Major General Dan Halutz turned 54 on August 7. Since becoming a combat pilot, he has never refused to obey an order and never refused to fly a mission. Of course, there is nothing surprising about that: If he had refused orders on grounds of conscience in the 1980s, he would never have become commander of the air force in the new century. He admits that back then, he did not have a defined red line. One of the reasons for this, he says, is the change that has occurred in the character of the warfare in which Israel is involved. The wars in which he fought as a fighter pilot were less complex: army versus army. Relatively speaking, things were simpler and more clear. As a pilot, he did not feel the need to demarcate a red line.
"In war as in war," Halutz says. "It was clear to all of us that our aim was to cause as many soldiers on the other side to rest in peace, and to win."
Since then, as he himself says, things have changed. The fighting in the territories does not resemble the fighting in Lebanon or the wars against Syria and Egypt. Today, as a commander, he does have red lines. However, it turns out that he has a fierce inner resistance to the idea of expressing them in terms of a verbal definition. Generally speaking, he says, the line that he instructs his personnel to abide by is "to use the necessary minimum of force in order to achieve the goal that is being sought."
An attempt to delineate these red lines more sharply and in greater detail reveals a surprising streak of refusal in the IAF commander. In principle, he does not accept the term "purity of arms" - a term that originated in the underground Haganah defense force (the precursor of the IDF) during the period of the Arab Revolt, 1936-1939, in conjunction with the concept of "restraint," and referring to the use of arms only against combatants, "so that our weapons will not be stained with the blood of the innocent," as the Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson put it.
"In my eyes, that is a fundamentally invalid concept," Halutz says. "Weapons are not pure. They are not intended to be pure. A pure weapon is not a weapon. Maybe it was once a weapon, but it has been turned into a pruning hook. By the same token, I am sorry to have to announce that there are no clean wars. I don't know of a person who is capable of waging a clean war."
Following a trenchant exchange in which it is agreed that, for the purposes of the discussion, those who invoke the phrase "purity of arms" are usually referring to a degree of morality according to which soldiers should behave, Halutz defines the term like this: "an appropriate and proper use of force, which preserves one's human image."
And what does he mean by "human image"? Halutz: "To forgive, to forgo, to have pity. Not to be lethal when there is no need. To stretch out a hand to a wounded enemy. To give a thirsty prisoner water. To remain human. And more and more and more thousands of things that go to make up the universal code known as the human image. To be a human being. If I have to get to the heart of the term, it is summed up in the ability to forgo - to forgo the use of all the force at your disposal. That is the guideline: In every situation in which you don't have to use your full might in order to achieve the goal, not to use it."
As regards the notion of "purity of arms," the commander of the IAF expects the soldiers of the IDF in general and those of the air force in particular "always to operate according to lofty values, based on the ethical codes of the IDF and of the State of Israel." The problem is that the IDF doesn't have an official ethical code. The ethical code that was drawn up for the army by philosophy professor Asa Kasher and was in use for five years - up until about a year ago - was rewritten by the chief education officer, Brigadier General Elazar Stern and turned into a "softer" and less binding document now called "The Spirit of the IDF."
Here is what the new document says in connection with purity of arms: "... the soldier will use his weapon and use force solely to carry out the mission, and solely to the extent demanded, and will preserve a human image even in combat. The soldier will not make use of his weapon and force in order to harm human beings who are not combatants, or prisoners, and will do all he can to prevent harm being done to their life, their body, their dignity and their property."
Are these the criteria that you accept as the definition of purity of arms?
"Those are the principles that appear in `The Spirit of the IDF.' As I see it, purity of arms is a qualitative thing. My expectation from myself and from all of us is that we will never have to define it quantitatively. Purity of arms derives from an infinite number of basic layers that are primordial, social, cultural, educational and moral. There is no set formula here. In every situation, purity of arms will be translated into a different action. It is impossible to define it. Just as it is impossible to define beauty."
So purity of arms is not a professional term, from your point of view?
"No, it is not a professional term per se. I believe it should derive self-evidently from a whole universe of values."
Does the pilots' training course have a section devoted to purity of arms?
"Not specifically. There is a section that deals with `The Spirit of the IDF.'"
In your two years as commander of the air force, have you issued a document for your subordinates on the subject of purity of arms?
"No. And the reason is that I don't think that this is a value that has been eroded. I transmit cables and other messages to the squadron leaders, in which I tell them that one of the things they have to maintain vigilantly is combat morality. But I don't interpret that concept for them, because there is no need to do so."
Is there a routine of study of the subject? Is the IAF as up-to-date in the realm of purity of arms as it takes care to be in every other realm?
"No. It is not a subject of academic study in the air force. It is something that is built into the stories of battle heritage that indicate the proper use of weapons. I believe that this is the right way to inculcate the message. You examine events that can be evaluated in one way or another and analyze them in retrospect. It's important to understand that this is not something abstract and hypothetical. Commanding officers talk about it with their troops concretely, all the time, during combat and during training. It is a living, ongoing dialogue between the two crew members, day in and day out."
Heterogeneous group
As Maj. Gen. Halutz says, the pilots of the IAF are not all of a piece. Professionalism aside, they are a very heterogeneous group. They come from different places, different economic backgrounds, different homes, and they have different worldviews. As in every group, some of them are more rough-hewn, others more sensitive. There are extroverts and introverts, some who need support and reinforcement, others who need less. There are pilots who ask questions and tend to confront themselves with subtle ethical dilemmas. And there are some who state straight out that they would rather not deal with such questions. For some pilots, the connection between the button they press at an altitude of thousands of feet and the person killed on the ground a moment later is clear - and, in some cases, gives them sleepless nights. For others, that connection is less apparent.
Some pilots have a more compelling need for a kind of catharsis, an emotional processing of the experiences they go through, even if this involves exposing inner places that people are usually afraid to approach. Whereas others, in order to perform their duties with the stability and composure that are required, repress everything and internalize as little as possible. The price they sometimes pay takes the form of a certain callousness.
A pilot I spoke to before the interview with Halutz described the experience of flying and making use of weapons: "[There] is uniqueness and the beauty of the world of the pilot. You sit up above, quietly, with your long view. There are no noises, no booms, no shouts of people. You are totally focused on the target, you don't have the dirt and the horror of the battlefield. You do your thing and head home."
Asked if there is not a danger that combat pilots will end up being cut off from reality and experience the dropping of bombs on people as a kind of virtual computer game, Halutz says: "The pilot who gave you that description was just giving a precise experience of reality. There is a semi-transparent screen between the pilot and the targets. The target is open, but its contents are hidden. That screen has nothing to do with the moral and emotional side of the matter. Pilots and navigators are the best people we have. The salt of the earth. I can assure you that the criteria with which we select them do not include the criterion of which of them is capable of creating a more dense emotional screen."
Is there a format within the system that makes it possible for the pilots to do emotional processing?
"Why emotional? Anyone who needs help, of any kind and in any area, will get it. All the mechanisms exist, including psychological help. Only people who have emotional problems need to do emotional processing."
Didn't the pilot who dropped the bomb in the Shehadeh mission - which generated a worldwide furor - find himself in emotional distress? Did he get help of any kind?
"One, he was not in distress. He had questions and he asked them. He was calm, not agitated, and he did not need any help. Two, I said that from the moment I saw that the matter had become disproportionate, I felt the need to strengthen the personnel, but not at the level of psychological treatment. I am not a psychologist and I do not enter into the depths of anyone's psyche - nor is there any need to. Strengthening people, as far as I am concerned, means to give support and backing, to say `I am behind you.' There is no need to get carried away on this subject."
Were you personally hurt by the aftermath of the event?
"No. I felt frustration. I was disappointed by the reaction of the extremists, not hurt."
Still, you have also gone through a difficult month. You and the IAF came under attack, and from the media everywhere. Who strengthened you?
"I don't need strengthening, I am a strong person. Or let's put it this way: To this day, I have not needed external strengthening. I know how to cope with things by myself. In this case, I had no doubt, and certainly there was no need for strengthening from anyone. And I very much hope that in the future, too, I will not encounter situations that will make me need such help. What is this obsessive preoccupation with feeling?"
A pilot drops a bomb. A bomb kills people - sometimes those he planned to kill, sometimes not. Isn't it legitimate to ask a pilot what he feels after he releases the bomb? Can we expect him to ask himself that question, and is it in fact asked in the IAF?
"No. That is not a legitimate question and it is not asked. But if you nevertheless want to know what I feel when I release a bomb, I will tell you: I feel a light bump to the plane as a result of the bomb's release. A second later it's gone, and that's all. That is what I feel.
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
