Beyond his book, "Israeli Ethics," which has just been published by Keter, the recent period invites some dramatic events in the field of Prof. Asa Kasher.
For example, the interrogation of Nir Hefetz in Netanyahu's files, the exercise that was done to him, which may have taken the operating number of the NKVD - the Stalinist secret police in Moscow trials. In clear messages - "Your family will be destroyed" - his relatives were taken hostage.
"Conducting investigations is also a force," the 81-year-old minister clarified at the beginning of the conversation with him. "Suddenly he also involves their family? Brings his mother, his wife? It is out of the question. Do everything, without involving the family."
In his book, which is in fact a selection of articles and codes of ethics in key areas - military, government, politics, scientific research and academic activity - Kasher cites the police code of ethics.
"We, the police, will ensure reliability, hand hygiene and moral purity," it said, "and will act as we would expect them to act towards us in similar circumstances.
"Everything, except that."
Nir Hefetz // Photo: Oren Ben Hakon,
"There are limits," he states, "and they must not be crossed. Nor should they be crossed, in the name of the target service in question."
How do you differentiate between the event at the Nablus Gate last Saturday and the Elor Azaria event in Hebron? In your book you state decisively that Alor shot a terrorist who was not in danger.
"In the Azaria case, there were videos in which the terrorist was seen lying down, and the commanders, the company commander and others, were standing next to the terrorist lying on the ground.
Strong on them that if they thought he was dangerous - they would not stand there indifferent and talk on the cell phone.
On the other hand, in videos from the Nablus Gate, you see that the terrorist got up.
Although he was shot, he was lying on the floor, but he was trying to get up.
Do not know what the mental state of the police at that moment.
If they tell themselves that the man is still in danger - I have no complaints against them.
However, I believe we are not expressing ourselves in a way that helps us understand the matter.
We are talking about neutralizing the terrorist, instead of neutralizing the danger. "
So neutralization is basically a code to kill.
"This is how it turns out. But it's not true, and it should not be like that. There is a danger - you dispel it. We are used to talking about neutralizing the terrorist. It is pure language to kill him."
In your book you introduce a new element - the ethics of managing historical processes. Does the current government train enter this field?
"This is an ethical code of leadership under certain conditions. Our leadership is actually historical. We started in 1948, we declared the establishment of a state. We have established a state infrastructure that works well in some parts, and in other parts less well. But we are here. Of parties, right and left, there is no difference between them on this issue - the understanding that we are in the midst of a historical process has disappeared. "
"We got used to neutralizing."
Elor Azaria Photo: Gideon Markovich,
Practicality, not messianism
When a kosher talks about a historical process, he is talking right in the middle.
"We have not yet finished establishing the state, if it can be defined as such," he claims, "We do not fully understand what 'Jewish and democratic' is, what the role of the Supreme Court is within the institutional system, what the role of the military is.
"After all, the IDF does things that other armies in the world do not do. We have not finished formulating the identity of the state, which is also the unique identity of its institutions."
Isn't that the case in any democracy? USA, France. It's constantly evolving.
"But it evolves slowly, when there is a very strong base and you add shades to it.
We are at the beginning of the road.
The law of nationality defined for us what a Jewish state is.
I do not like it, because it lacks parts, such as an important part concerning civil rights. "
Then it had to be turned into a complete constitution.
"It should have been determined, just to be on the safe side, that civil rights cannot be denied in the name of the Nationality Law. That's all. But in practice, the courts will not let that happen."
You say that the word equality should not even have been used, but that the law of nationality does not have the power to deny civil rights?
"Yes. But the law of nationhood does define for us what a Jewish state is - the nation state of the Jewish people. It is a big step in the formation of identity. Now we understand: 'Jewish state' is not with a tendency to Orthodoxy, or a way of life that reminds us of a religious town Of the Jewish people, and it is responsible for the fate of the people. "
Still, there is some faction of the Muslim Brotherhood that is a crucial partner in the government.
"The test is the basic lines and the law. If someone breaks the law - his sentence is like that of a criminal. If the RAAM party does not follow the basic guidelines of the government - it will not be able to be a member of it.
But as long as they are loyal to the law and the guidelines, what do I care who they are? "
"The state is a tool."
Mansour Abbas // Photo: Gideon Markovich,
Do you not see the composition of the current government as a departure from the concept of a Jewish state?
"No. 29 November 47 'Haim Weizmann wrote in his diary,' Now we have a state. '
A country is a tool.
Let's see what women in it.
There will surely be exemplary behavior there - we need to show the world how a country behaves towards its minority.
In this we will be examined.
We will uphold the civil rights of each individual citizen.
And as a state, we will be responsible to the Jewish people, which does not include the Muslim citizens. "
You use terms like "the coveted situation," "exemplary society," "righteousness of the way." As if there is some final stop we will get to someday. Is not this messianism?
"Absolutely not. Not messianic. The business is very practical. It starts with Ben-Gurion. These words - an exemplary state, an exemplary society - these are Ben-Gurion's words. He said it was a moral matter: we must be an exemplary state. That is, if anyone in the world wants "To learn how to behave morally on a particular issue - at levels that a state deals with - he will be able to look at the State of Israel."
Do you not think that the issue of the territories is delaying the process? At the time, you wrote an article in the "Headline" that argued with Jean-Paul Sartre - whether you are allowed to be a terrorist when you are waging a just struggle.
"Every occupation has limits, moral and ethical. It is out of the question. I have written endlessly against Palestinian terrorism for the past decades."
Pre-adherence to life
Some will say that as long as we have military rule in Judea and Samaria - we are light years away from the same coveted state of Jewish and democratic idyll.
"There is no choice, one must distinguish between the State of Israel and territories controlled by the IDF.
The State of Israel can get as close to the desired situation as it wants.
There, in Judea and Samaria, it is an area that is under the control of the army under international law. The ruling law is Jordanian law, except for amendments made by Israel through the army. This is not a democratic regime. Is the Greater Israel part of the coveted picture?
That's another question.
The question is the regime, what kind of rule does the army maintain there. "
It's not exactly military because any Palestinian can go to the High Court
.
This is the idea, and it's a smart idea in my opinion, because it allows for a wide opening in all directions.
The army does not run this territory as if it does not belong to the State of Israel. "
The hottest topic in the field of ethical codes is the IDF. Or at the risk of the five soldiers who go out to retaliate?
"One of the values of the IDF and in every army, is the 'comradeship'. The bad. "Their lives. It does not mean that one will try to do something. No. We will solve the problem. Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas - who took care of him? The whole state of Israel. All the arms."
On the other hand, you say we need to get rid of the notion that kidnapping is a strategic event.
"True. The country does not enter a new situation after the abduction. There is a civilian or a soldier in the hands of the enemy, we want to get him out of there. We will not abandon him. But does that change the strategic picture? No."
"Intolerable publicity."
Gilad Shalit // Photo: Oded Karni,
The trigger for the Second Lebanon War is in fact a kidnapping.
"Second Lebanon was an application of a broad concept of self-defense. It's not that they threw a ping-pong ball at me and I now return. I have to destroy their will and ability to do it again. Defend, it means the enemy will not be able to attack again, and even "He will not want to do that. As for the captured soldiers, it was clear that they were not alive."
In the early days, the people of Israel were not sold dead, but abducted.
"Publicity for the return of hostages is really unbearable. She was in a time of rule, and also at the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War. It was clear to the professionals very quickly that there was no chance that the two fighters were alive."
Above the IDF's code of ethics hovers the spirit that human life is the supreme value. Is not this a disruption?
"Regarding the IDF, it is not true to say that human life is the supreme value. "My own life and the lives of my soldiers. So human life, in fact, comes in second place, but they have a special weight. There is no army in the world that puts the value of human life in its code of ethics - and we do. I'm very happy about that."
You cite Denmark as an example. It is not threatened by countless forces and missiles, and human life does not appear in its military code of ethics.
"We are not saying that human lives should be preserved and therefore less should be done - to protect civilians to a lesser extent, or to fight less. No. The risk to soldiers' lives does not mean that their lives are not interesting because they are endangered. "But all the time the commander must remember that an effort must be made to bring his soldiers home."
In the common soldier it creates dissonance. Because if I go out, as they once said, "capture the killers of Trumpeldor" - it contradicts the value of preserving human life.
"The ordinary soldier gets power from the current situation. The values say we care about him. Just because we sometimes send him into a dangerous situation, it does not mean that he is some kind of device of ours that can be given up. No, it is very important to us."
"Suicide must not be sent"
Kosher, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, is perhaps - more than any of his many degrees - the author of "IDF Spirit." To carry out an operation to rescue him? It is clear that in such an operation the abducted soldier will be in danger.
"The Israeli rule has always been - if there is a military option, it precedes negotiations," Kasher clarifies, "that is, rescue is the priority. In both Hannibal and the rescue, there is a certain danger of being abducted. "
There is a more extreme case. Antebe Operation. There were people who thought he was committing suicide. Or the first battalion to cross the canal in the Yom Kippur War.
"Let's differentiate between commanders and soldiers. If the commanders think it was a suicide operation - it must not be carried out. The soldiers think so? The commanders should explain to them that they are wrong, and that despite the danger, there is a good chance of leaving the operation. ".
In the end, the amount of casualties of the unit in battle is according to the professionalism of the commander, and not according to his level of morality. For example, the commander expressed before the Yom Kippur War in a way that I liked someone - was ousted. Eventually those who fought with him in '73 "earned", and he was eliminated from the division was destroyed.
"Such commander should realize the damage he causes .
Soldiers who hear such a statement, when they receive his order, will immediately wonder - where did this order come from?
Is this the IDF, or is it his ideological head? A soldier does not want to follow his commander's worldview, but will follow fire and water following IDF orders.
"Ofer Winter, who expressed himself in the style of religious wars, harmed himself as a commander."
The soldiers trust Winter's leadership and his personality as they trusted Aaron Peled's professionalism years ago.
"They trust his leadership because they trust him. But he puts noise into the framework of 'I can trust my commander.'"
Following the issue of treatment and the fear of abductions. You point out a case, in Gaza, that I do not think can be judged; A soldier recognizes a terrorist and probably also our fighter, who are in the same building, and shoots there. The psychological state of the warrior in battle is different. After all, every commander says: War is a realm of uncertainty.
"I am writing about this because it is a description that appears in the IDF that an officer received.
And the truth is that it was not as it is written in the IDF. I rummaged through the matter to find out exactly what happened. The fighter did not shoot to the place where both the terrorist and our soldier are. Wounded aside.
But the values still need to be maintained.
We will not be the ones who harm the lives of the soldiers. "
On the other side of Leibowitz
Kosher refutes the myth about the damage caused by the release of 1,027 "terrorists" in the Shalit deal.
"About 600 or 700 of those released were criminals, and sat in jail because they were thieves and robbers, not because they were terrorists. Among those who were linked to terrorism, the GSS knows how to segment the organizational affiliation and risk posed by the release of such a person.
It is true that there was a small proportion of terrorists who were released and returned to terrorism;
But these terrorists will not change the general level of danger posed to Israel by terrorists.
Why?
Because it is very low.
There are always enough people who are willing to murder Israelis.
The terrorist desire exists all the time, and the IDF and the GSS manage to suppress and thwart it.
The level of danger did not increase as a result of the Shalit deal. "
He said, "It is possible to achieve very good results in the fight against terrorism and not to violate international law. The truth is that we are world champions in this. We are causing the lowest level of killing non-terrorist civilians in the world."
Such statements do not spoil your relationship with certain factions on the left or in academia?
"The answer is yes. But I do not care. I will voice my professional opinions in any situation. The family of politically correct phenomena has created a situation where there are those who are considered saints, must not attack or say a bad word about them. I do not accept that. A terrorist is a terrorist and I am allowed "Condemn him and fight him. Palestinian? I have opinions on a division into two states, but he is certainly not a saint, and if he uses terrorism - I will fight him as terrorists should be fought."
You had the status of a protected intellectual, but somewhere you created an identity between yourself and the IDF and became a target for harm.
“I was protected by the same method;
I'm ours, so no need to attack me.
I do not need this protection and I do not respect it. "
When did this piece break, that you are already "not ours"?
"The year 2000. Terrorism of the second intifada. There it became stronger. And in 2003, my four or five articles with Amos Yadlin, made me unprotected. Even attacked. But I really do not care."
You even go against the oath of the IDF soldier, with the word "sacrifice.
" "The oath is an adaptation of the defense oath. They took the defense oath, changed a few words, and made it an IDF oath. Not by chance. They wanted the IDF to be seen as a continuation of the defense. Sacrifice can be praised, but you can not educate for sacrifice where there is compulsory service and reserve service. You can not send soldiers to sacrifice their lives, you can send them to take risks. I do not want 18-year-olds to be educated on an ideal of dying for the homeland. It is very bad to die, in all respects. "
On the other hand, he said," When the IDF and the GSS mark someone as dangerous - I trust them. Even when they say there is no way to get him out of there but must kill him. We have no preference for killing - if it can be caught, caught. In Gaza, we have no way of capturing, so they are killing. "
Do you have any idea what Prof. Leibowitz would say about your involvement in military ethics?
"I do not remember him expressing himself in these questions."
He would say, stay away from this 500 miles.
"He has one article against the retaliatory action in the village of Kibia (in which 60 people were killed).
He knew we thought differently.
It comes from the direction of criticism and I come from the direction of responsibility.
We had a very good personal relationship.
My wife wrote more about him than I did.
He was in favor of criticism, even a religious root for criticism.
He stood aside, they did what they did and he will tell them where they are wrong and doing injustice.
I, on the other hand, look from the inside.
From the point of view that it is a responsibility to act.
I come to him with principles that must be obeyed. "
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us