Since October 7, and even more so since the ground incursion into Gaza began, voices have been heard in the public and media discourse in Israel calling on the IDF to fight without considering the rules of morality and the laws of armed conflict. Various speakers who have been interviewed in the media or published posts on social media have failed to distinguish between civilians and fighters or show a full understanding of disproportionate damage within the framework of the attacks in Gaza. Despite these inaccurate comments, as well as the many challenges of fighting in urban areas, the IDF has underscored its commitment to international law and emphasizes repeatedly that it adheres to the principles of distinction, proportionality and necessity and upholds the values in the spirit of the IDF.
Adherence to these principles undoubtedly has pragmatic value. Alongside the war on the battlefield, there is also a cognitive war and a war for public opinion, and precise accuracy regarding the principles of international law helps Israel maintain the international legitimacy for its actions and gives it freedom of action. But alongside the pragmatic value, we must understand that this strictness has a moral value of the highest order. A country that recruits its soldiers through a mandatory draft and sends them to fight in its name must assure them that they act morally and that they will not be sent to commit war crimes in its name. A country that aspires to recover from the events of October 7 must distinguish itself from the terrorist organization that attacked it, and one of the ways to do this is by maintaining its moral backbone. The war today is not only about the physical existence of the State of Israel, but also about the character of the state that will exist here.
Adherence to moral principles has a price, no doubt. But this price is an integral part of the essence of morality. There would be no need for the concept of moral obligation, if the choice to act morally was always the easier choice. The moral obligation exists precisely because sometimes the moral action is the more difficult one. But adherence to moral principles is what makes us who we are and defines our essence.
Since October 7, and even more so since the ground incursion into Gaza began, voices have been heard in the public and media discourse in Israel calling on the IDF to fight without considering the rules of morality and the laws of armed conflict. Various speakers who have been interviewed in the media or published posts on social media have failed to distinguish between civilians and fighters or show a full understanding of disproportionate damage within the framework of the attacks in Gaza. Despite these inaccurate comments, as well as the many challenges of fighting in urban areas, the IDF has underscored its commitment to international law and emphasizes repeatedly that it adheres to the principles of distinction, proportionality and necessity and upholds the values in the spirit of the IDF.
Adherence to these principles undoubtedly has pragmatic value. Alongside the war on the battlefield, there is also a cognitive war and a war for public opinion, and precise accuracy regarding the principles of international law helps Israel maintain the international legitimacy for its actions and gives it freedom of action. But alongside the pragmatic value, we must understand that this strictness has a moral value of the highest order. A country that recruits its soldiers through a mandatory draft and sends them to fight in its name must assure them that they act morally and that they will not be sent to commit war crimes in its name. A country that aspires to recover from the events of October 7 must distinguish itself from the terrorist organization that attacked it, and one of the ways to do this is by maintaining its moral backbone. The war today is not only about the physical existence of the State of Israel, but also about the character of the state that will exist here.
Adherence to moral principles has a price, no doubt. But this price is an integral part of the essence of morality. There would be no need for the concept of moral obligation, if the choice to act morally was always the easier choice. The moral obligation exists precisely because sometimes the moral action is the more difficult one. But adherence to moral principles is what makes us who we are and defines our essence.