Views » January 31, 2003

Israels Slippery Moral Slope

By Neve Gordon (Jerusalem)

Following my last military reserve duty, I was kicked out of my unit, the educational corps of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

There was a surrealistic dimension to the whole experience. I had driven a few hours to a base located near the Egyptian border after having been asked to lecture about “leadership” to 60 soldiers from the Givati infantry brigade who were about to begin an officers’ training course. These young men are the military’s future commanders, its elite.

I decided to concentrate, in the lecture’s first part, on the relationship between leadership and moral virtue, examining the characteristics distinguishing leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot from others like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. In the discussion that followed, the soldiers concluded that all of the leaders mentioned possessed charisma, intelligence and rhetorical skills, but only the latter three were guided by universal moral values—the equality of all people.

The second part of the presentation focused on leadership within the IDF. My main contention was that so long as the occupation of Palestinian territories continues, the Israeli military will not produce worthy leaders. The argument was mainly structural: that within the context of the occupation, even the most humane officers would find themselves trampling human dignity. To substantiate my claim I offered several examples in which IDF soldiers committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip, an area well known to my audience.

Following the lecture, the soldiers contested my analysis concerning IDF leadership. First, they argued that the IDF’s primary objective is to protect Israeli citizens, and therefore must, at times, violate human rights and international law. “To save lives in Tel-Aviv, I have to detain Palestinians at a checkpoint,” one soldier exclaimed, adding, “If, for example, in the process an infant dies because of delayed access to a hospital, then so be it.” When I asked if the same rationale applied to two, three or more babies, he replied in the affirmative, without batting an eye.

The soldiers then went on to claim that the “IDF is the most moral army in the world.” While several thought this to be axiomatic, others felt it necessary to offer evidence. “Several months ago we entered a refugee camp to apprehend a ‘wanted’ Palestinian,” one said. “We could have ordered a helicopter to bomb the house where the suspect was hiding, but we decided that the platoon would enter the camp despite possible risk to our soldiers; we did not want to harm innocent people.”

Other soldiers also presented examples to show how on numerous occasions the IDF could have employed more brutal means, but refrained from doing so to minimize the number of innocent Palestinian casualties.

While these two arguments are powerful, both suffer from a common fallacy of moral relativism. Regarding the logic underlying the first claim—the hypothetical death of the child at the checkpoint—Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt once said that when the end justifies the means, then everything is permitted.

And indeed, during the past two years we have seen the dangerous and devastating implications of a moral position that lacks an anchor. It began with the unremitting curfews, followed by reports of babies dying at checkpoints and snipers shooting children. This was just the beginning; the military continued its moral slide as soldiers demolished homes with their residents still inside, and Israeli pilots bombed populated buildings located in town centers.

The soldiers’ second claim suffers from a similar error of moral relativism. Because there is no limit to human cruelty, it will always be possible to argue that the IDF could have behaved more brutally in a given situation. The soldier who detained a sick woman for seven hours at the checkpoint could have beaten her and prevented her from passing through at all; yet this in no way justifies a seven-hour delay. The pilot who dropped a one-ton bomb on populated houses, killing nine children, could have destroyed an entire neighborhood; but the “mercy” he showed does not in any way make his act moral.

The chain of events since the outbreak of the second intifada suggests that the IDF has employed more and more force against a primarily civilian population, and that every action is justified by comparing it to more brutal actions the IDF could, theoretically, have carried out.

In the absence of a universal moral approach—whereby there are things that one simply does not do—one is left with a tribal or relativistic worldview. Here the right to human dignity is contingent on national, ethnic or religious affiliation.

Because the IDF has rejected the notion that human beings are created equal, every young commander who follows its codes will inevitably slide down the slippery moral slope. As the soldiers themselves seemed to understand at the outset of the lecture, universal moral values are what distinguish corrupt from worthy leaders—an axiom that must be applied to the IDF, too.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
• Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

    In the absence of a universal moral approach�whereby there are things that one simply does not do�one is left with a tribal or relativistic worldview. Here the right to human dignity is contingent on national, ethnic or religious affiliation.
    Your quote above: but what can you expect when the Jews Talmud teaches that very thing. Jews are men, Goyim are animals
   

  Posted by Cristopher on Feb 2, 2003 at 2:41 AM

  Hi,
  I fully agree with you: moral relativism is immoral as such and cannot ever be used as a moral argument or even as an excuse. You’re indeed a true “man of the book” and I respect and congratulate you for your position! And I am so saddened to see what racism, etnic cleansing and apartheid, all imposed thru force and violence - which are all immoral and more - criminal - can do to your country and to your people. I pray to God that Israelis will wake up and will do what is MORAL!

   

  Posted by Florin on Feb 2, 2003 at 2:58 AM

    I’ d like to say that, such behaviour, the conception or relativism of brutal actions, shall be eradicated from the top commanders,  which are actually the ones to determine soldier’s actions. Nevertheless, I approve Gordon’s efforts, because if it’s true that it seems impossible to stop, neither Hamass’s unjustifiable acts, nor Sharon’s use of military violence, you can try to humanise troop commander’s behaviour. Let’s pray for Peace and reconciliation. Anyway instead, of spending three years in the military, and as well thousands of billions in the Army, I would send overseas most Israelis and Palestinians, in order to escape to this violent spiral which allows to maintain fratricidal components in this terrible conflict. 

  Posted by Peace on the world. on Feb 2, 2003 at 10:51 AM

  Barring bush lobbing bombs while Sharon clears the west bank to “destroy Babylon and reclaim historic Israel,I have a new perspective. (My wife is an Israeli, and I have lived there)
      The west bank will never be handed over completely, because that would leave the water in Palestinian control.  The west bank is not economically viable except as a sweatshop. 

      True peace could come by Palestine getting Northern Israel including Haifa. Then they would have a port, and a shared , control of the water and Jerusalem. Get some camels, and you could have the most popular religious theme park in the world.
      How"s that for a conversation starter.
     
   

  Posted by Darrell Denisi on Feb 4, 2003 at 1:54 PM

  I think moral relativism has its place.  The real problem is power.  Leadership can largely be defined in terms of authority, that is leadership without authority (moral values / suasion) and leadership with authority (power driven).  Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely!!   
   

  Posted by D. Trottman on Feb 4, 2003 at 9:14 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Also featured Seeds of Domination
First Person: Porto Alegre
Taking Back Argentina

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Neve Gordon

• Gaza in the Crosshairs
  Israel cites all the wrong reasons for its invasion of Gaza.Posted on January 14, 2009
• The Experiment in Gaza
  The experiment in famine began on January 18, 2008. Israel hermetically closed all… morePosted on February 4, 2008
• Israel and Hamas Just Say No To Peace
  Over the past 40 years, the Arab League's position on Israel has radically shifted. It's time for Israel to recognize the change.Posted on April 17, 2007
• Fighting the Larger War
  The War On Terror is unique because its political, temporal and geographic borders are unknown and its enemy is fluidly ill-defined.Posted on September 12, 2006
• Israel’s September 11 Effect
  Israel is uniting in its war with LebanonPosted on August 11, 2006