here is the link or click on the title (video is fuzzy for a few seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seoAh8yJKLw
With the humanitarian uproar following the Gaza strike, one must wonder where the Israeli/Jewish moral tradition stands on this issue. This post acknowledges the Israeli's conflict with morality and war in Gaza; Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman analyses the justification for the Israeli strike:
There are two kinds of wars:
A war of self-defense
Israel claims their war falls into this category because of the rockets Hamas had been launching into Southern Israel
is a moral war
A war of agression
is an immoral war
The issue with the war in Gaza:
although it is a moral war, the question is whether it can be fought on moral terms
A war can only be fought on moral terms when those attacked are "those who actively engage in threatening you or your society" (do not involve the civilian population).
The great challenge:
with Hamas, it is "impossible to surgically attack the combatants alone"
Dr. Hartman notes that Hamas uses the population as a human shield
Reaction to this challenge:
Dr. Hartman acknowledges that these casualties are unacceptable and challenges the "Israeli moral story and moral vision".
I'd like to note that popular, anti-Israel comparisons between their war activities in Gaza and Nazi war activities (or other undesired metaphors) may strike at the heart of this insecurity. Can they now claim a moral high ground? Following the Gaza strike, have they lost their moral credibility?
Dr. Hartman concludes by saying that the war on Gaza is a war of self-defense (and thus a moral war). Although there is difficulty in fighting this war on moral terms, Israelis still have a right to protect itself. At the end, Dr. Hartman summarizes it as a battle against the immoral (terrorists), where those with moral standards must be able to survive. That civilians must be involved is "the tragedy of terrorism".
Perhaps I could elaborate on my reaction to Dr. Hartman's statements:
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that he acknowledges the number of casualties, as a result of Israeli's actions, as challenging Israel's moral story. However, a question I'd like to ask Dr. Hartman is how they can continue to defend their moral story while at the same time committing humanitarian crimes? At this point, I reference a scene in "The Lemon Tree" describing an Arab woman being interrogated and a stick being shoved up her vagina. It's a gruesome scene to recall, but that makes my question all the more pertinent.
In summary, I'd like to know how these actions effect the Israeli moral high ground? Following the Gaza strike, have they lost/lost more of their moral credibility?
I suppose those questions depend on perspective. I do understand that most of us are seemingly pro-Palestine, but if we, for one second, could take the pro-Israel position... how would we reply? How would we justify these atrocities? Would we stick to our moral high ground by denouncing these atrocities? Would we deny them all together?
one thing we might say is this an 'exceptional' situation. That because the nation is at risk of destruction (the Israelis are always worried about that--the whole Massada complex thing) we HAVE to do this. Some interesting books that talk about how this logic works is State of Exception by Agamben and Sacred Violence by Kahn.
ReplyDelete