Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Thank God, Gilad Shalit is finally home with his family. Emerging out of the bowels of a Gaza prison is nothing short of a miracle. Yet, despite the euphoria many Israelis are feeling this hour, much of the country feels understandably nervous. Many Israelis are upset because their families were destroyed by so many of the terrorists who were just released. Who could honestly blame the victims’ families feeling this way?

More to the point: What will happen if another soldier is kidnapped again?

Admittedly, I am one of those people who feel somewhat uneasy. How can anyone not feel this way as well?

Some well-known rabbis, such as the IDF Chief Rabbi Avishai Rontzki, are of the opinion that the Israeli army should have killed the terrorists and not have allowed them to live. Other West-Bank rabbis, such as Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu condemned the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap as reckless.

Rabbi Lior wrote in a letter addressed to “Our brothers, the people of Israel… there is no doubt that surrender to terrorist extortion can endanger our brothers who reside here in the future, as previously happened when many of the terrorists who were released went back to their old habits and that is a real threat to the people of Zion. This is why we cannot save one and almost definitely endanger the entire population . . .”

I must admit, I personally do not like Lior or Eliyahu; their racist positions regarding the Palestinians are beyond the pale of civil discourse. However, Hamas and Hezbollah have only confirmed the rabbis’ fears that other soldiers will be targeted.

Why doesn’t the Israeli army not adopt a “take no prisoners” approach and simply shoot the terrorists—especially since their presence poses a clear and dangerous threat to its citizens? That might well be a plausible approach that Israel needs to consider.

On the other hand, the capture of terrorists can provide real-time intelligence that can prevent other future attacks; there is certainly merit to this position as well. In addition, the Geneva Convention has very specific rules demanding the humane treatment of enemy soldiers. (One might wonder whether terrorists are deserving of the epithet, ”soldier,” and perhaps the time has arrived for civilized nations to revise the Geneva Conventions). Bear in mind also that Israel does not practice capital punishment like we do here in the United States.

One must be King Solomon to solve this ethical dilemma.

I believe that the Israeli military may want to consider injecting some sort of miniaturized GPS device in their soldiers, which would give the Israeli military real-time information on the whereabouts of a captured Israeli soldier. I have little doubt that the Techinon in Israel is already working on such possible solutions. Yet, even technology may not be able to prevent all kidnappings.

More to the main question at hand: How does a society weigh the ethical demands of saving human life, especially when the lives of many might possibly be jeopardized? Certainly, the Mishnah in Sanhedrin stresses the infinite worth of the individual and it does not differentiate the utilitarian value of the individual to society. Each individual is a world by himself. [2] Such statements have rarely been heard even in the most famous philosophical tracts of the Enlightenment, or, in John Stuart Mill’s famous essay, “On Liberty.” Yes, the human worth of an Israeli soldier is invaluable, but so is the human worth of the lone Israeli citizen.

These are sobering questions that really transcend the boundaries of individual rabbinic opinions—regardless of how nutty many of these dubious religious leaders actually are.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, the Mishnah in Gittin plainly states that one should not pay an excessive price for the victim since it might encourage further kidnappings. [3] And while historically, there are documented cases where the Jewish community has raised exorbitant monies to rescue certain valued individuals, there still remains another serious question people need to consider: What about the value of other innocent lives that will be taken next time there is a conflict? How does one determine the value of any human being—soldier, or non-soldier? Does the government have the right to say, “Who says your blood is redder [i.e., more valuable] than your neighbor?” [4]

The last question is no less complicated: If the Israeli Government ignores the welfare of one of its captured soldiers, will this undermine the soldiers’ loyalty to the army, thereby weakening their response to terrorism and/or war? On the other hand, a large number of those prisoners released were sent to other places than their country of origin, e.g., West Bank terrorists were sent to Gaza, Kuwait, and other places.

In Jewish tradition, questions are considered more important than answers. There is something to be said about a tradition that grapples with ethical ambiguity. It is God-wrestling at its best!

Answers come and go; they are revised over the span of time—but a good question will always challenge our ethical sensibilities. One would be arrogant and foolish to say that one knows the answers, but the ethical questions of the Galid Shalit kidnapping demand that we come up with some real serious answers.

Ethical ambiguity may not have pat answers; perhaps it is this moral questioning that truly defines our humanity.

=============

Notes:

[1] Mishnah Gittin 4:6; BT Gittin 45a.

[2] The Mishnah in Sanhedrin 4:5 reads, “Know that capital cases are not as monetary suits: monetary suits – a person may give his property and effect atonement; capital cases – his blood and the blood of his offspring depend on him until the end of the world, for we find concerning Cain who killed his brother, it is written, “the bloods of your brother cry” (Gen. 4:10); it does not say, “your brother’s blood” but “bloods” – his blood and the blood of his offspring. Another interpretation of “brother’s bloods” – his blood was dashed on the trees and on the stones. Therefore man was created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel* [Note that the original text read a "single human soul," but the text was altered probably because Jews became an endangered species during the time of the Roman persecutions that followed the destruction of the Temple--RMLS]” Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if he had saved a full world . . . And for the sake of peace among men, that one should not say to his fellow, “My father is greater than yours;” and that heretics should not say, “There are many powers in Heaven.” Again, to declare the greatness of the Holy Blessed One, for man stamps out many coins with one die, and they are all alike, but the Holy Blessed One stamped each man with the seal of Adam, and not one of them is like his fellow. Therefore each and every one is obliged to say, “For my sake the world was created.”

[3] Mishnah Gittin 4:6; BT Gittin 45a.

[4] The BT Sanhedrin 74a speaks about possible cases: “For there was a man who came before Raba and said to him: The lord of my village told me: Kill so-and-so, and if you will not, I shall kill you! — He [Raba] answered: Let him kill you, but do not kill! What makes you see that your blood is redder than his? Perhaps the blood of that man is redder