Very few Israelis are overjoyed at the deaths of civilians, although to say that perhaps some of the dead don't support terrorism or even contribute actively to it is a matter I am unqualified to pass judgment simply because I don't really know.
Anyway, the New York Times hosts him today.
His op-ed piece is entitled: Hiding Behind the Enemy and the link for the full text (for those who can get it is here).
The army of a democracy fighting an insurgency — Israel in the West Bank, like the United States in Iraq — faces tough choices. Its government requires it to observe rules of war intended to protect the rights and lives of civilians. At the same time, commanders must protect their soldiers. The two imperatives often conflict.
- - -
But morality in combat is not just an abstract principle. It is an element of an army's strength. It is also essential to the society that sends the army into battle. If the safety of soldiers becomes the standard according to which an army designs its missions, the army will not have the courage to take risks. An army that does not take risks will be easily beaten by an opponent that does.
So it's not unreasonable — in fact, it's essential — for a society to demand that its army observe moral standards, even if the price to be paid is that more soldiers will be killed.
Laws and moral rules are another set of constraints. Soldiers sometimes chafe at them because, unlike hills and bullets, they seem like artificial and unnecessary barriers. In a purely military sense, armies could better do their jobs if they could ignore the civilians on the battlefield. But we don't allow them to ignore civilians. And truth be told, I've never met a soldier who thinks armies ought to be able to maim and kill civilians with impunity.
But in the final analysis, Israel and its soldiers will not be less secure. They will occupy the high ground, and that is the most secure place to be.
You'll notice that the subject has nothing really to do with what Israel is now doing and refers to the practice of "human shield" and bulldozing.
Nevertheless, the issue of Gaza is "present" and this article doesn't help because it doesn't point to the responsibility of Arab leaders to do away with the terror. And it doesn't highlight the evil of the Arab terror enough.
This op-ed "lent" itself to a bad goal: slammering Israel. (slammering = slamming + hammering).