On the betrayal of intellectuals and the value of victory
1.
Another article in the series was published this week in the newspaper of the defeated family, against the war and in favor of surrender. Professors Yitzhak Benbaji and Avi Sagi determined that the concept “absolute victory” is a “criminal goal,” no less. According to their approach, “the only (!) justification for war is self-defense,” and once we removed the “real and immediate” threat “to life, to borders and to sovereignty,” we are forbidden “according to international law” to continue until the complete elimination of the aggressor. “The just goal was defense against Hamas and not its destruction.” Dismantling Hamas of its weapons and replacing the regime in Gaza should be done “through diplomatic means, and not through war.” This worldview influenced generations of commanders to remove from the Israel Defense Forces’ system of values and principles the simple and self-evident value for any fighter, that is victory.
Israeli troops fighting in the Gaza war (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit)
Well, wrong. This involves an incorrect determination. International law indeed limits the reasons for which one can start a war, but once we were attacked and the war became “legal,” there is no obligation to stop even if the invader was expelled from our territory, but rather one can continue until his complete elimination, as the Allies did in Nazi Germany and Japan.
2.
How according to their approach would our nation survive in the Middle East? Remove only the immediate danger and no more, and then continue through diplomatic means. Brilliant. This magnificent rule guarantees the terrorists of the region success in advance that they will never be completely eliminated and will not pay a decisive price for their crimes, but rather will be pushed back to their places. And surely they will prepare to attack again? Their answer is “one must assume that the IDF learned lessons and will know how to thicken its defensive array to prevent another attack.” Sure.
The statement that the enemy is already defeated, and there is no point in continuing to fight, is despicable, since he still holds hostages. This alone is enough to justify continuing the war. We are not obligated to conduct negotiations; the kidnapping was a declaration of war for all intents and purposes. Whether this will harm the hostages or benefit their release – we will leave this to security experts, but certainly one cannot say that there is no justification for continuing the war and that this contradicts international law.
3.
The article’s authors urge us to solve the conflict “through diplomatic means,” and “not by force” and ignore the different cultural infrastructure between us and Hamas. Diplomacy is worthy for cultured peoples who share a common philosophical and value base, and see compromise as a worthy solution that prefers life and prosperity over death and destruction. Not so our enemies, the entire Western value system is foreign to them. The term “solution” is not valid in the sense that we understand it, and of course they do not recognize the causal conception that believes that if we know the cause of the problem, we will solve it. October 7 proved that our enemies prefer to kill us even at the price of their destruction, and they despise the thought as if the welfare of their residents is preferable to war.
If the professors would remove their eyes from certain theories and read Hamas’ charter, they would learn that we are dealing with new Nazis. Two principles in the charter are total commitment to destroying Israel and murdering Jews wherever they are. The philosophical theories blind their eyes from discerning reality and its dangers. Not for nothing do they rely on a certain branch of Western thought; like their colleagues in the world, they are partners in the reckless blindness regarding the dangers of radical Islam. For the barbarians in Gaza, compromise is interpreted as surrender, since their enemies did not complete the task but gave them time to recover and strengthen again. Look at the West, the democracies do not know how to defend themselves against those who exploit their openness and pursuit of peace, and intellectuals bear responsibility for neutering their ability to defend themselves.
4.
The authors determine that “the war in Gaza has become a campaign of destruction and revenge.” This is their way of admitting that for the first time the IDF is behaving differently from the weakening indoctrination that they and their like dictated for decades. But the destruction in Gaza is necessary, since under the auspices of reckless conceptions like these, we refrained from attacking thoroughly the strengthening of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The result was the largest terror fortress in history with a tunnel system more branched than those of New York and London, countless public institutions that served military purposes, booby-trapped houses at every step, and a population that cooperates with the terrorists and serves as human shields. Every booby-trapped house, or headquarters disguised as a school, hospital or mosque – were intended for a diabolical double purpose: destroying Israel and murdering Jews. The destruction in the Strip is a security and moral action that is too late, but necessary.
5.
Then the authors reach the root of their conception: “absolute victory over what is considered fundamentally and basically evil, is not possible.” Lucky that the Allies did not listen to them in World War II. They recruit a supporting authority: God asked “to deal with absolute evil through the flood,” but after the complete destruction “committed to refrain from absolute victory,” why? “Because the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). And here is the explanation: “Human beings tend toward evil, which is a permanent element in their soul. But from this fact does not follow the conclusion that the struggle against evil will be done through absolute victory, which amplifies human evil.” You understand, absolute victory is what amplifies human evil, and therefore God will refrain from destroying humanity again.
But perhaps the opposite: perhaps the biblical destruction succeeded so much that even if the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth, there will be no need for additional total destruction, since man will not reach the level of evil from before the flood again? Moreover, God swore not to destroy all of humanity, but the commitment did not include groups of absolute evil, in which case there is a moral obligation to destroy them. For example, Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). It could be that contrary to the professors’ opinion, God decided on absolute victory over evil there? Anyone who saw the October 7 videos understands that Sodom appears moral compared to Gaza.
6.
For some reason, the authors do not continue further in the Bible, to the period when we had a kingdom with orders of government, rule and morality. Here is the doctrine of King David, as established in the biblical canon: “Who teaches my hands to war… and you gave me the shield of your salvation… I will pursue my enemies and overtake them, and I will not return until I finish them. I will crush them and they will not be able to rise, they will fall under my feet… you will subdue those who rise against me under me… and my enemies you gave me their back, and those who hate me I will destroy them. They will cry out and there is no savior… and I will grind them like dust before the wind, like mud of the streets I will empty them…” (Psalms 18:35-43). David boasts that he humiliated his enemies and crushed them in a way that they could not rise. Why is he not satisfied with removing the danger and defending? In David’s time there existed institutions like blood redemption, rebellious son, prisoners of war, suspected wife, stoning and more. Through an enlightening exegetical process, starting from Moses until the Sages, we softened the power of these institutions until their disappearance. But among our neighbors all this still exists. David knew the consciousness of his enemies and knew how to make them fear attacking us.
So will we forbid Jews from saying these verses, especially soldiers in the IDF? On second thought, one could write an article about David’s biblical doctrine that contradicts the UN Charter. I am convinced that the newspaper of the defeated family would be happy to publish this.
