Was the War in Gaza Just?

Rabbi Donniel Hartman is a co-founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. Among a certain Jewish crowd, the SHI is a breath of fresh air: religious, modern, thoughtful, and centrist. Not centrist in the sense of following the middle, but rather embodying a center unafraid to engage with the rest of Israeli society and the world. He wrote Fighting a Just War Against Hamas, Justly, which appeared on January 13th. Take note:

"I have no sympathy for many of our critics. Nor do I accept the moral underpinnings of many of their positions. That said, it does not mean, however, that all who criticize the war in Gaza are anti-Semites and enemies of Israel. Furthermore, because a position is mouthed by foes, it does not follow that the content is unworthy of consideration. Quite to the contrary, I believe that we as Jews and Israelis are obligated to give serious consideration to these critiques and are bound to ask these questions of ourselves: What do we believe constitutes a "just" war? How does one fight justly? We also must ask whether both the war in Gaza and our conduct there meet the standards that we want for ourselves, our people, and our country. We do a great disservice to ourselves as a Jewish people when moral discourse is limited under the guise of mistaken patriotism or associated exclusively with a particular political agenda or party or viewed as the consequence of weakness of spirit, or in the particular lingo of Israeli life - of being a "yafe nefesh" - roughly translated as a naive goody-two-shoes."

Rabbi Hartman and I hold opposing views. But he is making space for a dialogue. Unlike many American Jews, the dialogue is not just internal, among Jews who all agree to love Israel, but even with those who are "foes." Rabbi Hartman faithfully conveys the justification many Israelis feel about the recent war. But he departs from insularity of the Israeli hasbarah machine (P.R.) with a willingness to engage.

It is consequently our duty and responsibility to ask ourselves these questions [about the justness of the war] and not to fear the outcome. To banish moral evaluation and potential self-criticism from our national discourse is tantamount to destroying the home that we are working so hard to preserve."

The ability of Israeli society to grapple with complex issues does contribute to her strength, which is to say to her national security. As a peace activist, I wish that all this grappling weakened the ability, if not the willingness to wage a war that killed so many innocent civilians in Gaza; but it holds open the possibility that societal change can happen without causing a civil war.

The measure of moral ambiguity that may exist in the eyes of some is grounded on the disparity of military capability between Israel and Hamas, a disparity which may question the legitimacy of the premise of self-defense. Hamas as a terrorist organization aims to terrorize, and as such has a limited ability to endanger Israel's basic existence. While it may harm individual citizens, Hamas does not endanger the state as a whole.

It is under the cloud of this moral ambiguity that much of the criticism against Israel finds shelter. The justification of self defense dissipates when one compares Kassam rockets and mortar shells and their casualty toll with the might of the Israeli army and the consequences of its actions. Furthermore, it is also this reality which fuels the calls for proportionality in which the use of force on Israel's side, it is claimed, must match that of the enemy it attacks. A "disproportionate" response is classified as unjust, for it is no longer contained or justified under the rubric of self-defense.

The moral difficulty, if not corruption, entailed within the above argument lies in the fact that it essentially allows terrorist organizations to terrorize with impunity, and morally handcuffs a society's legitimate right to defend itself not merely when its existence is threatened, but when the lives of some of its citizens are in danger and many more are subjected to the effects of terror. The "weak" are allowed to engage in terror, for it is argued that it is the only means available to them, while the more powerful, and in this case Israel, are always morally reprehensible, for our power and strength voids any military response the legitimacy of the claim of self-defense. This "moral" argument, which grants immunity to terror perpetrated by the weaker, is a significant moral failing in much of the public discourse on morality of war.

That is a good description of a main conflict between defenders and opponents of the assault on Gaza. But I'd change it: what makes the war immoral in this instance isn't the conflict between terrorists and the military of a modern state, but the failure of that modern state to abandon the goal of dominating it's weaker neighbor, by hook or by crook. That domination, the refusal to bravely address the real issue at the heart of the conflict using the standards of international law, is the moral crime. Rabbi Hartman - thank you for your willingess to converse on the morality of the war. Take the next step: talk about the morality of Israeli behavior during the Nakba, and the morality of enshrining Palestinian defeat and powerlessness as a central goal of Israeli state policy.