wavePod

Israel at War — Red Lines - For Heaven's Sake | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Israel at War — Red Lines

Thu May 22 2025

What does it mean to fight a just war justly—and who decides when we’ve crossed a moral red line? What began as a just war of self-defense has evolved into something more morally ambiguous, raising questions about Israel's tactics, humanitarian concerns, and international standing. In this episode, Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi confront their differing "red lines" regarding Israel's conduct in Gaza and examine public discourse on this issue, including Yair Golan’s recent controversial statements about the war. JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST FOR MORE HARTMAN IDEAS Sponsor an upcoming episode of For Heaven’s Sake. Click here to learn more.

Summary

Podcast Summary: For Heaven's Sake – "Israel at War — Red Lines"

Episode Details

Title: Israel at War — Red Lines
Hosts: Daniil Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi
Release Date: May 22, 2025
Duration: Approx. 36 minutes

1. Introduction: Reopening the Dialogue

After a brief hiatus due to travel, Daniil Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi resume their weekly discussion on the complex moral dimensions of the ongoing conflict in Israel. They acknowledge the intensity and repetition of conflict dynamics, referencing Ecclesiastes: “there is nothing new under the sun” (00:00).

2. The Provocative Statement by Yair Golan

The central focus of this episode revolves around a controversial statement made by Yair Golan, the former Deputy General of the IDF and current leader of the Democratic Party. Golan asserted, “a sane country does not wage war against civilians. It does not kill babies for a hobby. It does not set goals involving the expulsion of populations” (02:30).

Impact and Reactions

Daniil: Expresses deep concern over Golan’s use of the term "hobby," labeling it as "profoundly inappropriate" (08:55).
Yossi: Criticizes Golan’s language as reckless, emphasizing that such statements undermine Israel’s legitimacy both on the battlefield and in the global narrative (05:26).

3. Defining Red Lines: Moral Boundaries in War

The hosts explore their differing perspectives on what constitutes a moral "red line" in warfare.

Yossi: Emphasizes the threat to Israel’s legitimacy, stating, “We are fighting several wars simultaneously... for the legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of the Jewish story” (03:39). He views Golan’s remarks as feeding into a broader narrative that delegitimizes Israel, comparing the impact to that of far-right ministers like Smotrich and Ben Gvir who use genocidal language (05:25).
Daniil: While agreeing on the gravity, he believes that the language used by Golan is not the sole issue. He highlights the necessity of balancing defense strategies with moral discourse, suggesting that without it, Israel risks moral erosion (09:03).

4. Balancing Strategic and Moral Imperatives

A significant portion of the discussion centers on whether Israel can maintain its moral integrity while effectively defending itself.

Yossi: Argues that Golan’s statements are part of a larger problem where both the far right and reckless elements on the left undermine Israel’s moral stance. He connects this to the global fight against terrorism, stating, “How does a Western democracy defeat terrorism” without compromising moral values (08:55, 15:00).
Daniil: Brings in the strategic perspective, questioning whether maintaining unity and moral integrity is feasible without reassessing military strategies. He posits that prolonged conflict without moral discourse could erode Israeli solidarity and international support (11:37, 30:00).

5. The Global Stage: International Perception and Consequences

The hosts delve into how international opinions and actions are shifting in response to Israel’s handling of the war.

Yossi: Notes that statements from former Prime Minister Olmert comparing Israel’s actions to war crimes amplify the delegitimization efforts against Israel (06:49). He stresses the cumulative effect of such statements on Israel’s global standing (05:25).
Daniil: Highlights that mainstream Israeli media, like Ynet, are beginning to voice concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, reflecting a changing tide in public discourse (25:16). He underscores the importance of integrating moral obligations into Israel’s narrative to preserve its moral standing (30:00).

6. Internal Conflict: Navigating Differing Perspectives

Despite initial perceptions of disagreement, the hosts find common ground on fundamental values but differ in prioritizing them.

Yossi: States, “We share the same basic commitments to Israel's security, to the moral health of the Jewish people” (17:29). However, he prioritizes strategic defenses to ensure Israel’s survival and ability to maintain global support (17:17).
Daniil: Emphasizes that strategic considerations must not overshadow moral responsibilities. He believes that without a moral conversation, Israel risks losing its ethical grounding and international support (30:00).

7. The Moral Conversation Within Israel

Both hosts agree on the necessity of a robust internal dialogue about the moral implications of Israel’s actions in the war.

Yossi: Advocates for addressing the concerns of friends and allies who are troubled by Israel’s policies, asserting that ignoring their criticism could weaken international support (23:17).
Daniil: Points out that Israeli media and public discourse are beginning to reflect on the humanitarian impacts, signaling a shift towards a more balanced narrative that includes moral considerations (29:15).

8. Concluding Insights: Shaping the Jewish Narrative

In their closing remarks, the hosts reflect on the importance of storytelling in maintaining the Jewish identity and moral foundation.

Yossi: Expresses a sense of despair over the conflicting certainties tearing the Jewish community apart but remains hopeful that they will emerge united in their commitments (35:07).
Daniil: Calls for the inclusion of moral imperatives in Israel’s actions, stating, “We have to fight a war of self-defense because it's just. We have to fight a just war justly” (30:20). He underscores the obligation to integrate moral values into the broader narrative to preserve Israel’s ethical integrity (33:44).

Notable Quotes

Daniil Hartman (00:00): “For heaven’s sake, Israel at war. Day 593. I needed to be with you this week.”
Yossi Klein Halevi (03:39): “We are fighting several wars simultaneously... for the legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of the Jewish story.”
Daniil Hartman (08:55): “It's a profoundly inappropriate term.”
Yossi Klein Halevi (15:00): “I'm sure that my two certainties conflict. There are moral red lines that the Jewish people at war cannot cross.”
Daniil Hartman (30:20): “We have to fight a just war justly.”

Final Thoughts

In "Israel at War — Red Lines," Hartman and Halevi provide a deep and nuanced exploration of the moral and strategic challenges facing Israel amid ongoing conflict. They navigate the complexities of maintaining ethical standards while ensuring national security, highlighting the critical importance of internal and global perceptions in shaping Israel’s future. This episode underscores the necessity of balancing strategic imperatives with moral obligations to sustain both national integrity and international legitimacy.

Loading summary...

Transcript

A (0:00)

Hi, friends. This is Daniil Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi from the Shalom Hartman Institute. And this is our podcast, for heaven's Sake. Israel at War Day593 I feel it's been a long time. We missed a week. You were traveling and I was traveling, and so much happened. And there's so much that I want to talk about about what happened, because very often I feel. I don't know exactly what I feel about what happened yesterday without speaking it through with you, Yossi, but I'm going to have to let yesterday be yesterday. And because at our pace, it's today and tomorrow that is more compelling for us. We'll leave last week to last week. Somehow I have a feeling that what happened last week is going to happen again. So as Ecclesiastes says, and he said it only specifically about Israeli political life and Hadash Tachata Shemesh, there is nothing new under the sun. So somehow the whole Trump trip and Israel's response and the dynamic between Israel and President Trump, all of that somehow I think is not completely yesterday's conversation. But for us, it's not what's upsetting us or, or it's not what we're struggling with today. And our theme we chose to call red lines, and it's in the plural, because as we were thinking about today's subject, we found that you and I had different red lines and your lines aren't the same as my lines. And one of the lines that hit you very, very deeply and you felt, daniil, this is what we have to talk about was the former deputy general of the idf. Today, the head of the new Israeli party, the Democratic Party, which is rising in the polls and getting 15, sometimes even 17 seats. In any event, it's going to be a major player in the next election, as distinct from merits and labor, when they were running by themselves, when only one passed the threshold of four seats. He's a major, major player in Israeli left, center left life, gave the following interview when he said, a sane country does not wage war against civilians. It does not kill babies for a hobby. It does not set goals involving the expulsion of populations. And everybody in Israel almost uniformly critiqued his notion. This killing babies for a hobby, that was a line that went too far. Wasn't just the Likud that critiqued Golan. It was people on the center and on the left. And for me, one of his biggest critics was you. You felt, Daniil, this is just beyond the pale. And while I feel that his use of the term Hobby was unfortunate, and it's not a term I would ever use. I was not as upset because I interpreted everything he was saying differently. But I'll get to that. But since it was your, this is something that we need to talk about, and I want to start with you. When you heard that statement and it activated such a visceral and emotional and intellectual response, what is it, Yossi?

B (3:39)

So we're fighting several wars simultaneously. The first obvious war is on the battlefield. Second war is for the legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of the Jewish story. And we've never been under such sustained and global assault as we are now. And so when I hear a leading figure in Israeli politics, Yair Golan, carelessly, almost cavalierly, throwing around terms that we know are going to reappear in the indictment against Israel, an accusation that is so outrageous that he had to immediately walk it back, he didn't apologize, but he did. He did qualify by saying no, I didn't mean the army, of course not our brave soldiers. I meant the government. That kind of recklessness, that kind of disregard for that other war that we're fighting and the consequences of our words in that other war, it hit me in the same way that when the far right government ministers, Smutrich and Ben gvir, throw around language that is frankly genocidal and without any regard for how that's going to impact on our ability to fight the war against our criminalization, against the delegitimization of the Jewish story, that puts me over the edge to undermine our ability to defend ourselves on the battlefield or to defend ourselves in the war for Israel's legitimacy. For me, that's was too much. Yeharegval Yavor It's a red line.

A (9:21)

We're getting warmer. See, I, I don't want to say because I don't know how much damage it does. I also would never use the word. I don't want to use the word war crimes. I don't want to use that association of terms. But we are facing a different war now, especially in the second stage. And we talked about this, but I don't know if we really talked about it. I have a very, very different feeling about this stage of the war than the first stage of the war. First stage of the war. I was bothered by the lack of moral discourse and reflection. And then you and I, we would speak over and again and you would say to me, daniil, I share with you. But it's not now. Not now. It's not the central issue now. Until we don't reclaim our deterrence, until we don't do A, B, C and D, we have to have the freedom to act and to do. But. And he said, and you were very. It's not that you don't care about moral principles, but the first stage of the war was without doubt in my mind, a just war. I had questions about whether every part of that war was a just war which was being fought justly, and whether we were struggling appropriately. Because part of the way you fight a just war justly is not that you don't make mistakes, but that you have a system in place to think about it, where you talk openly about it, you struggle with the questions. And then like every war, you try to come as close as possible to fighting it justly, you know, to play on Omer, that's your game. How close are you to fighting it justly or how much are you failing? Because as long as you talk about it and struggle at this stage of the war, I feel we're doing something completely different. I know the government is officially speaking about that this is a war against Hamas, but I don't believe that, Yossi. I believe that there are other possibilities on the table, pushed for by the American government, pushed by the international community, pushed by our allies or potential allies in the Arab world, which I at least believe we need to explore before engaging in a war of self defense. So I don't.

A (11:37)

Political options, yes, there are political options that I know aren't simple, but I'd like to explore them. They're certainly after 500 and I don't know when this stage started. 60 days. There's at least, least a plausible argument to say that you only have a right to go to war after you exhaust other options, that a just war is legitimate as long as it's a war of self defense. And if your self defense could be achieved otherwise, you have to at least explore it. And I'm not even putting the hostages into the story here, but after 570 days, that Hamas coming out again, I know aggravates you, but somebody has to ask, maybe there's another way and this is not the most effective way. And I believe that much of this is motivated by internal government coalition calculations and needs, motivated by some of the people who you spoke about who are clearly committed ideologically to unjust wars. And that's the people, you know, the extremes. And it's not the self defense of Israel that's motivating them, but they're guiding it. And I think Netanyahu is trying to salvage some pictures so that the stain of October 7th is gone. And at the end of the day, not through any careful analysis or having to look carefully, explicitly, this stage of the war involves the following plan, word for word. The Israeli government is going to capture area after area of Gaza, what's now called the Rafah Protocol or model. We're going to take over an area, wipe out every single building, everything that is there, basically level it after it's leveled, you allow civilian population to return. Then you begin to distribute some form of humanitarian aid distributed by Israel, not given through Hamas, whether that will work or not. And the idea is to do this over and over again throughout Gaza, over move the population back and forth with the explicit aim that Netanyahu stated of facilitating the Trump plan, which involves the removal of Gazans from Gaza, where they will voluntarily want to simply get up and say, I've had enough, there is no life here. I have wiped everything out. All you have. You don't have schools, you don't have industry, you have nothing. You have 10 cities with a weekly distribution of food. So in this context, when I hear Yair Golan, I wouldn't use his words, but I hear somebody, there's an angst Yossi that caused him to misspeak, you know, and he did say a sane country, he didn't say an army. So his critique was really against the government. And he's seeing things going out of control without any conversation. And at least One of the things that he activated is a conversation. He started a conversation.

B (25:16)

Okay, you're right. And you're making an important distinction here, which is between those who demonize Israel and those of our friends who are troubled by our actions. We have no moral responsibility to engage with those who are trying to turn us into the world's arch criminals and who are trying to erase the Jewish narrative and the context for our actions. I have no moral responsibility to address those people's concerns. But I do have a moral imperative to address the concerns of our friends. And we need them. We need their engagement, and we need their support. And sometimes we need their criticism, especially when we as a society are so traumatized and broken that we can't critique ourselves. So there's that. I agree with you, Daniil, that we need to end this war. But I come at it from a different place. And this really goes back to the commitments that we share, but the different ways in which we prioritize those commitments. My bottom commitment is to ensure the ability of Israel to defend itself, our physical safety. And so all of the questions that I ask first go through that prism. Then I ask the question that you tend to ask first, which is, how does this reflect on the moral integrity of the Jewish people? That's my second question. And my first question is, what is the position I need to take to ensure that the acute vulnerability which October 7th has restored to Israeli life and Jewish life around the world is manageable, that we have the proper tools to respond to that acute vulnerability? And here, when I go through the list of issues, it brings me to the place that you're in, but again, from a different direction. So, for example, the fact that 70% of Israelis want to end this war if it means getting the hostages back, for me, I interpret that in a strategic way. And the need to prioritize the hostages over bringing Hamas down is a need to ensure that Israeli society is able to maintain its minimal solidarity so that we will be able to adequately defend ourselves, because we can only do that from a place of basic unity. And God forbid, allowing the hostages to die will break something fundamental in Israeli solidarity. So even on the hostages question, I'm approaching this first from a strategic.

A (30:26)

I understand and I'll accept, you know, and it's true we could have different motivations. I don't have to. I'm not looking for purity of motivation. So, you know, as long as we all come things from different places. But I think, and I'm actually, I want to share with our audience the headline of a newspaper which in Israel, one of Israel's most significant news sites, Ynet. For the first time, Yossi, since The beginning, since October 7th, the headline on the website is when babies are dying from Hunger. The stories that the world is seeing from Gaza, Haaretz would talk about this also. For a while they weren't active and then their conversation changed. This is mainstream Israeli newspaper is telling a story and is telling Israelis, hello, I want you to know what's happening. They're talking about the hunger. They're talking about kids being killed. They're telling a story, something. Whether Yair Galan activated the conversation. Maybe it is the same issue that you raised. Britain, Canada and France beginning to talk. Trump beginning to tell us, you know, we're losing you. You're pushing this too far. We need a different future. We need something else. Maybe it is the $2 trillion of Saudi, Qatari, Emirati money. Whatever it is, the tide is changing and we're at another place. And I believe that it's our job to be less utilitarian. And the good has to be an obligation because to do the good is our obligation. And we have to fight a war of self defense because it's just. We have to fight a just war justly. And that is hard. But what happens when we're not fighting a just war anymore? That conversation has to emerge and I'm beginning to sense it. It's coming. It's in Israel. This news site is one example. Criticisms of the war is another one. Fatigue of the reservists. Because when we're called to a just war, there is no fatigue. You'll see we're called to a larger cause. Come. Are you going to say Hineni Are you going to say I am here and right now we are at another place and if I would just, I'll end my statement and give you the last word. In my book, I write about how, as you said, we are the sum of the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. At this stage, we have to begin to start adding another chapter to the sum of the stories that we're telling about ourselves. And it's not just stories of self defense and practicality. There has to be another moral claim upon us as an end unto itself, because that's at the end. You know, without getting too rabbinic, that's what God says to Abraham in chapter 18 of genes. I have elected you, selected you, because you're going to walk in the way of God by doing what is just and right. That can't just be a verse in the Bible. That has to be a part of Israeli political life. Last words.