Haaretz on Thursday published a scathing piece by former Meretz leader Zehava Galon, which ended in a call to "put down the tiger of Im Tirzu." Galon's rage erupted after bereaved parents, who were backed by Im Tirzu, lambasted Maj. Gen. Yair Golan over comments he made to premilitary academy cadets nearly a decade ago: "Due to the civilian population, yes, we assume certain risks, justifiably."
Golan's somewhat ambiguously worded statement shines a light on complex dilemmas and warrants public discourse. Where, in Golan's view, is the line between the need to avoid harming an uninvolved civilian population at all costs, and putting soldiers' lives at risk?
This is more than a theoretical exercise. There have been dozens of instances in recent decades – such as the battle in Jenin's refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield – when IDF soldiers paid with their lives because they were deployed house-to-house in a condensed urban environment, instead of shelling an area in advance or using bulldozers for the same job.
Galon apparently believes bereaved parents and Im Tirzu don't have the right to ask whether IDF commanders erred in these instances. Merely questioning the matter led Galon to claim Im Tirzu members "won't calm down until they turn the IDF into a militia of Cossacks."
While Golan's remarks were generalized and open to interpretation, Galon's position on the dilemma is unequivocal: If you don't want to become a Cossack militia, you must categorically prefer risking soldiers' lives over the lives of Palestinian civilians.
Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer and Roy Konfino have already put this sentiment into writing. In an article published on the Israel Democracy Institute website, they argued that "to uphold the required moral standard, the state must view the other side's civilians as if they were Israeli civilians, and thus maintain the distinction between combatants and noncombatants." According to Kremnitzer – who leans on the ruminations of American political theorist Michael Walzer – once a soldier agrees to enlist and risk his life, he is a more legitimate military target than uninvolved enemy civilians.
And while Galon sees Im Tirzu members as a bunch of Cossacks for merely debating the issue, the person who penned the IDF's ethical code, Professor Asa Kasher, holds a completely different view. In battle, according to Kasher, the state's duty is to try distinguishing between the enemy's combatants and its civilians. However: "Once it has exhausted its efforts to distinguish between terrorists and nearby enemy civilians – and can no longer do so to the greatest extent possible – not only is the state not obligated to risk the lives of its soldiers in another attempt to make this distinction, it is prohibited from doing so just to minimize the danger posed to the terrorist's neighbors."
From this angle, it seems Walzer and Kremnitzer's stance is morally problematic. Human morality is founded on reciprocity; and in the Israeli context of serving in the Israel Defense Forces, it is predicated on the principle of mutual guarantee. When an Israeli enlists for compulsory service and then joins the reserves, he is prepared to risk his life for his comrades and in defense of his country's civilians, and he trusts his comrades and fellow countrymen to do the same for him. IDF soldiers help others by willingly putting themselves in harm's way, and in turn they receive that same protection from their comrades. This is a balanced and equal mechanism of mutual guarantees.
Unlike the distinction made by Walzer and Kremnitzer, there is no moral equivalence between a terrorist and IDF soldier just because they are both "combatants." The terrorist intentionally seeks to harm civilians, while the soldier is essentially a civilian who has enlisted and agreed to risk himself to defend his people and his state. A soldier's willingness to walk in harm's way is worthy of commendation, not condemnation, and he never belongs on the same moral plain as a terrorist. Just as the state is duty bound to protect its civilians, it must also protect its soldiers as much as possible, even at the cost of endangering enemy civilians.
