The Morality of the Israel Defense Forces  

Recently I was on a zoom call with a group of highly intelligent and, I hasten to add, highly opinionated, not so young but not so old, people with whom I engage on a weekly basis and whose perspectives I have come to value highly, although we often disagree.

The topics discussed each week vary, but given the fact that 70% of the participants live in the U.S. the topic often turns to the political situation there.  Nevertheless, with three of us either living adjacent to the Mediterranean basin or having come from this area, regional politics along with the seemingly never ending Arab-Israeli conflict surfaces quite often as well.

The Middle East related segment of the discussion this week centered on the ugly and mostly inaccurate screed by Nicholas Kristoff which appeared in a recent issue of the New York Times as well as the constant stream of publicity in the Arab World on Israel’s killing the women and children of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What the press never covers, of course, is Israel’s commitment to be a moral army and the fact that our neighbors have closed their borders to those who want to leave Gaza or Lebanon for safer climes.

For the record, Israel has the equivalent of a Judge Advocate General’s corps composed of lawyers whose job it is to rule on every action of the IDF as to whether it is or is not permitted under the international rules of war.   That effort is taken very seriously and supports, as well, the IDF’s policy of warning the enemy to leave an area that is about to be fired upon by our military.

Truth be told, there is no other military in the world that warns the enemy of its impending actions.  Israel is often criticized at home for giving away its plans so that people can leave an area, as it is not only innocent civilians who benefit from this.  Hamas and Hezbollah fighters also leave at the same time so that they can regroup in a different location.

In addition, Israel takes one more step that is in line with Jewish tradition but seems, on the surface, to be not very strategic.   We leave an exit open for those who wish to leave a war-torn country.

Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, often referred to as Rambam (Maimonides), who lived in Cordoba, Spain in the 1100s, ruled that when besieging a city to conquer it, it should only be surrounded on three sides, leaving an exit open on the fourth. This escape route allows civilians and faint-hearted combatants to flee and save their lives.  This principle of halacha (i.e. Jewish law) is outlined in his treatise, Mishneh Torah (i.e. Laws of Kings and Their Wars).

While Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, referred to as Ramban (Nachmanides) and who lived in the 13^th century, viewed this strictly as a humanitarian mandate, commentators like the Meshech Chochmah (i.e. Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk, 1843-1926) explain that Rambam viewed this as a critical military tactic. By leaving the enemy an avenue to escape, the enemy hopefully will not fight with the desperate ferocity associated with being completely cornered, potentially saving the lives of some of the attacking soldiers and minimizing unnecessary bloodshed.

During the Hamas war in Gaza for example, Israel left open the escape route into Egypt via Gaza’s southern border for some months.  However, Egypt, which controlled the other side, refused to let in Gazan refuges except those being transferred to other locations for emergency medical treatment.  Yet, of course, the Arab press offered no criticism of Egypt’s position even though had the gates been opened many thousands of lives of women and children would have been saved.

As we saw during Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, large numbers of Ukrainian women and children left the country through the country’s western border, seeking safety in Poland, Germany and other locations in close proximity to Ukraine, countries that accepted them with open arms.

So, while it is lamentable that so many presumably innocent people have died as a result of the war, many could have survived if they had heeded Israel’s early warnings and if the neighboring countries were willing to do the humanitarian thing and let them in.   When parceling out responsibilities for these casualties, the Arab world would do well to examine their conduct during this period and take responsibility for their actions rather than place 100% of the blame on Israel which, I hasten to add, continues to fight only defensive wars. It is sad that the residual anti-Israel bias coupled with their fear of letting some terrorists into their countries, prevented them from doing the humanitarian thing.