The Ethics of War

From the IDF website: https://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/information/background/content.htm

“Who serves in the army?

Israel is unique in that military service is compulsory for both males and females. It is the only country in the world that maintains obligatory military service for women. This continues the tradition of female fighters during Israel's War of Independence. Males serve for three years and females for just less than two years. Israel also has one of the highest recruitment rates in the world - some 80% of those who receive summons serve. Those who are exempt from service include most minority groups, those who are not physically or psychologically fit, married women or women with children, religious males who are studying in an accredited Jewish Law institution and religious females who choose to pursue 'national service' - community work.”

FROM POWER, WAR AND PEACE IN JEWISH TRADITION

BY DAVID M. ELCOTT

VIII. FIRST ENCOUNTERS OF THE VIOLENT KIND

The Torah offers great insight into the creation of the universe and the life, which inhabits it. At the end of creation, human beings me formed and given extraordinary intrinsic value:

And God created a human (being) in (God's) image. In the divine image God created the human...

And God saw all that (God) had made, and found it very good.

(Genesis: 27, 31)

If humanity is Godlike, then to take a life is in some way an attack on God. We see that clearly in God's response to Cain after murdering Abel, his brother:

Then God said: What have you done? Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground! Therefore, you shall be more cursed that the ground which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

(Genesis 4: 10-11)

Later, after the great Flood which should have wiped out all evil in the world, a fundamental Jewish principle seems to be stated:

Whoever sheds the blood of a human being By human beings shall his blood be shed; For in the divine image did God make humanity

(Genesis 9: 6)

From this view the rabbis could make the claim that one who destroys a single individual is as if that person destroyed the whole world (Sanhedrin 4:5).

Unfortunately for us all, although the principle seems clearly stated, human beings persist in following the behavior of the ancestor Cain. In spite of God's words, they are not very good listeners.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. What do you think the rabbis meant when they said, "One who spills blood is as if that person has diminished the divine image.”? (Mekhilta Shemot 20: 13)'1

2. There is a paradox in the Torah's response to murder. According to Genesis 9:6 after the Flood, the response to murder is to kill the murderer. How can the Torah justify killing the murderer if killing another person is forbidden'?

IX. THE BIBLE LOOKS AT WAR

There seems to be such clear and unequivocal value placed on human life. A part of each human being is Godlike and to murder one human being is to destroy the world. Even though we know from the Bible that the Israelites fought wars, we should wonder how war could ever be sanctioned. The Torah does not answer this question directly but sets rules for how war shall be fought.

To get a sense of Jewish views on war, we generally begin with the rules of warfare found in the Torah. Below are the central biblical statements about war and its limits. The text is found in the first eighteen verses of chapter 20 from the Book of Deuteronomy.

SECTION 1

When you take the field against your enemies and see the horses and chariots-forces larger than yours-shave no fear of them, for the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt, is with you. Before you engage in battle, the priest shall come forward and address the troops. He shall say to them, "Hear, O Israel, You are about to join battle with your enemy. Let not your courage falter. Do not be in panic, or in dread of them. For it is the Lord your God who marches with you to do battle for you against your enemy, to bring you victory."

(Deuteronomy 20: 1-4)

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. According to the opening paragraph, war is not a secular (non-religious activity). We are told to fight with God on our side. Can you make an argument in favor of the priest's proclamation to the Israelite soldiers? Can you make an argument against having the priest say those words?

2. Do you think that Israeli soldiers fighting for Israel should see themselves as doing a mitzvah? How about Jewish-American soldiers who would fight in the Persian Gulf?

3. Can war (and the killing that goes with it) be a mitzvah'!

SECTION 2

Based on our initial reading, we sense a potential contradiction with these new texts about war. We could presume that war is a great and absolute virtue-we do God's will when we fight alongside God. Nothing should be allowed to get in the way of doing God's will when we fight in God's name. Yet we can deduce from the next paragraph that there are multiple values in the Torah. There is a limitation on who should fight and when he should be obligated to fight. The next section offers a provision for a man to receive an exemption from fighting a war even if the war is in the name of God:

Then the officials shall address the troops as follows: "Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another dedicate it. Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another will initiate it. Is there anyone who has spoken for a woman in marriage but who has not yet married her? Let him go back to his home lest he die in battle and another marry her."

The official shall go on addressing the troops and say, "Is there anyone afraid and disheartened? Let him go back to his home, lest the courage of his comrades be less because of him." When the officials have finished addressing the troops, army commanders shall assume command of the troops.

(Deuteronomy 20:5-t)

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. The Torah lists exemptions for a number of individuals. In essence, the Torah claims that there are values even more important than fighting a war in the name of God. Can you list the values we infer from the paragraph just read?

2. Is there a common denominator for the exemptions?

3. Can you deduce a rationale for the exemptions?

4. What would be comparable exemptions today?

5. Do you think that exemptions which provide that some people fight while others do not is fair and democratic?

SECTION 3

We now enter a very problematic text for us. To do so, we will not only read the Torah itself, but we will also examine some responses of the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud as well as some of the medieval commentators who lived far away from Eretz Israel and political freedom. We do this not to give you an answer, but to help us understand how different generations of our people read the very same text we are studying. Through this process, we can sit at the same table as great Jewish leaders and thinkers of the past 2,500 years and participate in a discussion and analysis of Jewish views toward war.

Rather than attempt an explanation in advance, I would like you to read the following verses exactly as they are written in the Torah.

When you approach a town to attack it...if it does not surrender to you, but would join in battle with you, you shall lay siege to it; and when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, children, the livestock and everything in the town-wall its spoils-rand enjoy the use of the spoils of your enemy which the Lord your God gives you. Thus shall you deal with all the towns that lie very far from you, towns that do not belong to the nations close by.

(Deuteronomy 20:12-16)

There are many questions we would want answered before we could respond to this paragraph. What type of war is this? Why did they have to fight? Who started the fighting? What happens if the besieged city refuses to fight? What difference does it make if the city is very far away or if it is close by?

X. _ NOT ALL WARS ARE THE SAME

We already have a hint that the Bible distinguishes between different types of wars between nations in the same way it distinguishes between different types of violence against individuals (we distinguish between homicide, manslaughter, self-defense killing, and state- sanctioned capital punishment). Wars may look the same, but whether or not they are "right" is a question that remains as real for us today in America as it did for the Israelites 3,000 years ago.

There are two general categories of warfare that the rabbis and later commentators find based on reading the Bible:

MILHEMET MITZVAH

• translates: a war of mitzvah; a commanded war ordained by God in the Torah

• ordained by God in the Torah

• protects the physical and spiritual survival of Jews

• everyone must fight

• can be called by a king or president or general

MILHEMET RESHUT

• translates: a discretionary war

• a voluntary war limited by the Torah

• allows for expansion or increased power or booty (oil, land, power, influence)

• exemptions for soldiers can be called by a king or president or general

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Before we look at the commentators' views, can you give an example (either from history or a hypothetical case) of a Milhemet Mitzvah'!

2. Can you give an example of a Milhemet Reshutt

3. Does everyone else agree with your examples? Can we always know the difference?

XI. HOW CAN WAR EVER BE A MITZVAH?

When we think of Hitler, we know in our gut that killing him was the right thing to do. We might claim that the other officers of the Nazi Third Reich needed to die as well. We probably would have few moral qualms about the deaths of members of the SS who so cruelly butchered Jews in Eastern Europe. But then we may wonder about the common foot soldier who was drafted into the army. And how about the women and children who lived in the towns firebombed by the Allies? Considering how other people murdered Jews in the name of their gods, it is all right that we have some nervousness over anyone who tells us that war is a mitzvah, Just the same, if we are going to take power into our hands-vas Jews connected with Israel and as Jewish citizens of the United States or Canada-we cannot run away from the moral dilemmas of war.

It is generally agreed in Jewish sources that there are three types of commanded wars-- Milhemet Mitzvah- in the Torah. You may even know the biblical stories that describe those wars:

1) Joshua's war of conquest against the seven nations who lived in Eretz Israel:

"Then Joshua conquered the whole country… he let none escape, but cut down everything that breathed, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded (Joshua 10:40).

2) The war against the nation of Amalek: "The Lord will be at war with Amalek forever, throughout the generations (Exodus 17:16).

3) A defensive war against an already launched attack.

The first category of Milhemet Mitzvah sounds like most other wars of conquest in world history-to conquer land and take power, any brutality is allowed. The Torah gives a reason for such violence when it claims that Joshua must annihilate the inhabitants, "Lest they lead you into doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods" (Deuteronomy 20: 18).

The second category is clearer. When the Israelites were in the Sinai desert, the Amalekites attacked them from behind, purposely killing the vulnerable women and children. The name Amalek soon became a synonym for evil incarnate, the eternal enemy who will use any means to try and destroy the Jewish people.

The third category is derived more from logic than any specific text in the Torah. Self- defense, if clearly proven, is always a legitimate defense. The traditional view, developed in an age of very slow, foot soldier wars, is that a defensive war is a mitzvah if it is fought against an already launched attack.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. The Torah is afraid for the religiously weak Israelites when they enter the pagan world of Eretz Israel. (We may want to think in terms of drug dealers giving free drugs in grade school.) What, if anything, would you consider to be so evil and abhorrent that you could justify a war (or capital punishment, for that matter)'!

2. The second and third category seem similar since the Israelites in the desert had to fight the Amalekites in self-defense. But the Torah commands that the war with Amalek will continue forever until every Amalekite is dead. How can we justify attacking the next generation? (You can see how the Bible deals with this. Check out the Book of Samuel J, chapter 15 and the Book of Esther, chapter 3.)

3. Many peoples have waged holy civil wars. Can a Jew wage a Milhemet Mitzvah against another Jew?

XII. EVEN THE BIBLE AND THE RABBIS HAD A PROBLEM

We often think that being a religious leader means that you believe everything in the Bible and follow all the rules. Well, sometimes those who love Torah a great deal are troubled by the text. If you were unhappy with the command to kill every Amalekite or to wipe out the Canaanite women and children, you are in good company. The Bible itself tells us that the policy of genocide was never implemented. In Chronicles 1I (8:7-8), a history of the Jewish people in biblical times, it is clearly stated that there were Canaanites left who worked for King Solomon and were still pagans.

In the Talmud, the rabbis note that the seven condemned pagan nations have been scattered by repeated conquest (B. Yoma 54a). By the time we reach the famous legal work called the Mishnah Torah, Maimonides states that the original inhabitants of Canaan (the nations Israel is commanded to destroy) no longer exist. Furthermore, the Millhemet Mitzvah against the seven Canaanite cannot be applied to any other nation or people, even if they inhabit Eretz Israel (Hilkhot Melakhim 5:4). The second category of mandatory wars, that of the war to the death against the Amalekites, was rendered harmless by claiming they no longer exist or that God will fight them directly in messianic times (B. Yoma 54a).

In other words, our tradition did not deny the authenticity of the original command to destroy the seven Canaanite tribes that occupied Eretz Israel as well as the Amalekites, but denied the right of Jews to use those commands to ever attack any other people.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Why do you think the rabbis prohibited genocide as an option for offensive war?

2. If the rabbis found the notion of genocide offensive, why did they not claim that genocide is evil and unethical and simply prohibit it?

XIII. SO WHAT'S LEFT TO FIGHT ABOUT?

Although the Torah has God commanding Joshua to wipe out every man, woman, and child from among the seven nations, we now know that this did not happen. By the time of the rabbis, the first two categories of Milhemet Mitzvah--against the seven nations and against the Amalekites--are no longer considered applicable. That leaves only a defensive war as a basis for a Milhemet Mitzvah, a war you are obligated to fight. Of course, there still is the category of Milhemet Reshut, a discretionary war fought for power, territory or wealth. Let us move to distinguish between them.

We can begin our investigation with two events in the life of David, the great hero king of Israel and from whom, tradition holds, the messiah will descend.

CASE I

David was told: "The Philistines are raiding Keilah and plundering the threshing floors" ... David and his men went to Keilah and fought against the Philistines, he drove off their cattle and inflicted a severe defeat on them. Thus David saved the inhabitants of Keilah (I Samuel 23: 1-5).

CASE II

At the turn of the year, the season when kings go out (to battle), David sent Joab with his officers and all Israel with him, and they devastated Ammon and besieged Rabbah., (Then) David mustered all the troops and marched on Rabbah, and he attacked it and captured it. The crown was taken from the head of their kings and it was placed on David's head ... He also carried off a vast amount of booty from the city (II Samuel 11: 1; 12:29-30)

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. What criteria make the first case, the defense of the Judean (a section of Israel) town of Keilah, clearly a Milhemet Mitzvah?

2. What statements in the text of the second case indicate that David's conquest of Rabbah was a Milhemet Reshut?

3. Based on our earlier discussion of Jews, Judaism and power, do we have a convincing argument that David's behavior was properly Jewish in fighting the Philistines? What about in conquering Rabbah?

Scholars of the Medieval period argued strenuously over exactly such issues. They were debating what we today call a preemptive attack (an attack in anticipation of being attacked by your enemy). They did not agree whether a preemptive attack was a Milhemet Reshut or a Milhemet Mitzvah. Read the discussion based on the Torah text in the middle (see page 19)…

XV. MILHEMET RESHUT: A DISCRETIONARY WAR

Up until now, we have avoided the case of a Milhemet Reshut. Our first reaction to a Milhemet Reshut, perhaps conditioned by our long history of powerlessness and United States' experience in Vietnam, may be very negative. Why fight a war if you are not under the threat of military attack? We should be able to imagine some cases where, at least, a discussion about the value of fighting a war could be legitimate. Here is a partial list.

• In a non-military attempt to hurt us, another nation could prevent us from receiving or buying natural resources critical to our defense.

• An enemy closes the only shipping route or forces the price so high that our economy would collapse.

• A neighboring nation diverts the water supply so that you would have no water resources, causing drought.

• Citizens of our nation are captured as hostages or brutally attacked by another nation.

• A national border was determined by a victorious foreign power. Decades later the nation fights to readjust that border.

• A nation declares war to protect an ally even though it may not directly be for self-defense.

• Your country is landlocked and has no outlet to the sea so you fight to readjust the border and gain a port.

• Refugees from your neighbors are pouring into your country and you need more space for them to live.

As you read the cases listed, you probably could think of a number of real life situations that match the circumstances described. If not, ask around and see if others recognized these cases.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. What is your gut reaction to the cases listed above? Do any of them warrant fighting about?

2. Can you make a case against your gut reaction?

3. In cases such as those listed above, who should make the decision to fight?

“Ruach Tzahal” , the values of the Israel Defense Forces

https://www.idfinfo.co.il/about/idf/

“Ruach Tzahal (Literally, 'Spirit of the IDF') represents the values of the Israel Defense Forces and stands as the foundation for the responsibilities of Israel's army. This overarching ethical code, and the guidelines and operation resulting from it, shape the mode of action applied by all IDF soldiers and units, both in peace and at war.

During basic training, every IDF soldier studies and analyzes the code of ethics together with their commanders. It is customary for a framed copy of the code to be hung in every commanders office as a constant reminder of the IDF's values and guidelines.

Stated Values of the IDF

RUACH TZAHAL (רוח צה”ל)

The document defines three core values for all IDF soldiers to follow, as well as ten secondary values (the first being most important, and the others appearing sorted in Hebrew alphabetical order):

Core values

• Defense of the State, its Citizens and its Residents – “The IDF’s goal is to defend the existence of the State of Israel, its independence and the security of the citizens and residents of the state.”

• Love of the Homeland and Loyalty to the Country – “At the core of service in the IDF stand the love of the homeland and the commitment and devotion to the State of Israel-a democratic state that serves as a national home for the Jewish People-its citizens and residents.”

• Human Dignity – “The IDF and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.”

Other Values

• Tenacity of Purpose in Performing Missions and Drive to Victory – “The IDF servicemen and women will fight and conduct themselves with courage in the face of all dangers and obstacles; They will persevere in their missions resolutely and thoughtfully even to the point of endangering their lives.”

• Responsibility – “The IDF servicemen or women will see themselves as active participants in the defense of the state, its citizens and residents. They will carry out their duties at all times with initiative, involvement and diligence with common sense and within the framework of their authority, while prepared to bear responsibility for their conduct.”

• Credibility – “The IDF servicemen and women shall present things objectively, completely and precisely, in planning, performing and reporting. They will act in such a manner that their peers and commanders can rely upon them in performing their tasks.”

• Personal Example – “The IDF servicemen and women will comport themselves as required of them, and will demand of themselves as they demand of others, out of recognition of their ability and responsibility within the military and without to serve as a deserving role model.”

• Human Life – “The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission.”

• Purity of Arms – “The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.”

• Professionalism – “The IDF servicemen and women will acquire the professional knowledge and skills required to perform their tasks, and will implement them while striving continuously to perfect their personal and collective achievements.”

• Discipline – “The IDF servicemen and women will strive to the best of their ability to fully and successfully complete all that is required of them according to orders and their spirit. IDF soldiers will be meticulous in giving only lawful orders, and shall refrain from obeying blatantly illegal orders.”

• Comradeship – “The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives.”

• Sense of Mission – “The IDF soldiers view their service in the IDF as a mission; They will be ready to give their all in order to defend the state, its citizens and residents. This is due to the fact that they are representatives of the IDF who act on the basis and in the framework of the authority given to them in accordance with IDF orders.”

https://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/information/background/content.htm#principles

“Guiding Principles of the IDF”

“The Israeli army has a strong ethical and moral code based on the laws and institutions of the State of Israel, the traditions of the Jewish people and democratic principles. The army guarantees basic rights for its soldiers and maintains a level of morality in the conduct of war and military operations. For example, during training, the army has a commitment to guarantee a minimum of six hours sleep a night for soldiers and seven hours before soldiers undertake a combat operation, grant regular breaks to soldiers, guaranteed meals with a minimum diet and to provide clothes and housing.

Soldiers also have certain obligations. The first is the concept of 'personal example.' Being in uniform means that the soldier is a representative of the army and State and therefore both soldiers and officers are expected to set a 'personal example' by obeying the law of the land, appearing in orderly dress and not causing any public disturbance. The military police have the right to caution and even arrest any soldier deemed behaving inappropriately. The concept of 'personal example also extends to the battlefield. An officer is always expected to lead from the front. The famous cry of the officer is "aharai", after me. The fact that senior officers take frontline combat positions means Israel suffers, proportionately the highest officer to soldier casualty rate in the world. However, the IDF believes that leading by examples increases respect for the officer corps and instills greater motivation among soldiers. Soldiers are trained to take over command in a situation where an officer is killed or injured.

A second obligation is the concept of comradeship. A soldier is expected to risk his life for his fellow soldier by not deserting wounded on the battlefield. The army believes this is a vital principle to instill trust among soldiers and strengthen the sense of mission and team.

Thirdly, to avoid politicization of the army, soldiers must obtain prior permission before every public appearance. Soldiers are not allowed to accept personal gifts as a result of position, rank or status from anyone inside or outside Israel. In cases where soldiers or officers break these principles, be it in war or peacetime, military courts have the power to try and reprimand.

Fourthly, there is an important concept of professionalism. Every soldier is expected to train in a particular course, be it pilot training, snippering or cooking in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to perform a meaningful task. Officers above the rank of Lieutenant Colonel have to have studied for a BA and in fact the majority of officers at that rank already have a Masters degree.

Asa Kasher, ”Opinion: I Wrote the IDF Code of Ethics – Here’s my Take on the Hebron Shooting,” The Forward, April 6, 2016, http://forward.com/opinion/337841/i-wrote-the-idf-code-of-ethics-heres-my-take-on-the-hebron-shooting/

“Israeli public debate is focused these days on a seemingly simple incident: In Hebron, two Palestinian terrorists attacked a team of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, managing to stab one of them before they themselves were shot. One terrorist was killed and the other injured. The latter was lying on the road when a soldier arrived, observed the scene and, without being commanded to do so, shot the terrorist once in the head. An autopsy, performed by Israeli forensic doctors in the presence of a Palestinian forensic doctor, revealed that that last shot was what killed the terrorist.

For more than 20 years now, I have been active in studying the military ethics of the IDF and in writing related documents such as the 1994 IDF Code of Ethics. I would like to make a few observations about the incident from that perspective.

The first thing to note is that the incident was immediately reported to the relevant IDF commanders, who at once conducted their routine debriefings. The professional military investigation was repeated several times along the chain of command, from the platoon and battalion level, through the brigade and division level, to the chief of staff. They all reached the conclusion that what the soldier had done was utterly wrong, in stark violation of commands, Rules of Engagement and the values specified in the “Spirit of the IDF,” the code of ethics that requires respect for human dignity (and especially human life) and restraint of force (or “purity of arms,” as it’s called in Hebrew).

At the core of military ethics in a democracy — whether it’s the United States, United Kingdom, Canada or Israel — you find two principles manifest in all doctrines, procedures, ROEs and commands. First, the right and duty of self-defense. A person and a state have the right to defend themselves when they are in jeopardy caused by unlawful activities of criminals or enemies. Plus, a democratic state has a duty to effectively defend its citizens when they are in such jeopardy. Second, every act of the state, including acts taken on its behalf by police or military, ought to show respect for human dignity. This means that compelling justification is needed for any significant interference in a person’s situation.

Killing a person is a last resort in self-defense and it ought to be confined to circumstances of necessity. It is ethically, morally and legally wrong to kill a person if it is not a necessary step of self-defense.

The soldier in Hebron killed a terrorist, but what he did was not a necessary step of self-defense. It was not a step of self-defense at all.

The military investigation found that before the soldier shot the terrorist, he said that the terrorist had injured an IDF comrade and therefore ought to be killed. Such reasoning is utterly wrong, whether it is meant to justify retaliation, punishment, deterrence or what have you.

The circumstances of the Hebron incident have often been misunderstood. Yes, the terrorist was an enemy, but soldiers are required to treat a terrorist wielding a knife as a criminal, not as an enemy in a battlefield. The terrorist’s attempt to kill or injure ought to be foiled, but killing him is sanctioned only if there is no effective alternative — only if it’s a last resort.

Nevertheless, the minister of internal security, several members of the Knesset and many participants in public debates took another view of the circumstances: Anyone who intends to kill or injure Jews as an act of jihad should know that he or she won’t come out alive. This is a wrong and pernicious view. Major General Eizenkot, the IDF chief of staff, correctly said a while ago that there is no justification for emptying a magazine on a girl holding scissors she intends to use against some Jewish passerby. Even an injured enemy combatant who has just killed your comrades ought to be captured and then appropriately treated, because he no longer endangers anybody’s life and he is a person whose human dignity should now be protected by ordinary means. We don’t kill POWs, who are enemy professional combatants; all the more so, we don’t kill terrorists once they’ve been rendered harmless.

The public debate that followed the Hebron incident spotlighted two aspects of life in Israel that should not be ignored.

First, most of the Israeli public became aware of the Hebron incident by watching a video produced by a Palestinian photographer working with the radical left organization B’Tselem. This immediately created a wrong impression: that the soldier had been condemned by the IDF chief of staff and the minister of defense solely on the grounds of a piece of radical left propaganda. The mistaken idea that an NGO that has often cooperated with enemies of Israel in international campaigns against the IDF could play a role in forming the views of the head of the IDF and minister of defense enraged many Israelis, not just those on the extreme right. The political tensions within Israeli society are strong and significant, but their manifestation often rests on mistakes and misunderstandings, coming out noisy and crude.

Second, public debate in Israel has for a while now been an arena of vitriolic political clashes instead of a theater of ordinary exchange on political matters. Israeli politicians, and therefore the media and the public as well, act as if we are in an election period, though we are not. The inclination to make every incident into the subject of a quarrel, the tendency to use harsh language in portrayals of political opponents and their views, and the resort to rude, irresponsible and even irrational expressions in every social network are all unhealthy. It is the duty of state leaders to get rid of them.

This tumult may give the impression that something has gone astray in the ethical fabric of Israeli society and even within the IDF. That impression is false. No one incident, grave as it may be, indicates a widespread weakness. The IDF and many other parts of Israeli society are morally strong and resilient; they will overcome terrorist activities, on the one hand, and marginal failures to maintain high ethical standards, on the other.

Asa Kasher is Laura Schwarz-Kipp Professor Emeritus of Professional Ethics and Philosophy of Practice at Tel Aviv University, and Professor of Philosophy at Shalem Academic Center in Jerusalem. He led the writing of the IDF’s code of ethics, and won the Israel Prize in General Philosophy in 2000.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.”