July 30, 2025|ה' אב ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Weaponizing Morality: How Criticism of Israel Misses the Point By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

Someone asked me on Shabbat what I think about what's happening in Gaza. My honest answer was: I don’t know. Not because I don’t care, but because it’s hard to know whom to trust. How can I place full confidence in reports of starvation from sources like The New York Times, CNN, B’Tselem, or certain UN-affiliated agencies, many of which have previously amplified false claims of massacres, humanitarian catastrophes and war crimes, often based on Hamas-generated information?

At first, I was skeptical. But over the past few days, the weight of evidence has shifted. Even with skepticism, it seems clear that real starvation is occurring in Gaza. Israel’s original plan, to replace the compromised UN distribution mechanism with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), was strategically sound. The goal was to cut Hamas out of the aid pipeline, so that food, medicine, and basic supplies could reach ordinary Palestinians without being diverted by terrorists.

The logic was simple: if Hamas can no longer control who eats and who suffers, its grip over Gazan society weakens. As proof of that threat, a senior American official told The Wall Street Journal that one of Hamas’ top demands in ceasefire negotiations is the dismantling of the GHF. Hamas sees the GHF as an existential threat to its political power. That, in and of itself, tells you that the GHF was strategically on the right track.

But intentions do not always translate into results. Implementation of the GHF plan has been deeply flawed. Aid is not reaching people fast enough or in sufficient quantity. Logistical and security challenges, combined with internal resistance, have hampered its success.

This has led to harsh moral criticism. Hundreds of rabbis worldwide, primarily from Open Orthodox and non-Orthodox communities, have signed a letter accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war. They argue that limiting humanitarian aid is morally indefensible and contradicts Jewish values. And they insist that even in war, we are responsible for how we treat civilians.

It’s a serious charge. And yet, we must separate the policy failures from a claim of moral failure. The Israeli government, recognizing the shortcomings of the GHF, has taken meaningful steps to increase the flow of aid: air drops, new humanitarian corridors, and localized pauses in fighting to ensure delivery.

Let’s be clear: I do not believe it is ethical to starve civilians, regardless of their political allegiances or how much support they give to Hamas. And I also do not believe, as a matter of military strategy, that starving civilians is effective. Hamas does not care about their suffering; if anything, it weaponizes it. When Palestinians suffer, international opinion shifts against Israel. Recent statements from France and the UK about recognizing a Palestinian state show just how much diplomatic ground Israel can lose when images of civilian hardship dominate headlines.

This is precisely why it doesn’t make sense to accuse Israel of deliberately pursuing starvation as a war tactic. Beyond the moral repugnance of such an approach, it is also counterproductive. Israel gains nothing strategically by starving civilians and, in fact, has everything to lose – from global legitimacy to critical diplomatic support. If anything, the evidence points to a government struggling to balance operational realities with humanitarian concerns, not one cynically leveraging famine as a weapon of war.

Israel’s war aims have been consistent: destroy Hamas, rescue the hostages, and minimize harm to civilians. But this is not a conventional war. Hamas embeds itself in schools, mosques, and hospitals. It hides behind civilians and openly celebrates their deaths when it can exploit them for international sympathy. The challenge is immense – and unique.

Some critics argue that harming civilians is never justified, yet halachic and international legal frameworks alike recognize that civilian casualties are tragic results of a moral war if they are proportionate to achieving legitimate military objectives. The Maharal, in his discussion of Shimon and Levi’s actions in Shechem after their sister was raped, presents an early framework for understanding wartime ethics, one that accepts tragic consequences in the pursuit of national defense. The Geneva Conventions were built, in part, on similar reasoning: to navigate the moral tension between military necessity and civilian protection.

Israel does not take this tension lightly. Despite facing the most cynical of enemies, it has consistently shown a profound commitment to minimizing harm. When critics insisted Israel could not evacuate civilians from Rafah without mass casualties, Israel proved them wrong. Its conduct, imperfect but principled, has been marked by restraint and self-scrutiny. Mistakes have been made, including the devastating loss of three Israeli hostages and a number of Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire. And yet, Israel investigates itself, adapts its policies, and holds itself to standards unmatched by any democracy at war with terrorists.

The GHF may not have worked out as planned. But that does not mean Israel’s strategy was immoral. It means it must pivot and do better. That is exactly what it is doing now by increasing aid and reassessing logistics.

We can, and should, debate Israel’s strategic vision: What is the day-after plan in Gaza? How will Hamas be replaced? What does victory look like? These are real questions that demand answers. But to conflate military or political missteps with moral failure is a grave mistake. When we question Israel’s moral compass in good faith, that’s one thing. But when moral condemnation is weaponized without nuance, we hand Hamas a victory. We reward its strategy of maximizing civilian suffering and refusing negotiation, knowing that international pressure will grow with every image of despair.

This war is not just about territory. It’s about truth, responsibility, and the long, painful process of fighting an enemy that thrives on lies, chaos, and cruelty. Israel must continue to do everything it can to fight honorably. And we must support that effort – ethically, strategically, and with clarity.