T. Belman. Netanyahu, Yaalon and Eisenkot all preached ethics and morality in attacking the actions of the lone soldier. They avoided whether we should change the rules that draw the line between morality and immorality. The Torah says thou shalt not kill and describes the death penalty for doing so. Anything less would undercut the commandment. Many states have capital punishment. Thus for them to execute a convicted person is moral and just. Similarly if Israel passed a law permitting summary execution even when the would be killer is laying on the ground then such action would be moral and ethical.
But our leaders say we shouldn’t change the law because it wouldn’t reflect well on us. Why so? We assassinate the enemy, whether he be a soldier or a scientist, when we think it appropriate. What is the difference? Offering due process to a terrorist rather than summary execution, may make us look good but undermines our deterrence. Due process is costly. Its another form of lawfare. Then there is the cost of keeping the convicted enemy for many years in jail. So many of these terrorists when released kill again. We are allowing our enemies to take advantage of us.
Instead we should state clearly that it is lawful and justified to kill someone for attempting to kill us. In fact, it is our duty to kill them. It is a service to the state.
The soldier in Hebron shouldn’t have had to pull the trigger and kill the terrorist who had just attempted to murder his comrade. The officers in the area should have done so, and the order should have come from the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Security, and the Prime Minister. It should have been an order that was as clear as day and made public to all. Let me explain:
The seminal event that brought about the establishment of the State of Israel was the Holocaust, in which Jewish lives were considered worthless, or less.
This view was held not only by the Nazis and their accomplices, but by the entire world. The Americans and British did not bother to waste even one or two bombs to halt the death industry and save Jewish lives. In other words, Hitler’s speeches and the culture that he created, which negated the right of Jewish existence, filtered down and strongly influenced the world – both actively and passively. The entire existence of the State of Israel was designed – first and foremost – to reverse this reality.
It is important to note that the State of Israel has always based its right to exist on this very point; on the restoration of the right of the Jews to exist and the natural legitimacy of Jewish lives. Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem, which exhibits what happens to Jews bereft of a state, has become our ultimate Holy Temple, which every visiting foreign dignitary must visit to pay his respects.
Ensuring national existence, however, is nothing more than the foundation for the actualization of our national destiny. After two generations of avoidance of our destiny, our existence also becomes meaningless and loses its legitimacy. That is how, slowly but surely, the life of the enemy becomes more important than the lives of our citizens and soldiers. Like Alice in Wonderland, the more that we flee our destiny for the imagined safety of jet fighters, submarines and flak jackets – the more we find ourselves bereft of existential legitimacy, returning to the place from which we fled – the place where Jewish lives become cheaper by the day.
For years, I tried to convince Ya’alon and Netanyahu that Israel must attack Iran. First of all, because of Ahmadinijad’s calls for the destruction of Israel and only second because of the technical security problem that the Iranian bomb creates. I explained time and again that the Holocaust did not begin in 1939, when the war broke out. It began in 1933, with the rise of the Nazis to power and the speeches made by the leader of the German nation calling for the destruction of the Jews. Those speeches were the beginning of the process of delegitimization of Jewish existence.
The red line undermining the legitimacy of existence of the Jews was crossed again by the Iranian Holocaust deniers. The entire world expected the State that had been born on the ashes of Auschwitz to respond with fury. To emphasize just this point, Ahmadinijad took the trouble to make an open speech calling for Israel’s destruction right at our border fence. ‘I will call for their destruction and they will not harm me, because they themselves recognize and cooperate with the negation of their own legitimacy; with the process of their destruction,’ his actions said.
My attempts to convince Israel’s leaders failed. The result is that those words have remained in the air and we feel their effect. Just like Germany in the 1930s, Iran, which calls for the destruction of the Jews, has remained a legitimate and courted member of the UN. Israel’s status and the legitimacy of Jewish existence are dissipating. Ultimately, Iran will have the bomb (which, as above, is the secondary danger after the delegitimization).
The brandished knife or scissors, received on our part with moral hesitation, achieve the same effect as Ahmadinijad’s words. They undermine the right of all the Jews to exist. It is once again legitimate to slaughter a Jew, simply because he is a Jew. It is still permissible to harm the terrorist, but only on the basis of the value of self-defense – because the terrorist – is ‘just’. Our ‘ethical’ rigor over the terrorist’s ‘rights’ confirms the world’s conviction that we also understand that this Land belongs to the terrorist and that he is the good guy in this story.
The result is that very quickly, the self-defense principle also stops working for us. It is also forbidden to harm a terrorist. All we can do is try to shoot down the missile that he shot – and only while it is still in the air. We all understand that this is the way to lose. And then, even if we retreat from all the territory and give them flowers all day long – nobody will come to help us. Our friendly neighbors will always be forgiven and even liked after they slaughter us.
Ahmadinijad and the knife-wielding terrorist from Hebron are on the same axis. Both challenge the right of the Jews for sovereign existence (essentially, the right to exist). Please do not be confused. This is not a national territorial dispute. We have no common border with Iran and the last thing that the Arabs of Hebron want is a state. (Did you ever hear of a Jordanian soldier stabbed in Hebron before 1967? But you did hear that 67 Jews were slaughtered in Hebron in 1929 – before the State of Israel was established.)
We are dealing with the negation of the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty of any type on the face of the earth, and particularly, in the Middle East. In this respect, the scissors in the hands of the Arab teenager are more dangerous than the Iranian bomb. In Western culture, which associates morality with weakness, the scissors are much more convincing and thus negate our legitimacy more than the atomic bomb.
This is not a national territorial war, a war of interests between two nations with similar cultures; a war in which rules of engagement, such as the Geneva Convention, can exist. This is not a war that ends with the victory of one of the sides or with a compromise. This is a war of total destruction, bereft of any ethical rules. It is a war in which the pre-meditated slaughter of women and children is acceptable and desirable – and viewed as legitimate, while we, who tie our own hands and endanger our soldiers in our quest for ‘morality’ are always marked as the bad guys. Why?
Because this is the most dangerous evil. It is confusing evil, without tanks and jets. It is evil that does not strike with armed force. It is evil that searched for and found our greatest weakness: our lost sense of the justice of our cause. When you breach just the tiniest of openings and give it legitimacy – you have fallen down a slippery slope and lost everything.
Everything.
We tried to evade our destiny and exchange justice for ethicality. Time and again we make the open-fire rules more stringent. We sacrifice hundreds of soldiers in our failed attempt to win some legitimacy in the merit of our ‘ethicality’. We do not attack civilians. We do not shoot at mosques. We send our sons into the alleyways and tunnels – we will not bomb from the air and we will not turn off electricity and water. We try to maintain all the rules of the Western world – and we have remained the ‘bad guys’ in this story.
Why?
Because it is impossible to exchange justice for ethicality. Even worse, when you surrender your destiny (and your justice in the process) and base your entire existence on ‘the ethical code’, then you are tested there and only there – on the ethical playing field. But the ethical playing field is really a killing field. To remain there, we pay with the blood of our soldiers and civilians. The only way to get off the killing field is to fight back with the same weapons. At the moment that Ahmadinijad says that Israel must be destroyed –his life must become illegitimate. Israel should have eliminated him. If a knife wielding terrorist comes to murder Jews, he must be eliminated immediately. His life has become illegitimate. He must be eliminated with no strings attached to the ethical killing field (which, in its current context, is patently unethical) upon which he hides.
The elimination must be immediate, on the spot, with no courtroom proceedings. Elimination of the terrorist is vital because he exchanges the challenge and question mark over the legitimacy of Jewish existence with a clear exclamation point. Any other procedure provides a shred of legitimacy and the slippery slope waits at its threshold.
A terrorist must never live to the day of his trial – even if he were to receive the death penalty at its end. A judicial proceeding raises him up to the level of a partner in the discussion, and thus, his claim must be evaluated. Maybe we really don’t have the right to live…We’ll let the judges decide.
There are situations and planes upon which the court has no place. War is clearly such a situation. The war in which we currently find ourselves is the most difficult and subtle of all of Israel’s wars.
@ Keli-A:
@ bernard ross:
Victims in NYC http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/04/01/muslim-woman-admits-faking-knife-attack-hate-crime-new-york-city/
Keli-A Said:
You think ???????????
Keli-A Said:
Oh those poor benighted victims of Jewish aggression wouldn’t commit arson.
@ Keli-A:
youre late, but still worth posting again as no one noticed when I did.
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63613894#comment-63356000169345
bernard ross Said:
@ bernard ross:
Palestinian made up account of Jewish arson attack, police say
Investigators find no evidence that Israeli settlers graffitied, then set fire to the home of a West Bank man
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-made-up-account-of-jewish-arson-attack-police-say/
here is Israel’s reply:
there is something very sick and rotten about israel.
all last year and before we read about hamas relatives and children being treated in Israeli hospitals….
All last year we hear of Israel negotiating to ease restrictions of gaza blockade for humanitarian reasons….
and yet we see that the gazans have no humanity whatsover.
If it were me here are the replies I would consider:
Not allowing a morsel of food or drink into gaza until all were released……telling the euros to get them quickly realeased or everyone in gaza will starve.
bombing gaza villages and killing a number of gazans daily until they were released…..
Its becoming difficult to empathize with Israel because israel doesnt really act like a normal person or nation acts towards its enemies and I am suspicious that the conflict is false and that the leaders of Israel accept a certain number of dead soldiers and civilians as par for the course.
What sort of sick mind would be treating those who hold the soldiers bodies and hang on to Israeli citizens.
What sort of sick mind negotiates with an enemy when they could simply starve him into submission.
the whole thing is alice in wonderland where Israel is wonderland.
Israelis live in fear, die for no reason and yet the gov treats the jew killers in their hospitals.
Obviously, it is not a serious conflict.
Keli-A Said:
“GET A ROPE” Texas saying.
Looks like once again we are coming around full circle in another drama that goes nowhere but fills time, keeping everyone occupied and attentive.
BB publicly asked for ties but he should be cautious. His “understandings” and “cooperation” with the gulf arabs should not be over estimated. the fact that none of them want to make it public can mean they are avoiding trouble with their street BUT it can also mean that they intend to keep their poker hand flexible for a potential return to the Israel scapegoat card. BB appears too hungry for the carrot they keep waving in his face. Although the cooperation got Israel some tactical and even strategic improvement it can also fast disappear.
I dont understand why israeli parents allow their sons and daughter to enter an IDF commanded by those 3….they apparently see their soldiers as tools of diplomacy to sacrifice on an altar of appeasing Jew killers. An army that instead of turning the enemy into cinders, and thereby saving some Jewish sons and daughters, decides to send them to die unnecessarily. For me ethics and morality are meaningless if my children are dead. It appears that Israeli parents do not care enough about their children to demand an end to this insane behavior: BB, Yaalon and Eisenkot should go… and add Erdan and Rivlin because they jumped up at Duma to enthusiastically declare Jewish baby burning.
A people unable to distinguish between their family and their enemies cannot expect much. Only Jews have an existentially dangerous “dilemma” like this, normal folks kill their enemy first and then ask questions later.
I wonder if Israel and the US colluded to murder Kahane.
“Through the Mercy of Fools all Justice is lost.”
The secular founders of the modern State of Israel dreamed of creating a “normal” country which would be just like the gentile countries that comprised the remainder of the World. For them this meant a Jewish nation-state with minimal Judaic influence. However, regardless of one’s view of Judaic law, it is simply not normal — even from a secular humanist standpoint — for any nation, including the renascent Jewish State, to forgive its enemies for seeking to destroy it, and to simultaneously feel guilty for defending against, and achieving victory over, them.
The absolute obligation, of a Jewish leader, to protect Jewish lives without regard to the consequences, as is required by the Torah: “… You shall not stand aside while your fellow’s (Jewish) blood is shed — I am HaShem. … You shall love your fellow (Jew) as yourself — I am HaShem.” (Lev. 19:16-18), meaning that a Jew, especially a leader of the Jewish people, is obligated to fearlessly and tenaciously act to protect his fellow Jew’s life to the same extent that he would so act to protect his own life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81JMMD6f1YQ
@ Keli-A:
Great quote! The best defense anyway is a strong offense. We need to go on the offense.
Passive Defense
by David Raziel
Commander in Chief of the Irgun from 1937-1941
“If the objective of the war is to break the will of the enemy; we clearly cannot be content with defensive action. Such a method of defense, which enables the enemy to attack as he sees fit and to retreat at will, to reorganize and to attack again – such defense is known as passive defense‚ and ends in defeat and ruin; he who does not wish to be defeated must attack.
The killing of a terrorist is self defense whether in the present or the future. If the terrorist is not killed he will live to try and kill Jews in the future.
This is the middle east if you show mercy to your enemy it is sign of weakness. When the enemy knows they will die when they confront us it is a deterrence to most of them. Show weakness by arresting and then releasing them after a prison sentence or swap and you invite more terrorism.
Killing terrorists is important and just. Leaders sought who will be strong and not weak.
“Then Satan Said”
Natan Alterman
Satan then said:
How do I overcome
This besieged one?
He has courage
And talent,
And implements of war
And resourcefulness.
…only this shall I do,
I’ll dull his mind
And cause him to forget
The justice of his cause.
Op-Ed: Down with David!
Tzvi Fishman
Everyone loves the story of David and Goliath. You can’t find a greater Jewish hero than young David.
But wait. After he felled Goliath with his slingshot, when the poor giant was lying helpless on the ground after the slingshot knocked him over, but not definitely dead, David took a sword and cut off the giant’s head!
After he was down, powerless and unconscious, he killed him!
Here are the verses straight from the Bible:
How could we have made him such a hero? What kind of example is this?
Even though his deed inspired fear through the ranks of the Philistines and brought peace to the Kingdom of Israel for years, his act was against the morals and combat commands of the armies of Israel – that is, of the IDF – and they take priority.
And David is not the only guilty one. What about G-d? How could He appoint David to be king after he committed this despicable deed?! In fact, G-d should be brought to trial for His outrageous love of David.
This terrible story should be erased from the Bible. Every book where this episode appears should be thrown into the trashcan or burned.
Jews wake up! Make signs and rush out to the street to protest. “Down with David!” “Down with David!” “Power to the Philistines!” “Peace Now!”
@ lsatenstein:
That’s not the point. Regardless, he should be killed on the spot.
Read: To defeat the jihad, our moral code must evolve
Did the terrorist have an explosive belt, or a hidden pistol? Or perhaps a knife he could use against yhe comrade?