Does the Neighbor prodeure coincide with Purity of Arms
In looking for an answer to the question "The Neighbor-Procedure: Is It Ethical Or Not?", we need not go as far as the three distinguished justices of the High Court. It would be enough to ask one of the excited new recruits that have just come from the lieutenant's class on "Purity of Arms". For this young soldier a very clear border separates right from wrong; ethical from shocking. The lieutenant has just told him about the "Convoy of the Thirty-five", and how the commander preferred to leave the shepherd alive, thus bringing about the annihilation of the whole force. And he has heard and has understood. And he knows what sort of soldier he wants to be. A moral soldier.
A couple of months later he discovers that the regiment commander, the company commander or the platoon commander are not talking so fancily anymore. They are not reciting military-heritage or lofty myths. Because when the guns roar – the muses are silent. When tens of arrests are made a week, morality goes to hell. "Neighbor-Procedure" was not born in air-conditioned headquarters or stormy staff meetings. Like the unruly orders for opening fire, this procedure came from the mind of a soldier: tired and worn out from dealing day by day with an impossible reality.
The insane reality is what has crumbled borders and red lines and changed black and white into grey. And when reality is a faded grey it seems to make sense to randomly take a man at gunpoint, and to send him perhaps to his death, without a qualm. It seems to make sense to ignore an interim injunction of the High Court, and to indiscriminately "request" someone to perform this dreadful task. Because what does the High Court understand anyway? We're the ones here on the ground. We're the ones sweating from fear under the ceramic vests on the who-knows-which arrest. And we've had it, we've had it with thinking about morality, we’re fed up with "integrity".
Was the High Court needed in order to rule on what is ethical and what is not? Sadly, the answer is clear. The IDF has lost its moral North-star. The factors in the IDF who responded to the ruling with the sentence: "The IDF continues to be ethical" should take a refresher class with the platoon commander on "The Integrity of Weapons" and its implementation. The commander in Chief of the IDF , who waited for the High court ruling in order to issue an order to revoke the procedure, just proved to us that internal IDF criticism cannot be relied upon with regards to the fighting-methods in the territories. The Defense Minister, who declared that he wishes to appeal against the High Court ruling, reminded us all that principles and values are realized according to strategic needs.
With Mofaz, the sacred code, whereby the civilian population is "out of bounds", has become fluid, according to circumstances. All this proves that the IDF and those responsible for it are tired and worn out from the past five years. They have neither the desire nor the capability to seriously criticize the fighting-methods in the territories. Such criticism must be external, independent and most importantly – not exhausted or lacking a moral polestar.
