A note from the author:
I’m aware that there have been questions about my March 26 op-ed regarding testimony by Israeli soldiers who served in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. It has since emerged that an investigation by army officials concluded that two specific reports of soldiers killing Palestinian civilians was based on hearsay. I regret having made reference to these incidents. I also regret J’s choice of a headline for my op-ed. The paper’s headline was more provocative than any that I would have authored.
However, nothing has changed in the depth of my concern that a group of Israelis testified that during the operation in Gaza they witnessed a pervasive policy of permissiveness regarding care for the life and dignity of the Palestinian population, in contrast to the long-standing policy of “tohar haneshek” (“purity of arms”) on which the Israel Defense Forces has prided itself. These claims have not been discredited. In fact, I have since learned that 11 Israeli human rights groups have called for an independent investigation.
What have we come to, that some readers have become so intent on “defending” Israel against all criticism that they are unwilling to believe Israeli soldiers’ own accounts of the war in which they served?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I first learned the terrible news from a colleague in Israel. The e-mail message from Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the founding director of Rabbis for Human Rights, of which I have long been a proud supporter, was full of anguish.
A former Berkeley resident and spiritual leader of Richmond’s Temple Beth Hillel in the early 1990s, Ascherman wrote that a group of Israelis who had served in the Gaza war had come forward to speak of what they had experienced during Operation Cast Lead.
I tried to read the accounts several times — those that surfaced last week in the New York Times and more in the Israeli press — but I can hardly assimilate what I have read.
One soldier reported on the killing of a Palestinian mother and her two children, who had mistakenly turned in the wrong direction on the way out of their home. Another had witnessed the killing of an elderly Palestinian woman, walking near a home being occupied by Israeli soldiers. Several reported on soldiers writing “Death to the Arabs” on the walls of buildings, and spitting on the belongings of Palestinian families.
The consensus was that the prevailing attitude held that the usual ethical rules did not apply to Gaza, and protection of civilians was not a priority.
Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister, continues to proclaim what Israeli Jews and Jews around the world believe with deep faith, that Israel’s is “the most moral army in the world.”
The recent stories are generating shock waves precisely because Israel, since its inception, has prided itself on the sacred concept of “tohar haneshek,” or “purity of arms,” a profound moral commitment to use weaponry in the way most consistent with Jewish values. Generations of Israeli young people have been inculcated with these values, and have come to believe that their country would never violate them.
But it seems that in this operation, for reasons that will long be debated, a more permissive attitude prevailed among (at least some) military commanders, who made it clear that protecting the lives of Israeli soldiers was to be given the highest priority, with less attention to be paid to the prevention of civilian casualties. The results are horrific.
Some in Israel and in synagogues around the world will continue to proclaim that it cannot be so, that the morality of the Israeli Defense Forces is unassailable, that in any case our ethics are far higher than those of “our enemies.” We cannot believe that it could be otherwise, because our attachment to the State of Israel carries the force of deep religious commitment, at times impervious to challenging facts.
Some will say that it is a tribute to the vibrancy of Israeli democracy that these reports were published in the press, and that a high-level commission of inquiry will surely follow. Truly, in how many countries does democracy respond so quickly and forcefully to self-incriminating information? Yet this assurance brings little comfort in the face of what we have learned.
I can understand that lovers of Israel, like myself, will find it difficult to believe that these soldiers are telling the truth, or that their stories are anything but tales of “a few bad apples.” But Jewish tradition teaches that God’s seal is truth, and we must confront the truth, no matter how painful.
My colleague, Rabbi Ascherman, wrote that when he heard the news, he immediately rent the shirt he was wearing, a powerful Jewish ritual performed when hearing of the death of an immediate loved one. He announced that he would fast until the start of Shabbat at sunset March 20, and that he would organize what he hoped would become a nationwide day of fasting, mourning and collective self-examination.
There is some comfort in reading e-mails from many friends and colleagues here in the United States and in Israel who share the anguish, taking in the terrible news without saying, “Yes, but.”
It may be that these eyewitness reports from her own young people will cause Israel to undertake a process of national repentance. Perhaps one can even dare to hope that those who have opposed Israel would similarly examine ways in which they have contributed to the horrors of war. Then, the healing could begin.
Rabbi Amy Eilberg, formerly a columnist for j., worked in Jewish healing and Jewish spiritual direction in the Bay Area for many years. The former Palo Alto resident now directs interfaith dialogue programs in St. Paul, Minn.