'There is no danger that justifies any limitation of freedom,' writes judge, rejects police request for restraining order against Ezra Nawi and Guy Butavia.00:11 12.02.16 | 0 comments
Sonic booms must be very frightening and I'm sure none of us would like to put up with it. However, Levy makes one critical mistake; he completely ignore the context in which this action takes place. He uses the same flawed logic that the ICJ in the Hague used when deliberating on the separation fence, i.e. you can't judge the moral (or legal) value of an action without taking the context in which it occurs into account, unless one takes a deontological view of morality. If Levy takes a deontological view of ethics then he must save some of his condemnation for the Palestinians behaviour, something he sees fit to ignore. The IAF didn't wake up one morning and decide to frighten the wits out of the Palestinians in Gaza for no reason. Rather this is a measured and non-lethal response to terrorist actions eminating from the strip. How does Levy suggest that Israel stop terrorism? To give the Palestinian terrorists everything they are demanding? But what happens when they make additional demands after that? The problem in Levy's analysis is in his charaterisation of Israel as the neighbourhood bully. In fact, Israel is the kid who got beaten up twice a week and decided to take up kung fu. Israel wants to give the message that if you pick a fight with us you will come off worse. This in my opinion is the best way to survive in a neighbourhood where other countries are calling for your destruction.