Bombing Apartment Buildings

It Is Now Morally Right To Bomb Buildings

And The Reasons Why Such Military Propaganda Morality Is Just Wrong

By Roy D. Follendore III

August 23, 2002

Israel's air force commander decided to speak out in public that the airstrike that killed 14 bystanders, in addition to its intended target of a senior Hamas military leader. Nine children were killed in the process. Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz told the Israeli Haaretz newspaper that it was both "militarily and morally" right to drop a one-ton bomb on Salah Shehadeh's home in a crowded Gaza neighborhood despite the risk of injuring other civilians. The interview was reported to have included his statement "The decision-making process was correct, balanced and careful. The problem was with the information, the information changed." The General indicated that the mission was more important than the safety of innocent people because he added, "As for the changing intelligence information, those who wait for 100 percent certainty in every case, will apparently never move."

When you think deeper about the ramifications of what Halutz said, this is really something enormously difficult to comprehend. What we have here is an Israeli Air Force General essentially admitting that he agrees with Hitler's concept that ends justify the means. It appears that a leader in the service of the nation of Israel has forgotten that Nazi Germany also felt well justified that it was carrying out the high moral will dictated by God. Hitler often spoke about the high moral justifications for indiscriminate murder.

Would the death of Hitler who killed millions really have been worth the deliberate execution of a single innocent child? Before you jump to conclusions to play God you might also want to ask this question. Would Hitler have simply been replaced by another murderous tyrant? Remember, Nazi German government was not without an abundant number of such leaders.

Perhaps there is a more important question that should be asked. Is there an underlying message that we are now being asked to accept by the Government of Israel by their Generals remarks of bomb morality? Is this world being asked to rethink its opinions of the "moral" way that war can be conducted?

The argument by General Halutz made to justify the decision to use such a weapon was foolish, fanatical and an insane posture. There was nothing moral about the use of a two ton weapon of mass destruction in the middle of a densely populated city. There can be nothing moral about the deliberate premeditated or the unpremeditated murder of nine innocent infants and children.

What is being left out of the Generals military equation is the fact that when innocent people are backed into a corner by a military policy, they don't have a choice when that military then starts raining bombs. What is being left out is that a United States F16 aircraft and smart bomb was illegally used to carry out the mission. The high tech military materials America provided to Israel was given with very specific Congressional guidelines which have been ignored. What is being left out is that justice is not served by any form of terrorism.

It is entirely possible that Israel did not know that there were innocent people living in the next adjacent building of their intended target. The probability of this kind of error must be balanced with the fact that the Israeli Air Force knew the destructive potential of the weapon they used within that crowded city of refugees. It is a city refugees that the policies of Israel filled by their own military tactics and curfews. There can therefore be no more moral justification for such killings. If we buy into the arguments of the General, then we also have to by into the idea that the September 11th fanatical terrorists may have also been morally justified.

By design, military weapons are to kill. Soldiers become extensions of weapons they are trained to kill with. If an act by a soldier results in the death of the innocent, then that soldier and perhaps the organization that gave the order to use the weapon is at the very least, morally guilty of either a premeditated or a non-premeditated murder or manslaughter. The condition of legal guilt may be a different thing. Solders may never be prosecuted, but that does not mean that they get away with their acts. Both military commanders, as well as their soldiers must then live with themselves and come to terms with their actions. They know perfectly well what they have done and they eventually pay because deep down they can not forever hide their sense of guilt behind the concept of morality.

The end still does not justify the means any more than one act of terror does not justify another act of terror. The fact is that war does not morally justify the bombing of buildings. Bombing is simply an immoral act regardless of who does it or why. It is what it is. There can be no moral justification for murder in war. Soldiers are required to follow orders they do not lie or agree with. Of course as soldiers it may be necessary to kill the enemy and the innocent in order to survive. Soldiers are forced to follow orders by the fact that they may be imprisoned or shot if they do not. Soldiers are not only required to take and exchange lives, soldiers are being asked to live with immoral results that may come from their acceptance and follow through of their orders. Soldiers who are obligated to their duty are therefore unqualified to be in the ethical business of defining civil morality to civilians who might get in their way.

.