|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Courage to Refuse: Israel's "Immoral Ethical Codes" |
Current rating: 0 |
by haaretz via gehrig
Email: zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (verified) |
02 Mar 2004
|
|
"IDF soldiers know very well that 90 percent of the army's activities in the territories are not related, even indirectly, to preventing terror. They also know that while they protect and guard a lunatic outpost in the heart of Samaria, they are in effect doing nothing for the security of the people of Netanya, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv." |
w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m
Last update - 02:24 02/03/2004
Immoral ethical codes
By Arik Diamant
For some time, there has been a dialogue of the deaf in Israel between those opposed to Israel Defense Forces operations in the territories and those who support those operations; between those who rightfully believe in our right to defend the security of the citizens of the state of Israel, even at the cost of harm to innocents on the Palestinian side, and those who rightfully have reservations about the terrible moral price that such activity exacts.
It was against the background of that debate that Major General Amos Yadlin, commander of the war colleges, and Professor Asa Kasher sought to formulate new boundaries for what is forbidden and permitted, in the form of "An ethical code for the war against terror." It is an attempt to build a bridge between morality and security - to return clear moral boundaries to the army and establish moral boundaries to security.
In an article in Haaretz ("Those who cry with one eye," February 29), Professor Kasher wrote that both the right and left are characterized by one-way vision, ignoring the victims on the other side. The situation in the territories is complicated, he argued: On the one hand, there is concern that IDF activities could harm innocents; on the other hand, there is a desire and a need to protect Israeli civilians from the danger of attacks.
Seemingly, this indeed is a moral dilemma that none of us can claim to be exempt from considering. The one problem with Kasher's argument - which I am sure is motivated by a sincere and genuine desire to do the right thing - is that it has nothing to do with what is happening on the ground in the territories, as the 600 members of Courage to Refuse can testify after serving for long periods of time in the machinery of the occupation and seeing with their own eyes what we are fighting for.
Israel is fighting two wars nowadays. One is a war of no choice, a difficult, complex war - a war against terror. The second war is stupid and evil - a war that sanctifies land rather than people, that discriminates between the blood of some and the blood of others, that violates the most basic human rights of millions of people. That is the war to protect the settlements.
IDF soldiers know very well that 90 percent of the army's activities in the territories are not related, even indirectly, to preventing terror. They also know that while they protect and guard a lunatic outpost in the heart of Samaria, they are in effect doing nothing for the security of the people of Netanya, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
For the purposes of the debate, Professor Kasher makes those two wars identical, with the same moral dilemmas. And that is simply not the case. The war for the security of the settlements is a delusional, brutal war that forsakes the security for Israeli civilians and does not protect them. On the other hand, the war against terror is an existential need for all Israelis, both inside and outside the Green Line.
By proposing one moral code for both wars, Professor Kasher is telling IDF soldiers that the flagrantly immoral activities of the IDF in its role as an occupation force in the territories are in fact legitimate. Not for nothing are more and more parents of soldiers saying that they are ready to risk the lives of their loved ones to defend Israel, but are outraged when the best of our sons are sacrificed on the altar of Yitzhar, Kfar Darom and Netzarim.
A state ceremony is slated to take place today in Jerusalem, attended by the president of the state. Called "Yesha Salutes the IDF," the event will seat IDF generals next to rightist MKs, and together they will praise the courage of the soldiers and their devotion to the Greater Land of Israel, their opposition to any withdrawals or to "uprooting settlements." At the end, they will sing Hatikvah and send our soldiers to their deaths in battles for the Gaza Strip or Hebron. Our army, the rock of our foundation, the people's army in which we enlisted and in which we served for many years, has become a private army for the settlers.
The writing of the ethical code for the war on terror was disconnected from reality. A short tour of the field, standing for a few hours at a checkpoint, watching soldiers accompanying settler children to their schools - any of this would have been enough to persuade Professor Kasher that he actually wrote an "ethical code for the protection of the settlements." And since that war endangers our existence and corrupts our morality, fewer and fewer soldiers are ready to take part in it.
The writer is the director-general of Courage to Refuse.
(c) 2004, Haaretz |
See also:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=400035
http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: followup from Haaretz |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2004
|
Better off without ethical codes
By Orit Shochat
Professor Asa Kasher agreed to help the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) formulate an ethical code to justify killing those who mastermind, encourage, plan or carry out terror attacks - and also innocents who happen to be in the area of a targeted hit. Kasher has broadened the concept of "ticking bomb" to include anyone suspected by Israeli intelligence of having any connection to a bomb.
In olden days, this concept was more concrete. It allowed interrogators to put pressure on someone who had access to timely information about an attack. Now the ticking bomb has gone from being an operational code word to a woolly, philosophical term and the intelligence services have been granted a free hand in determining who deserves to die.
But broadening the ticking bomb concept works both ways. Taken far enough, Kasher himself, who is on very close terms with those who are working to wipe out terror, might be considered a ticking bomb from the Palestinian perspective. After all, Kasher talks to those who carry out targeted hits, those who give the green light and those who sit and plan them. He meets with the ideologues, the initiators and the big chiefs. He advises them, provides them with moral support, drafts their defense arguments and soothes their consciences.
In Kasher's eyes, an organized army is always more ethical than a terror organization because military operations are designed to hit military targets and stay clear of civilians. Anyone who looks at the intifada casualty lists knows how wrong he is. Over the past few years, IDF soldiers have had such light trigger fingers that most victims of the intifada have been innocent bystanders.
When it comes to targeted attacks from the air, Kasher's moral assumptions are even more mistaken. The fact that innocent people will die is taken into account during the planning of these operations. It is not just a matter of luck or lack of caution. Killing innocents is an integral part of the order. In targeted assassinations, writes Kasher, "one is forced to accept there may be collateral damage."
The majority of intifada victims on the Israeli side have also been innocent bystanders - older women on the way to visit their grandchildren, an entire family lunching at a restaurant wiped out of life. Looking at the statistics, it gets even sadder. On both sides, most of the victims have been poor, hardworking people - not the ones who drive around in fancy cars. Even the restaurants targeted by suicide bombers are cheap diners, not gourmet establishments. Someone should do the math one day and find out how many people who barely eke out a living pay with their lives in wars.
If a philosophy professor on the Palestinian side framed an ethical code for terror, what would it look like? Ahmed Yassin, in his less elegant way, reframes such a code after every terror attack. He says that Hamas prefers killing soldiers over civilians, and settlers over ordinary Israelis. But in his eyes, all Israelis, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, judging from the election results, have been supporting occupation for thirty-odd years. They finance the settlements and serve in the army, and even when they're back in civilian life, they are potential reservists. So as far as he's concerned, they're all ticking bombs in the broad sense of the word.
Widening the circle of guilt is possible on both sides. Would a bus where 80 percent of the passengers are soldiers and 20 percent are women and children be an ethical target for a suicide bomber? Are the women and children merely "collateral damage?" Are the soldiers "ticking bombs," as Kasher's criteria would seem to imply? A Palestinian could say that soldiers traveling home on a bus will be back on their bases tomorrow, and might conceivably kill Palestinians.
None of this justifies killing innocent people on any side. But the attempt to establish an ethical code for the war on terror is no different from laying down rules for legitimate terror targets. Ultimately, defining who is innocent and who constitutes the brains or the driving spirit behind an act of terror, is in the eye of the beholder. The same is true for defining what constitutes an ethical target. That is why ethical codes like Asa Kasher's should not be written.
Morality is not something that can be reinvented in keeping with changing defense needs. Moral laws are set in stone in every covenant and constitution. They are part of every religion. If there is no choice but to kill, better that it be done without an ethical code, without some university educator trying to take away the pain. Forget trying to justify the death of a 6-year-old who happened to be standing next to the Subaru of an Islamic Jihad operative when it was hit by an Apache helicopter missile. Better to kill the boy and just feel guilty about it, without all the excuses. Let those who embark on such a mission know that they do so with only the law and their own consciences to rely on - not some prettified, off-the-rack reply brief.
@%< |
|
