1.
Harsh and cruel, but the truth must be told: Some of our casualties came from an attempt to be moral, or rather, to present a moral façade, the kind we ate until October 7. The internal and external pressure on the IDF due to what appears to be harm to the civilian population is reflected in the moderation of the attacks before the forces operate on the ground. The pressure on Israel is increasing, especially in light of the fact that Hamas publishes detailed photos of dead and wounded members of the population under its responsibility, which, even if some of them are staged and false, work well on global sentiment. Thus, our soldiers absorb more, because we avoid certain actions before the infantry forces enter.
Morality has turned from a deep interest – which sometimes requires deciding between terrible possibilities and applying broad considerations, which take into account prevention and deterrence, rescue and preference – to a superficial issue in which emotional activation is supposed to validate pseudo-moral arguments.
2.
The greatest of the conditions, Rabbi Akiva, taught us following Hillel the Elder: "Love your neighbor as yourself - this is a great rule in the Torah." Nonetheless, the Talmud raises a hypothetical dilemma that may enlighten us: "Two who were walking along the way, and in one hand a bag of water. If you drink both, you die, and if you drink one of them, you come to the settlement." What would you do, share the water with your friend – knowing that it won't be enough, and by the time you reach a water source both of you will die – or save only yourself?
IDF Spokesperson
The Talmud, as usual, presents the sides of the dilemma through controversy: "The son of Fatura demanded: It is better that they both drink and die, and do not see one of them as the death of his friend." It's an absolute, uncompromising morality. It is better not to see the death of a friend, even if it will doom us to death. If the price of protecting our lives is harming innocent people, it is better to risk mortal danger and expose our children to a constant threat, culminating in another October 7. In historical respects, at such a cost of violence, it is better to remain in exile in the role of eternal victim.
The Talmud continues: "Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: 'And your brother lives with you,' your life precedes the life of your friend." There was a certain moment when the beit midrash was thought of as the opinion of the son of Petura, and for this purpose Rabbi Akiva was required to come and present a different position, which would be accepted as the determining principle. He took a verse out of context in the law of prohibition of usury ("Let your brother live with you" - let him live with you, and do not oppress him), and demanded it as an answer to the existential question posed by the Talmud: It is true that your brother must live and that it is your duty not to stand by but to save him when possible, but only on condition that it is "with you," when you remain alive. If its existence contradicts your existence – or moreover, comes at the expense of your existence – your life comes first.
3.
Returning to the great precept coined by Rabbi Akiva, love of others has no proper moral basis unless preceded by recognition of self-worth and preference for life. "Love your neighbor - as yourself." We'll pay attention: like you! (A similar direction can be seen in Ahad Ha'am's fascinating discussion in his article "On the Two Clauses.") This means, for example, that it is forbidden to risk soldiers' lives in order to bring the bodies of other soldiers. We also learned that on the question of abductees, we must not consider private considerations, but rather put the best interests of the entire population and the lives of our soldiers before our eyes, and in light of this, examine whether a certain action justifies endangering their lives or not.
Morality has turned from a deep interest, which sometimes requires deciding between terrible possibilities and applying broad considerations that take into account prevention and deterrence, rescue and preference – to a superficial issue, in which emotional activation is supposed to validate pseudo-moral arguments
The discussion of the Talmud takes place in relation to friends, and still states that our lives come first. Even more so in times of war, when the dilemma is between the lives of our soldiers and our enemies who use their civilians as life shields. A situation in which we must defend our daughters against an enemy who points weapons at them in order to kill them, while hiding behind innocent people (assuming they are indeed innocent). The corrupt expectation on the part of those who use the code name "innocent" to prevent us from acting means abandoning our daughters to their deaths, God forbid, as long as we do not harm innocent people. And who are our enemies? We are not dealing with an ordinary entity, but with a Nazi entity whose people raped our daughters, beheaded our sons and burned our children alive with their parents, and were proud of it. The massacre on 7 October contained all the trappings of genocide. If they could, they would do it to all of us.
4.
The same applies to the humiliation of the enemy. Until recently, Hamas terrorists and their supporters (many of them in the Palestinian Authority) celebrated the horrific images of the massacre. The humiliation of the Jews gave them an excess of motivation to continue their "success" and kill more. In this respect, pictures of Hamas terrorists in their underwear are not intended to satisfy a desire for revenge, but to make clear to the enemy its wretchedness and therefore its defeat. Such images sow despair among the new Nazis and bring the end of the war closer.
While the Western world speaks a rational language, the language of the Logos, the Middle East speaks the language of myth. Here there are ancient institutions such as blood revenge, stoning, burning of infidels alive, rape of prisoners of war and beheadings. The idea that our enemies prefer their lives and economic well-being to killing Jews and harming Israel is a failure to understand the language of the region. We see that the humanitarian gestures were exploited by Hamas to improve their positions vis-à-vis the IDF. Most of the food was stolen with a strong hand by the terrorists and did not reach the population. Most of the fuel reached Hamas and helped ventilate the tunnels and supply electricity to the lathes, which produce more weapons against us.
5.
We hear time and time again talk of the Palestinian Authority as a sane solution instead of Hamas, and here, too, moral and rational failure endangers us. The PA pays salaries to murderers of Jews according to the number of murdered! The attempt to understand the phenomenon, to get used to it "because that's how they are," invites the next massacre. A comparison between the Hamas Charter and the Fatah Charter (the Palestinian National Covenant) shows that there is no difference between them that creates a different value.
In both, the goal is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people in one way or another. Article 20 of the Fatah Charter, which has not been changed since the Oslo Accords, is a genocidal clause, because it erases the Jewish people from the family of nations, and in fact does not recognize our people's right to self-determination for a state of its own in our historic homeland.
Therefore, we must not suffice with comparing the actual numbers of deaths on both sides. The tens of thousands of rockets launched at Israel were capable of murdering tens of thousands of Israelis. The fact that we succeeded in stopping this does not change the goal: the genocide of the Jewish people in its own land. We have to behave as if the bombings hit their target, God forbid. The October 7 massacre was a display of purpose for all the naïve who had not yet become disillusioned with seeing reality.
In this war, our victory must be clear in the enemy's codes, and not subject to interpretation. We must not give in to external pressures that are not committed to the rebirth of the Jewish people in its land. In the dilemma between us and the lives of our enemies, the answer must be resounding and clear: our lives come first.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us