Opinion: Jewish Values, War, and the Need for Honest Dialogue

I applaud Ms. Simon for the bravery she displayed in her September 2024 Op-Ed. She is the first person in these pages to express the deep concern that many feel about the way in which Israel has been conducting the war in Gaza in response to the brutal October 7th Hamas terrorist attacks. The atmosphere of heavy silence in the Jewish community and the fact that many are afraid to share what they think about the wars in Gaza and Lebanon should be troubling to all of us, especially given the importance of respectful debate and disagreement to the Jewish identity. 

Unfortunately, the rebuttal Letter to the Editor in the October edition entirely missed Ms. Simon’s main point: that there are those who object to the way Israel has been waging war in Gaza and Lebanon not in spite of our Jewish values, but because of them. She cited core Jewish values such as tikkun olam (our duty to repair the world), pikuach nefesh (the commandment to save a life), and Rabbi Hillel’s summary of the Torah as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbors.” I would add b’tzelem Elohim (that all people are created in the image of God) to the list. With these Jewish values in mind, I join Ms. Simon when she says: “I do not believe that the war Israel has waged in Gaza is an accurate reflection of who we are, or our values as Jewish people.” 

So I ask the authors: Did they not discuss Jewish values in their rebuttal because the values referenced above are not pertinent during times of war? While I can certainly understand prioritizing self-defense and survival when attacked, if the above are truly core Jewish values, then shouldn’t they still guide our actions in some way? Or perhaps there are competing Jewish values that take precedence during war that the rebuttal authors could point me towards? These are not rhetorical questions, and in the spirit of machloket – a commitment to having difficult but productive discussions – I would encourage our Jewish community, institutions, and leaders to create opportunities for these difficult discussions to happen. 

 
Furthermore, the rebuttal letter’s accusation of “moral equivalence” is a straw man argument. Ms. Simon condemned Hamas’ terrorist attack strongly and never implied moral equivalence. Insisting that Israel can and should be doing much, much more to prevent the death and suffering of innocent Palestinians is in no way the same thing as saying that Israel is morally equivalent to Hamas. For example, one can condemn Hamas for, in the words of the rebuttal letter, “seeking refuge in children’s bedrooms, schools, and hospitals,” and at the same time insist that Israel should not be bombing children’s bedrooms, schools, and hospitals, even if they are targeting Hamas. And to preempt a likely critique: I’m spending more time criticizing Israel’s war tactics than condemning Hamas because I already agree with the rebuttal authors that Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization. With that common understanding, we can spend our time on what we don’t agree on: how many innocent civilian deaths we are willing to allow before we say “enough.”  

Moral arguments aside, if the purpose of Hamas’ strategy of operating in civilian areas is to provoke a “higher number of Palestinian deaths” in order “to make Israel look bad” as the rebuttal letter states, then shouldn’t Israel be doing much, much more to not fall into that trap? Hamas’ military capabilities are indeed significantly degraded, but who can deny that on a political and ideological level, Hamas’ terrible strategy appears to be working exactly as intended. The overwhelming sympathy and support for Israel in the aftermath of October 7th is entirely gone, and it is more isolated on the world stage than ever before. With this in mind, advocating for a ceasefire is not naïve: it is strategic. 

Finally, is the way Israel is waging the war actually making it safer in the long run? Does anyone truly believe that the level of destruction being inflicted in Gaza is going to lead to less extremism and less terrorism in the long run? Even if Hamas is destroyed in the short-term, it is likely that something just as bad, or perhaps even worse, will take its place. Sadly, we have seen this before. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 forced the PLO out and created a “security buffer” in the short-term, but paved the way for Hezbollah’s rise in the long-term. And now forty years later, Israel is invading Lebanon again. No one is arguing for “appeasement” of “violence and terrorism,” but what history actually shows is that Israel’s long-standing policy of disproportionate military response in the name of deterrence almost always backfires in the long-run. 

What can we do? First, in the name of the Jewish values of tikkun olam, pikuach nefesh, and b’tzelem Elohim, it is past time for American Jews to speak out for a ceasefire as the best way to bring home the remaining 101 hostages and stop the ongoing killing on innocent Palestinian civilians. Given the level of American military aid for Israel, American Jewish voices could truly make a difference. And second, it is time for our local Jewish community, institutions, and leaders to break down the walls of silence and start making space, in the spirit of machloket, for discussion about the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and Israeli policy moving forward.