1
This week we heard from a well-known professor about the (non) value of winning the war and how considering so deviates from the boundaries of morality. Some years ago, the IDF when constructing its code of ethics consulted with experts of this nature but they did not respond to the demand of then-IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz to include victory as a value in the IDF's document of Ethics' principles. But concepts of morality and ethics depend on currents and schools of thought and on the people who develop and implement them. Are we exposed to a variety of perceptions on the cardinal questions related to our existence here? If it were up to this group of intellectual elites, the answer would be no. As far as they are concerned, there is no legitimacy for ideas other than theirs.
We are in the time of the three weeks, the fateful period between the breach of the walls of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple on Tisha B'Av. I am currently reading the Midrash Rabbah of the Book of Lamentations, rabbinic commentaries collected around the fifth century CE but which also includes earlier commentaries.
2
The Mishnaic sage Zabdi Ben Levi said of the verse "The kings of the earth did not believe, nor any of the inhabitants of the world, that foe or adversary could enter the gates of Jerusalem" (Lamentations 4:12): "There were four kings, what this one demanded, that one did not demand, and these are: David, Asa, Yehoshafat, and Hezekiah. David said: 'I will pursue my enemies and overtake them, I did not turn back till I destroyed them'… Asa arose and said: 'I do not have the power to kill them, but I will pursue them and you do [the killing].' He (i.e. God) said to him: 'I will do so,' Yehoshafat arose and said: 'I have the power neither to kill nor to pursue; rather, I will recite song and you do so.' The Holy One blessed be He said to him: 'I will do so'… Hezekiah arose and said: 'I have the power neither to kill, nor to pursue, nor to recite song; rather I will sleep in my bed and you do so.' The Holy One blessed be He said to him: 'I will do so.'"
The greatest orientalist of the twentieth century, Bernard Lewis, was well acquainted with the long history of the Middle East. His criticism of Israel's wars was that we did not subdue the enemy in a way that left him with no option to get back up again. According to Lewis, the enemy must know that he is going to die, and only then should we spare his life, if we so desire.
The Midrash talks about defense doctrines over four generations. King David fought by himself; the other kings did less and relied the assistance of Heaven. The Midrash praises King David who did not wait for his enemies and did not "leave for God" what the soldiers of Israel should do themselves. Here we see clearly that what may seem obvious from a religious point of view is in fact the opposite: the more one relies on a miracle, the greater the decline in the spiritual strength of the generation. God expects man to take his fate in his own hands, and then He will come to his aid. Indeed, this was the battle cry of David's soldiers: "Let us be strong and resolute for the sake of our people and the land of our God; and the Lord will do what He deems right" (Samuel II, 10:12).
3
In fact, Midrash send us to read all the verses about King David's doctrine: "Who trained my hands for battle… You have given me the shield of your protection… I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back till I destroyed them. I struck them down, and they could rise no more; they lay fallen at my feet. You have girded me with strength for battle, brought my adversaries low before me, made my enemies turn tail before me… I wiped out my foes. I ground them fine as windswept dust; I trod them flat as dirt of the streets."
King David wass proud that he had humiliated his enemies in a way that "they could rise no more." Why does he not just make do with defense and distancing the danger? Western perceptions (especially those that dominate academia) assume that an enemy who has lost a battle or understands that he faces a superior force will prefer to negotiate terms of surrender and bring about an end to the war, to avoid unnecessary killing and damage to himself and his country. These are perceptions that assume that both sides subscribe to a similar rationale.
The Middle East is the cradle of human civilization, the perceptions that rule here are thousands of years old, and do not necessarily adhere to Western morals. In the Middle East, "land" (in Hebrew: Adama) is considered of greater value than "man" (in Hebrew: Adam), so it is worth shedding "blood" (in Hebrew: Dam) for it. The perception of time is also different: the desire to solve problems and conflicts here and now does not exist in the same way. The term "solution" is a Western term related to concepts of causality from Aristotle to the present day: every phenomenon has a cause, and if we know the cause of the problem, we can solve it. Well, in the Middle East, not every problem has a clear cause, and if there is, then it is left for time to solve, within a year or a thousand years, or perhaps never.
The rules of the region, formulated in blood and destruction for thousands of years, speak of total subjugation of the enemy, who must understand and internalize that whoever defeated him is infinitely stronger than him, and can take his life whenever he desires. The greatest historian of the Middle East and of Islam, Bernard Lewis, was well acquainted with the long history of the Middle East. His criticism of Israel's wars was that we did not subdue the enemy in a way that left him with no option to get back up again. According to Lewis, the enemy must know that he is going to die, and only then should we spare his life, if we so desire.
4
Our greatest general, Joshua ben Nun, received information that the five kings who fought against him were hiding in a cave in Makkedah in the Judean lowlands. He had the kings brought to him and he "summoned everyone on Israel's side and ordered the army officers who had accompanied him, 'Come forward and place your feet on the necks of these kings.' They came forward and placed their feet on their necks. Joshua said to them, 'Do not be frightened or dismayed; be firm and resolute. For this is what God is going to do to all the enemies with whom you are at war.' After that, Joshua had them put to death and impaled on five stakes…" (Joshua 10:24-25).
When the tomb of the 14th-century BCE king of Egypt, Tutankhamun, was opened archeologists found his sandals engraved with the figures of his enemies and nine arches representing the nine provinces that Egypt ruled. Everywhere the king went, he trod on his enemies. The foot is a symbol of sovereignty. This is what Moses, Joshua's mentor, taught: "Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours" (Deuteronomy 11:24). Joshua taught his officers that victory is not just defeating one's enemies but showing that their lives are in the hands of their victors. Moreover, he orders that these deeds be publicized throughout the region in order to instill softness in the hearts of those who still toyed with the thought of fighting him.
5
Total victory does not end with killing our enemies and destroying their communities. The ancient code of the region teaches that the deepest visualization of the enemy's defeat is taking land from him. Doing so is a statement: a place that serves as a base for slaughtering and killing Jews will be destroyed and turned into Israeli territory. Recent history has shown that every place we withdrew from, became a launching pad for killing us and shedding our blood. Even in the current war, we can see clearly that the symbols of sovereignty that the IDF imposes in the Gaza Strip are the most painful for our enemies: flags, roads, outposts, and we all hope that in the future we shall see Israeli settlements return to that region.
This is not "revenge" in its base sense. It is not blowing off steam and a response to frustrations over the massacre our enemies committed. This is a different moral concept, and a deep understanding of the ancient laws of the region, that in order to prevent the next war and the loss of many lives in the future, we must act decisively and we must do so now, to instill in the hearts of our enemies the acute awareness that they will not emerge alive from war against us. Moreover, any war will cause them a tangible loss of land. This is the essence of the idea of the "Iron Wall" that Ze'ev Jabotinsky spoke about back in 1923. Only when our enemies fully understand that there is no hope of defeating us ("Total Victory") will they come to terms with our existence. This can be achieved more effectively and morally through the value of victory. "I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back till I destroyed them." Absolutely.
