There are situations in which the moral dilemma, as difficult and painful as it may be, demands a decision. In real moral dilemmas there is no easy decision, there is no-good decision.
For example, what's wiser: To suffer the slaughter of our best fighters to prevent the slaughter of civilians in rural south Lebanon and be the most moral army in the world, or to erase villages used as Hizbullah terror motels, save the blood of our sons and be considered less moral?
What's wiser: To act with limited forces and in doing so extend the war’s duration, the number of rockets being fired at us and the number of civilian casualties, or to use lethal force, feel less moral and establish deterrence?
The fundamental dilemma is simple and definitive: Is it right to pay a massive price, in blood and money, in order to be the most moral while the enemy and its supporters don't give a damn about morality considerations?
Europe, the mother of all double standards, describes us anyway as destroyers of cities and murderers of children. This, while shedding crocodile tears over the bitter fate of Lebanon – a country that has always been a submissive terror base and has done nothing to eradicate terror but instead said “it’s not me – it’s him.”
The knights of double standard don't bat an eyelid in the presence of the thousands of Katyushas that land in northern Israeli residents and demolish their homes and lives. The righteous who cry over the ruins of a Hizbullah building in Beirut remain silent over the ruins of the Cohen family home in Haifa.
From their perspective we are never right; we are always immoral. It doesn't matter what we do – we are always the bad guys. That's why what they think and say is not relevant to our moral dilemma; this moral dilemma is to be dealt with strictly amongst ourselves.
'This war must be won'
When fighting against a terror organization that along with its patrons declares again and again that its goal is to destroy us, is it illogical or illegitimate that we make some moral compromises? Should we not consciously decide to lower our moral standards in order to strike an enemy that has the moral capacity of horse thieves and drug dealers?
I have no problem considering myself less moral if it will save the life of one Golani soldier. For him I am ready to wash the Hizbullah terrorists with fire. I am ready to do the same to their helpers, their collaborators, the ones who turn a blind eye, and all those in contact with Hizbullah. May their innocents die instead of ours.
Following the Bint Jbeil disaster we cannot allow ourselves the moral luxury of chirurgical military operations that end in Rambam hospital chirurgic department. We are in the middle of a war, and this war must be won while crushing Hizbullah and all that it represents. We need to strike hard - and we should be allowed to feel good about it.
There is a need to put aside wailing self-flagellation coming from all sorts off frustrated directors and self-declared culture heroes. There is a need to ignore the ponderings and insolence coming from broadcasters and commentators who were blown up to degree of super commanders in chief by the cameras and the microphones.
We must look straight into the eyes of the soldiers and the commanders, to thank them, and let them do what they know how to do best.
Rafi Ginat is editor in chief of Yedioth Ahronoth