The great moralist, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, instructs the rest of us on ethical considerations thusly: "If we owe a moral responsibility to Israeli children, then we owe the same moral responsibility to Palestinian children. Their lives have equal weight. If you care about human life only in Israel or only in Gaza, then you don't actually care about human life."
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
There is so much wrong with this insight of his it is difficult to know where to begin. Let us start with the fact that on October 7, 2023, it was Hamas that murdered Israeli children, it was not the other way around. Indeed, the IDF never, ever, targeted Palestinian children, while the inverse cannot be said with a straight face. Yes, in defending itself, there were, it cannot be denied, children in Gaza who perished. But this was collateral damage necessitated by two things. One, Israel's requirement to defend itself lest a repeat of that dastardly day come once again, and is often repeated. And two, the fact that Hamas used its own children as shields.
There was a cartoon that illustrated this. It featured two baby carriages, one marked with a Jewish star, the other with the Palestinian flag and two military men with machine guns. From left to right we first see an Arab terrorist, then a Gazan baby, then an IDF soldier, and then, finally, to the far right, a Jewish baby carriage. The point is, the Arab terrorist was hiding behind the Palestinian child, firing at the Israeli soldier, who was protecting the Jewish baby behind him.
It is difficult, under these circumstances, unless you are a Kristofian moralist, to place the two innocent children, in the same ethical category. One is placed in danger by his own parent, the other is protected by his parent. There is no equality in this scenario, none whatsoever. Kristof sees equivalence where none exists.
Here is yet another gem from this New York Times ethicist: "I flinch when I hear the defense minister (of Israel) refer to Palestinians as animals. Hamas dehumanized Israelis, and we must not dehumanize innocent people in Gaza."
Here is the exact quote from Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "We are fighting against animals."
Of course, Mr. Gallant was correct, and Mr. Kristof viciously misquoted him. What would you call people who rape and then kill women in front of their children? Who behead babies in the presence of their parents? And then take pictures of these obscenities and brag about them? "Animals," if anything, is much too kind. Members of the animal kingdom to not engage in such despicable activities. Monsters, perhaps, is a more accurate description. The point is, Gallant was fighting not all Gazans; rather, only those who were guilty of such despicable, appalling, dreadful, vile crimes. Kristof, instead, made it appear as if Gallant was targeting all Gazans. Yes, unfortunately, when depraved villains use children as shields, in order to root them out there will inevitably be collateral damage to innocents. But this, unlike with Hamas, is no part of their intention.
Further, Kristof maintains that Israel must "respond to war crimes without committing war crimes." True enough. But that is precisely what the only civilized country in the Middle East is actually doing. Targeting women and children is a war crime. Reckless indifference to their death is a war crime. Using children as shields is a war crime. But leafleting innocents is not a war crime. Urging people to move south in Gaza, given that the main damage will be in the north, is not a war crime. Fighting these fiends, in self-defense, even given collateral damage, most certainly is not a war crime, Kristoff to the contrary notwithstanding.
Our moralist concludes on this note: "if your moral compass is attuned to the suffering of only one side, your compass is broken, and so is your humanity." We suggest that Kristof's moral compass is in need of serious repair.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
