Gaza: Soldiers are Speaking Out

I don't know if Israel's army is the "most moral" in the world. I'm
not sure if I even know what that means. I don't know what we really
expect when we train young men and women to kill, give them the most
sophisticated killing instruments on earth, then demonize their enemies
before sending them off to battle. 

The arrogant, effete, left-wing, anti-Zionist, self-loathing Jews (like Roger Cohen) of the NY Times couldn't have put it better.

1.  Note the glib, formerly fashionable platitude: "I'm not even sure what [moral] means."  No, I'm not twisting your words.  If you claim not to know what "most moral" means, then your problem is obviously not with the word "most".  One may debate the claim, but to quibble about the wording is rank pedantry.  "Most moral," as in "most conscientious."  Given the savagery and lack of restraint of their enemies, the IDF's restraint, notwithstanding the lurid anecdotes proferred here, is above and beyond the call of duty.

2. As for the part about training young men and women to kill and demonizing the enemy, um, I guess you're talking about the Palestinians.  Oh no, I forgot -- the Palestinians train young men and women and children to hate Jews and infidels, then to commit murder-suicide.

But of course, this guy is talking about the IDF.  No, actually, training young men and women to kill and to demonize the enemy is what's called training a military.  Any military, Stupid.

The fact that the IDF leadership apparently has not taught its soldiers enough restraint  to suit the likes of Rosen and the NY Times is what has their panties in a wad.

I find it rich that someone who bills himself as a rabbi apparently prides himself on not knowing what "moral" means and that he finds it "disturbing" that some IDF soldiers possess religious fervor.  ...as opposed to what? Political fervor?

OK, let's go back to Thinking 101:  In war, soldiers can't sit down with an enemy, all of whom are clothed as civilians, to discuss the finer points of politics.  The Allies didn't do it in World War II, the U.S. couldn't do it in Vietnam, and certainly the IDF can't do it in a place like Gaza, where amongst civilians allegiance to Hamas is almost as pervasive as hatred of Israel and Jews.  In war, you shoot and ask questions later.  It's horrible, it's barbaric, but then Rosen is evidently oblivious to what war is in the first place.

The reality of war is never enough to disuade the army of virtue from imposing their superior sensibilities on those who risk their lives to do the dirty work, whether one calls it "g-d's work" or simply that of a humane society's struggle to survive midst enthusiastic consumers of Mein Kampf bent on their annihilation.

כהנא צדק

I get the feeling some rabbis are so myopic they see Israel as an abstraction that revolves around their weekly sermon.

If Israel was fighting for its life against Switzerland, you would have a point in light of that absurd example.

The reality is that Israel is fighting for its life against religious and merciless maniacs who deliberately target civilians as a matter of stated policy. Show me another nation facing similar threats at anytime in world history and absoultely, beyond a shadow of a doubt "The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world".

One would think a thoughtful religious figure would find a divine hand guiding that truth about the IDF but apparently you are of a more cynical stripe.

Interestingly you are worried about the dust particle in Israel's eye but not about the plank in the Arab's eye. That says volumes about you and your warped agenda Rabbi.

News Item one: The IDF is a mechanism used by the State of Israel to FORCEFULLY pressure its enemies. It is made up of young men and young women taught to KILL the enemy of the State of Israel using all possible FORCE so as to KILL as MANY of the enemies as possible while losing as few of its own soldiers as possible. It is to use all of the "sophisticated killing instruments" at its disposal to achieve this goal. ANY attempt to SAVE CIVILIAN life is EXTRA as it in no way aids in the completion of the overall goal of the IDF. 

News Item two: Israel actually will send the IDF to complete military missions in which people will die. Yes, even the Jewish State will order bombings if bombed. This last item is in and of itself "horrifying news" to the entire world which has come to see the Jews as the ultimate victims, something like Art Speigleman's mice. Doubtless, there is a lot of the Jews' own fault in the perpetuation of this stereotype. 

I found many allegations in the ha'aretz article to be troubling. I'm secular, and when I hear of IDF rabbis framing the Gaza Operation as a holy war it bothers me. But that needs to be seen in the context of the ongoing culture war in Israel between (very roughly speaking) secular vs religious and left vs right. And clearly the excesses of war committed by "my side", whether it be the IDF or the US military, bother me too., and I would prefer "my side" to deal with them and make efforts to mitigate them in future, rather than ignore them. I don't apologize for the excesses of war.

 On the other hand, I've come to understand that war is hell and war is ugly. Israel is more or less in a state of war. And, as many of us who live in large Western cities know, that spirit of warfare spilled out onto the streets during some of the violent and vitriolic anti-Cast Lead demonstrations earlier this year. There were mobs ready to attack Jews and pillage "Jewish businesses" like Starbucks in no small part because they were indoctrinated and fired up on "Zionazi war crimes" innuendo.

 What bothers me about Brant is not that he doesn't support Cast Lead, but rather his methods and his motivations for making these posts. If you support Israel's right to exist (for lack of better phrase) but are bothered by some of its policies, this is the place to air that opinion.

But Brant has posted similar one sided critiques of Israel with no corroborating context here before. In one instance I composed a thorough and lengthy response to his distressed lament about the ascendance of the Israeli right, trying to provide some context and constructive dialogue. But he didn't respond. He has yet to respond to any of the posts he starts (that I know of).

I'm not sure what the point of his post and runs are. Two possibilities come to mind. 1) These are the sermons he gives his congregation and he wants to try them out on a different audience. Or 2) He feels these insights are so important that they warrant immediate publishing and are brilliant enough to stand alone without the need of dialogue or follow up commentary.

One may consider oneself a true supporter of Israel and be very disturbed by certain things it does, but it seems to me that leveling criticism is something that should be done responsibly (unless of course one doesn't support Israel in which case it wouldn't matter). Trumpeting war crimes and genocide charges during a military operation when rumors are already out of control across the world is throwing fuel on the fire. It especially emboldens Hizbollah "peace crowds" when a Jewish rabbi sanctions war crimes charges against Israel. 

I don't know what Brant's endgame is in all this. But when the timbre of his posts is so vindictive it makes me wonder. Does he hate the brutality and ugliness of warfare? Is his sense of Jewishness so offended when Jewish soldiers behave "unjewishly" that he will throw Israel and her soldiers under the bus simply to make his point?

I've got news for you. Israel is a nation at war. Always has been. Hopefully one day won't be. It's tough being an Israeli, a lot tougher than being a privileged American whose parents put him through rabbinical school. Personally, I've found most modern American reform rabbis my age to be not the sharpest tools in the shed, but certainly the most self-entitled and narcissistic. 

You may feel well within your bounds to level haphazard, uneven, slightly histrionic criticisms against Israel willy nilly, and not bother with any follow ups. And presumably you feel the title of Rabbi lends you some sort of authority or license to lecture instead of listen, since you include the title in your name. But I have to tell you, while you and your musings may be the center of your own little world, and while your minyans might actually respect what you say simply because you're the rabbi, I for one am  hardly impressed. You don't debate or discuss, you decry. You don't post thoughtful sermons, you complain. 

When some privileged, sheltered, American rabbi who has never had to lift a finger for anything, be it work or national defense, chooses to selectively castigate an Israel he is clearly out of touch with, he's the one beyond the pale, not Israel.

Again, I don't criticize Brant for sourcing the ha'aretz report, and I don't criticize ha'aretz for its reporting. I praise them for it, and I'm grateful for the fact that Israel has a free press and tolerates open criticism. But building one's rabbinical resume on selective Israel bashing during wartime seems no better to me than Nixon building his political career on Red baiting. It wouldn't bother me so much if brant defended his posts once in awhile, but instead he posts and runs. And as he seemed to promise at the end of this very post, we can "expect more horrifying news in coming weeks...." from him. 

Good for you, rabbi. 

I don't trust Rabbi Brant. I'll check in with Rabbi Chuck and Rabbi Brandon first. lol

"The reality of war is never enough to disuade the army of virtue from imposing their superior sensibilities on those who risk their lives to do the dirty work, whether one calls it "g-d's work" or simply that of a humane society's struggle to survive midst enthusiastic consumers of Mein Kampf bent on their annihilation."

This is an excellent paragraph. And, not to take direct issue with anything else in the body of this post, but is it the view of the poster that warfare, by definition, requires extreme force and so therefore charges of "excessive force" are moot?  And if so, does the same doctrine of force apply whether the warfare is open or urban/counter-insurgency?  Seriously, not arguing; just curious.

"expect more horrifying news in coming weeks..."

Well, it's been a couple of weeks. And now it's clear that the reports Rabbi Brant referenced were based on rumors compiled at an informal talk (carried out by a soldier who refused to serve in the West Bank apparently) rather than the result of an official and proper inquiry. 

I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said here. But it seems we've learned a valuable lesson: even rabbis can be wrong, even leftier than thou progressive rabbis.

 But I fear Brant is too headstrong or indifferent to acknowledge his hastiness. The fact that there apparently isn't more horrifying news for him to report has put a damper on Brant's zeal.

If there isn't already a Midrashic parable about the rabbi who jumped to hasty conclusions and prematurely decried the end of civilization, there is now.  

I wonder if he was one of the voices shrieking about the 2002 Jenin "massacre" at the height of the rumor mongering as well.  

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Israel go into this conflict because Hamas not only continually threatened to wipe all Jews from the face of the earth but also attempted to follow through by raining down thousands of rockets on Israel and by sending suicide bombers to attack innocent civilians?  Remember that the Palestinians democratically elected a group who have stated from the very start that their main reason for being is to kill Jews.  Now they want to act as if they are not getting what they deserve.  I am sick and tired of Israel being found at fault for defending itself.  Far too many people including some Jews act as if the Palestinians are being subjected to the Shoah.  If that is the case, then why are more than 99% of the Palestinians still alive?  This seems like a very inefficient slaughter with that being the case.  While I regret the loss of any life, Israel and Jews worldwide have been attacked for thousands of years.  Is it so wrong to stand up for oneself or is it better to let the enemy continue to denigrate and destroy Jews and Israel?