Friday, February 06, 2009

On Morality in Fighting Terror

Odd, this guy being very left-wing.

Asa Kasher, The philosopher who said 'Yes' to the IDF

[the IDF] operated there not only with the backing of the legal opinion of the office of the Military Advocate General, but also on the basis of ethical theory, developed several years ago, that justifes its actions.

Prof. Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, an Israel Prize laureate in philosophy, is the philosopher who told the IDF that it was possible. In a recent interview with Haaretz Kasher said the army operated in accordance with a code of conduct developed about five years ago for fighting terrorism.

"The norms followed by the commanders in Gaza were generally appropriate," Kasher said. In Kasher's opinion there is no justification for endangering the lives of soldiers to avoid the killing of civilians who live in the vicinity of terrorists...

Kasher's argument is that in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control the overriding principle guiding the commanders is achieving their military objectives. Next in priority is protecting soldiers' lives, followed by avoiding injury to enemy civilians. In areas where Israel does have effective control, such as East Jerusalem, there is no justification for targeted killings in which civilians are also hit because Israel has the option of using routine policing procedures, such as arrests, that do not endanger innocent people.

...There is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. The media don't understand the nature of international law. It's not like tough traffic laws...

..."The Geneva Conventions are based on hundreds of years of tradition of the fair rules of combat. They were appropriate for classic warfare, where one army fought another. But in our time the whole business of rules of fair combat has been pushed aside. There are international efforts underway to revise the rules to accommodate the war against terrorism...

...but why should I force him [the IDF soldier] to endanger himself much more than that so that the terrorist's neighbor isn't killed? I don't have an answer for that. From the standpoint of the state of Israel, the neighbor is much less important. I owe the soldier more. If it's between the soldier and the terrorist's neighbor, the priority is the soldier. Any country would do the same."

The decision regarding the magnitude of force used to protect the lives of the soldiers is up to the commander in the field. "The commander must be skilled in gauging the appropriate use of force," Kasher said.

3 comments:

Milhouse said...

This guy is left-wing? If so, that's a left wing I can live with. What you quoted here is exactly what I've been saying for years. No Israeli government has the right to sacrifice soldiers' lives in order to save enemy "civilians". There was a massacre in Jenin - Sharon will never be forgiven for the 23 soldiers he deliberately sacrificed in order to save enemy lives.

Nor do I accept that an Arab who participates in the fighting in a non-combat role is a "civilian". An IDF soldier who peels potatoes in uniform is not a civilian, and is a legitimate target for enemy fire; why should the same not apply to an Arab who fills the same role in the enemy ranks? He or she is an enemy and a legitimate target, and if s/he is not wearing a uniform then s/he is an illegal combatant who may be shot on the spot.

g said...

Here you Millhouse, you got it all figured out. Just shot as many Palestinians as you can and then send the rest to America! Problem solved.

escorts espaƱa said...

Really helpful information, lots of thanks for your post.