country that, when fighting for one’s very existence, moral rules become a luxury Israelis can ill afford.

Unfortunately, people who make this point are not necessarily prepared to admit that the other side may want to live by similar uncompromising principles. Nor are they aware of the many pronouncements by Muslim leaders that mirror the Jewish concern for life and dignity of friend and foe alike.

But the most moving statement came from a participant whose wife and two children were killed by Palestinian intruders. He admitted that, had the IDF known where the killers were hiding, he would expect it to go after them, whatever the circumstances. He also suggested that if the IDF knows of an impending Palestinian attack, the would-be perpetrators must be eliminated before they commit their deed. However, he refused to endorse attacks that targeted Palestinians not involved in such actions. “The fact that animals killed my family is no reason why I and other Israelis should be turned into animals.”

The grieving man’s reflections go to the root of the matter. Though virtually all Israelis will agree that those who have committed acts of terror must be punished and that potential assassins must be stopped at all cost, the general punitive actions in which the IDF sometimes engages are against Jewish values and, therefore, ultimately damaging to the interests of Israel.

There still remains the question as to how to discern one type of action from another and also how to avoid hitting children who choose to stand with the gunmen, or a commandeered to do so. Nevertheless, the principle of not causing unnecessary hurt and damage should be maintained, even if it is not always clear what is necessary and what is not and even if it may harm some tactical objective.

Many Israelis have served as soldiers in the territories and, therefore, know what they are talking about. That most of them nevertheless are concerned with moral issues in this seemingly impossible situation is a reflection of the health and sanity of Israeli society.

Blanket condemnations of Israel we often see in foreign media don’t do justice to the people. Many, perhaps most, Israelis are deeply troubled by the situation in which they find themselves, morally much more than militarily.

They know that the way out means the end of occupation, but they also know that unilateral withdrawal may not be the answer. As this would mean cutting off utilities and preventing Palestinian workers to enter Israel, many Israelis are aware of the additional hardships that this will impose on the citizens of Gaza. They question, therefore, the morality of a possible withdrawal, whether or not it is militarily to Israel’s advantage.

But most also believe that, to date, no credible partner has been found with whom to negotiate the withdrawal. That this is more of a problem for Palestinians, who are condemned to poverty and privation under their present corrupt and chaotic regime, is no comfort to Israelis. Israelis still hope against hope that, somehow, the Palestinian Authority will be able to take control of Gaza and so provide for its citizens. And if it succeeds, the West Bank may also be available soon, even if it will force Israel to remove many of the settlements there, as it will remove those in Gaza.

What is obvious, though, is that ostensibly simple solutions, even when proposed by well-meaning outsiders, serve more to assuage the conscience of those who propose them than to advance the peace and welfare of the parties involved. Each time I meet with members of well meaning delegations from abroad I try to convey that to them. Most are not willing to listen.

Yet, to help to advance both peace and welfare, the world must learn to listen to voices of sanity and to support them. What people in the region seem to need is more understanding and less advice.

Jerusalem, March 10, 2004 
Rabbi Dow Marmur 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed