A petition by the international organization Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Haaretz Hebrew edition, November 22) sharply denounces the Israel Defense Forces' activity in Gaza due to "the repeated killing of civilians by Israel and an ongoing military operation that began with a disproportionate response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier."

There is clearly some attempt to maintain balance in the advertisement: In addition to the harsh criticism of Israel and a statement attributing the violence to the occupation, there is a condemnation of "all forms of violence against civilians by the two sides" and a call to the Palestinian Hamas government "to declare that its goal is not the destruction of Israel." All in all, this is a relatively moderate text, and the many Israeli academics who signed it include relatively moderate people.

It is precisely for this reason that it is worthwhile noting what is not in this text. There are no Qassams. Sderot's name does not appear. The firing of rockets at Israeli communities is not mentioned at all. It is impossible for the reader to even guess from what is written that the wide-scale military operations in Gaza not only started in the wake of the soldier's abduction and the killing of his comrades, but also in an attempt to stop, or at least reduce, the systematic firing of rockets at Sderot and other Israeli communities. There is also no mention of the fact that the firing of Qassams resumed soon after Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

	Advertisement

Of course, it is possible to argue that Israel is again reacting in a "disproportionate" way in this case. One can argue about this claim. But how is it possible to completely ignore the firing of Qassams in the long and detailed text that claims to describe the events in Gaza, the background for them and the desirable solution for the crisis? What moral justification is there for those who conceal such a "marginal detail" to preach morality?

If the authors of the petition had bothered to accuse Israel, as is customary, of a "disproportionate" response to the Qassams, it would have been possible to ask them what a proportionate and legitimate response by the state should look like after the firing of rockets at its communities from a densely populated area. This poses a dilemma that is not simple at all. It is customary to say that Israel has a right to defend its citizens, but it must do so within the framework of international law. But those who declare this usually interpret international law in a way that denies Israel any real possibility of defending itself against the methods of warfare employed against it.

The Qassams are fired from the very heart of the Palestinian civilian population; no one tries to deny or hide this fact. Under these conditions, any attempt to strike against the missile launchers entails a serious risk of injuring civilians. There should be an effort to avoid causing such injury as much as possible. But, over time, there is no power in the world that can prevent the killing of citizens when live firing positions are located next to their home.

The authors of the petition do not address this dilemma. They do not even bother to say the problem should be resolved diplomatically. The firing of rockets against the citizens of Israel simply appears to them as a matter not worthy of mention.

It is clear that this text (and similar ones, which are not uncommon) can only infuriate the Israeli public, which is the target audience the authors of the petition are addressing. This fact in itself still does not invalidate the petition. For the sake of truth and justice, it is sometimes appropriate to infuriate the public. But is it appropriate to do this for the sake of falsehood and injustice?