Stats

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Lives Of Our Soldiers Are More Important Than The Enemy's Civilians

That's something that is pretty simple and obvious to most. A country should not risk the lives of its own soldiers in order to protect the enemy's civilians. Unfortunately, Israel has often endagered its own soldiers in war for the fear that using superior firepower may cause civilian deaths among those who indiscriminately kill our civilians without batting an eyelid. Bloggers Chardal, Joe Settler and My Right Word have complained about this bizarre IDF practice. That's not surprising in that as religious Jews they are repelled by such a policy that is not only against Judaism but also against common sense.

The good news is that this feeling is apparently making its way into other circles as well. Here's something from Rafi Ginat Yedioth Ahronoth's editor in chief:
When fighting against a terror organization that along with its patrons declares again and again that its goal is to destroy us, is it illogical or illegitimate that we make some moral compromises? Should we not consciously decide to lower our moral standards in order to strike an enemy that has the moral capacity of horse thieves and drug dealers?

I have no problem considering myself less moral if it will save the life of one Golani soldier. For him I am ready to wash the Hizbullah terrorists with fire. I am ready to do the same to their helpers, their collaborators, the ones who turn a blind eye, and all those in contact with Hizbullah. May their innocents die instead of ours.

Following the Bint Jbeil disaster we cannot allow ourselves the moral luxury of chirurgical military operations that end in Rambam hospital chirurgic department. We are in the middle of a war, and this war must be won while crushing Hizbullah and all that it represents. We need to strike hard - and we should be allowed to feel good about it.
Although Ginat is still confused about what is moral and what is not, as least he understands that he must be "less moral" in the present situation.

I have no pleasure when truly innocent enemy civilians are killed, but we are in a war and war is not a picnic. I can only repeat what Ginat stated so eloquently: "May their innocents die instead of ours."

8 comments:

Joe Settler said...

You might want to read this too about who's responsible for civilian deaths in Lebanon http://joesettler.blogspot.com/2006/07/kfar-kana-good-start.html

peter sampson said...

you might want to read an interview between Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman here www.democracynow.org

Cosmic X said...

Thanks Joe, nice post.

Peter, please excuse me but what Chomsky has to say does not interest me.

peter sampson said...

now aint that surprising

blair baker said...

Donald Rumsfeld briefed the President this morning. He told Bush that Three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq. To everyone's amazement, all of the color ran from Bush's face, then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering. Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many is a brazillion?"

halfbreed said...

Can Jews object to at least the ideal of a truly multicultural state? Is the ideal of people living democratically, and in peace and harmony, not one that we all should strive for? Is opposition to it not 'racist' almost by definition? Is the idea of a Jewish state not in opposition to the West's most modern, enlightened , and forward-looking ideals?

I write 'racist' because that is the racist word used by those who purposely ignore, or perhaps are ignorant of, law and custom concerning membership in the Jewish people; even so, the thrust of the word is correct. Jews on the whole do not accept for Israel, even as an ideal, the vision of a perfect multi-cultural democracy. Even if the whole world became as ideal as Judt imagines it soon becoming, the Jews would continue making extraordinary efforts to remain a people apart, culturally dominant in a state of their very own. Their efforts flow from, and are in support of, that special status they claim as theirs alone. That status is not 'just' in the ordinary sense of the word, and cannot be justified by ordinary criteria. Justification must transcend ordinary criteria--as does that of being divinely chosen.

A substantial number of Jews ardently subscribe to the ideals put forward in Judt's paper--so much so that they would risk their lives following his solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. These people cannot be simply dismissed as self-hating Jews. Indeed, they take special pride in the fact that these ideals are clearly stamped with Jewish morality, and feel that their stand expresses the very essence of their culture.

They are not anti-Semitic, but they are anti-Juditic. For along with their special pride, they are embarrassed and repelled by what they perceive as their tribe's archaic, outmoded, superstitious, arrogant, and 'racist', belief in its divine election. As a consequence, in their hearts there is no truly just or otherwise compelling reason--one which transcends considerations of amity, brotherly love, good-will to all, et cetera, or reverence for martyrs, past and present, let alone mere pride and sentiment--for their tribe to survive

Cosmic X said...

I really do like comments, I just wish that they had some kind of connection to what I posted.

halfbreed said...

the new formatted version of the Lion King is due out mid march 2012...my daughter who loves classical music plans to buy this for a trip to DisneyLand in 2008...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...