|
LOOKING AROUND:FEELING SORRY
By Barbara Sofer
August 1, 2002
As experts trickle new information about Israel's decision to use a one-ton
bomb to assassinate Sheik Salah Shehada leader of the military arm of Hamas,
in Gaza on July 23, they fuel the continuing debate in newspapers and at
our dinner tables. Should we have used a one-ton bomb? Should we have let
Shehada go because of supposed cease-fire negotiations? Should we have let
Shehada live because of the danger to civilians? Was the assassination a
conspiracy to derail a new peace process? Was a mistake made by Israel's
much-lauded air force? Were Israeli pilots, who object to dropping bombs
in civilian areas, lied to? Were we foolish in the other direction, hesitating
in the past to target Shehada before he planned his previous murderous attacks?
Should we have stopped pursuing terrorist leaders because of the putative
nascent talks with the Tanzim?
Rarely has a military action so occupied us, even though Prime Minister
Sharon and the IDF publicly regretted the civilian casualties. While we
braced ourselves for the predictable condemnations from outside of the country,
we plain Israelis were wrestling with the thorniest question of all: would
we personally have opted to drop the bomb to get the mass murderer, knowing
that civilian lives might be lost? How far would we go to protect our own
people?
Because nearly everyone agrees that Shehada himself deserved to be killed,
he's rarely mentioned in the discussion. His life's goal was bringing
death to Israelis and the destruction of Israel. In particular, he had
a special desire to kill and maim teenagers. Here was a man whose success
was measured in the number of funerals he caused. Nor was the Sheikh overly
concerned about the health of Palestinian children. The more violence
he wrought, the more unemployment there was, the more malnutrition, the
more despair, and the more fertile ground for Hamas recruitment. He excelled
at brainwashing Gaza youth in the philosophy of hate and murder. His life
wish was to ensure that his hate and that hate which he engendered in
others would damn future
generations.
Nor should we forget that Shehada was a hard enemy to defeat. We'd like
to think that we have an omnipotent army with the ability to pick off
all our enemies with a marksman's neat precision or with booby-trapped
cellphones, that our intelligence and commando units are so clever and
powerful that no terrorist provides a serious challenge. This isn't a
computer game, where you can reboot when stuck. To complicate matters,
our terrorists live among us. They know the floor plans of our restaurants,
they speak our language, and they read our bus schedules. They've had
military training. They shoot straight enough to murder a Rabbi coming
back from a late night Torah lesson, and a mom and dad driving along a
highway. They have their own commando units.
We're not, of course, the only nation to be stymied. The most powerful
nation in the world couldn't stop an attack on the World Trade Center,
or on the Pentagon, considered the most highly protected structure in
the world. All the military might of the West cannot catch one Osama bin
Laden. .
Shehada understood Israel better than many of our critics. Hiding among
families was reasonable protection because Israelis are so reluctance
to
kill children. In an opinion piece in the New York Times this week,
military historian Caleb Carr insists that from the attack on Shehada
"the world received its clearest demonstration yet that the Israel
government is prepared to knowingly inflict substantial civilian
casualties in its response to Palestinian suicide attacks." He wrongly
assumes we're involved in an obscene tit for tat, they kill our kids and
we kill theirs. Shehada knew what every Palestinian who comes to seek
work or medical care understands: civilian deaths may be an unhappy
side effect of warfare, but they are never the goal of Israeli military
action. Just the opposite.
Carr's criticism focuses more on efficacy than morality: killing
civilians usually doesn't work well, he argues. His own nation would
never have overcome the anger of the Japanese for dropping atomic bombs
(!) on them if it hadn't come up with a "generous reconstruction
program."
We've long been disgusted with this wasteful war forced on us by Yassir
Arafat, with its dead and injured on both sides. As angry as we are at
the Palestinians, we don't enjoy the surveys that say their kids are
hungry. We cringe at the accidental deaths and injury of children, even
when they're used as human shields. We're not afraid to feel sorry.
In this week's Torah portion R'aih, we are commanded to be merciful;
kindness is one of the idealized traits of the Jewish people. Yes, I'm
familiar with the Talmudic warning " whoever is merciful to the cruel
will end by being indifferent to the innocent." But the last two
times I've heard it quoted were in the context of people who lived outside
of Israel reprimanding Israelis-army officers-- for being too soft-hearted.
Having pity, feeling sorry, worrying about the ethical implications of
even a necessary action, going back to re-evaluate the decision-making
procedures are all healthy reactions for a people who believe in a just
society. The day we become numb to the suffering of children, any
children, will be a black day indeed. Likewise, the day we stop debating
the morality of our behavior we'll be in trouble, too. Instead of seeing
our plethora of strong and diverse opinions as a national weakness, we
need to remember that they have always been a national strength. The
realization that our moral sensibilities are in tact after so many years
of living without a single real day of peace should be a source of
satisfaction to us all.
|
|