ISRAEL, WILL IT BE JOSHUA OR LEVITICUS?
Thoughts as Israel mobilizes on the northern border of Gaza
Objectively speaking, in the wake of horrific jihadist violence aren't the Israelis also violating the modern rules of war by bombing and denying food, water, essential supplies and electricity to millions of civilians in Gaza?
It would seem that the Netanyahu government is reverting to pre-biblical standards of retribution of "a life for an eye" rather than the subsequent "an eye for an eye" of Leviticus. The former standard leads to irreversible escalation to all-out war and its accompanying extreme levels of death and destruction, whereas the latter standard represents a higher level of morality intended to stop an escalating cycle of provocation and retribution.
By reverting to "a life for and eye," the Israelis play into Hamas' and, ultimately, Iran's hands, as The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman points out (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/opinion/israel-gaza-war.html ). By "outcrazying" the jihadists, Israel will forfeit whatever moral high ground exists in the Middle East, and, as the mounting civilian suffering of Gaza emerges in the global press, will also forfeit the sympathy and support of world opinion. President Biden has said "occupying Gaza would be a big mistake." Friedman agrees. So do I.
As a postscript to the "progress" of what might be called "retributional morality" in the Middle East, we have the New Testament, wherein Jesus offered a practical response to the injuries suffered by Jews during the Roman occupation of Israel: "Love thine enemy," and "Turn the other cheek," rather than the guerilla warfare advocated by the Zealots. Jesus was right, as the Israelites would learn a few decades later.
Of course, the situation then and now are not comparable. The occupying Romans sought a condition of peaceful subjugation of a submissive, if resentful population, whereas the jihadists today seek the destruction of the state of Israel. In so doing, the jihadists abandon the professed respect in the Koran for "people of the book" and revert to the pre-biblical retributional standard of "a life for an eye." Consequently, the now-Christian standard won’t work (nor has it worked for some time in America, the modern incarnation of Rome.)
In response, Israel must decide whether to similarly revert, or to hold the line at the "eye for an eye" of Leviticus. As stated earlier, Netanyahu favors the former approach, promising to end the jihadist threat “once and for all” with the genocidal violence of Joshua. Yet modern history suggests that approach will succeed only in creating subsequent generations of better armed, more determined and violent jihadists, while ending whatever hopes the Middle East might have entertained for Abrahamic reconciliation.
Friedman proposes (and I concur) a more surgical approach, as ultimately succeeded in decapitating ISIS and Al Qaida rather than mobilizing the blunt force of the Israeli Defense Force. Now is the time for Mossad rather than IDF.
For further thoughts on the road ahead in the Middle East, read Friedman's piece in the NY Times, along with earlier articles he has written. IMO his is the most sane informed voice now commenting on the unfolding tragedy of the Middle East.
David,
A thoughtful article, BUT...
I suggest you search out Peter Beinart -- writer for Jewish Currents, faculty at CUNY Grad School of Journalism, and Dept of Political Science. He was on Brian Lehrer's WNYC show this AM. He is a Jew with a secular view of the current political scene in the State of Israel. He made a thoughtful parallel between the BDS movement of Jews, and the commitment to non-violence in the anti-apartheid struggle of the African National Congress of the 1980s (?).
The Laws of (Civilized, Just) War. What are they? Are they universal? Immutable?
Would publicizing them help the struggle? Broaden out the constituency for a just war solution? Expose the nihilationist rhetoric that often accompanies "anti-terrorism"?
Pres. Biden today picked up the Israeli parallels with the US 9/11 experience. He noted we (the US) made mistakes ( "mistakes"?) in the wake of 9/11. But he didn't spell those mistakes out or probe how they came to be.
Be well,
Frank Kehl