War, Truth, and Israel

It’s proverbial wisdom that the first casualty in war is truth. Yet, tragically, in the war that Hamas initiated on October 7, the very first casualties were some 1200 Israelis, approximately 900 of whom were non-combatant civilians, including numerous young children, all of whom were ruthlessly slaughtered by fanatical Islamist terrorists.

But the proverb has quickly caught up to unfolding events, and we unfortunately can now see how, in the midst of war, many Israelis–even those in very senior positions, and who ought to know better–regularly make statements about each other’s motives and actions that no one has any reason to believe are true. In this perilous moment, disregard for the truth can only increase the dangerous disunity that all should be seeking to minimize.

This past Thursday (Aug. 29), Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced in the security cabinet that, by refusing to agree to withdraw the IDF from the Philadelphi Corridor as part of a deal with Hamas for the release of some (not all) remaining hostages, Prime Minister Netanyahu had in effect “decide[d] to kill all the hostages.” (I’ve already written about this at greater length here.)

I think it is indisputable that Gallant’s statement, which was subsequently leaked to the press, was unequivocally false in fact, law and morality. It is one thing to say that freeing the hostages should be more important than securing the Corridor; it is a very different thing to say that, if the prime minister reaches the opposite conclusion, then he has decided to kill all the hostages. The murderers of every dead hostage are the terrorists who abducted them to and imprisoned them in Gaza–no one else bears any part of that guilt. And no Israeli, up to and including the prime minister, can truthfully be said to have decided to kill any hostage.

But now the prime minister seems to have returned the (dis)favor. The ToI reports that, in a cabinet meeting on Monday (Sep.2), Netanyahu asserted that those who had joined that day’s general strike had effectively said to the terrorists: “Here, we support you.” The prime minister’s statement is fully as false, for precisely the same reason, as was the defense minister’s earlier statement about the prime minister.

Again, reasonable minds can differ as to whether freeing some of the remaining hostages is more or less crucial to Israel’s welfare and security than keeping IDF forces on the ground in the Corridor. But none of the general strikers were saying to Hamas: “[W]e support you.” Rather, they were saying to their government that they truly believe the hostages should have first priority; they think freeing hostages is more important than occupying the Corridor.

It is true that Hamas and other enemies of Israel no doubt take comfort in, and are encouraged by, what they see as disunity in Israel’s population–that goes without saying. But that does not mean that Israelis who have varied, differing views about how the war should be prosecuted, and who give voice to those views, are intending to comfort or encourage those enemies. Hamas may take comfort from the actions of some Israelis, but that does not mean that those Israelis intended to give comfort to Hamas.

When it is revealed that Gallant and Netanyahu heatedly argued in a cabinet meeting, enemies are encouraged. When a general strike is held in Israel in the midst of war, enemies are encouraged. When Netanyahu unfairly criticizes the general strikers, enemies are encouraged. In a democratic society where people have the right to openly criticize the government and each other, it is inevitable that enemies–and, in particular, enemies who have zero understanding of the workings of a democratic society–will view that criticism as an encouraging sign of disunity.  There is no way, I would submit, to avoid that fact.

The specter and even the real danger of disunity would be substantially diminished, however, if people–especially those in high office–worked harder to stick strictly to the truth. Gallant should never have made his untrue statement that Netanyahu “can decide” to kill all the hostages. If he had not made that statement, the stories about division in the security cabinet would have been much less explosive, and Hamas would have derived much less encouragement from those stories.  Netanyahu should never had made his untrue statement about general strikers who supposedly “support” terrorists. That kind of statement only exacerbates tensions within Israel. Moreover, none of the thousands who joined the strike did so in support of terrorists, and Netanyahu’s own false statement to the contrary must in itself have bolstered the terrorists’ morale. Strict adherence to the truth by Gallant and Netanyahu would have avoided both of these unhappy, unhelpful incidents.

The enemies Israel must fight and ultimately defeat are all external; Israelis should make every effort to minimize disagreements with each other. Emotions overflow, but all sides should recognize that reasonable people can differ as to what Israel’s next steps should be. That different Israelis reach different conclusions is not proof that some “decide” to kill hostages, or that others “support” terrorists. Israel’s leaders must make a greater effort to always be scrupulously truthful when speaking about those with whom they disagree. Such an effort would lessen the appearance of disunity and thus actually reduce Israel’s peril, and it would also provide a model that other Israelis could emulate with the same beneficial result.