Israel and the Demand for Moral Perfection

Israel is held to a standard of conduct demanded of no other country. It is fighting a war in Gaza against an enemy that deliberately embeds itself among civilians, but the IDF is condemned when civilians are killed, despite the tremendous efforts it makes to minimize those civilian casualties. The world’s media deliberately overlooks those efforts, almost always failing to mention the millions of leaflets dropped, the millions of text messages sent, the millions of robocalls made by the IDF to warn civilians to stay away from areas about to be targeted. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran send missiles and drones into Israel without any attempt to warn the Jewish state’s civilians of their targets. “Israel and the Impossible Standard of Moral Perfection,” by Sabine Sterk, Algemeiner, March 30, 2026:

There is a standard applied to Israel that no other nation is expected to meet. It is not a standard of law, nor of morality as commonly understood. It is something far more rigid and far less honest. It demands perfection in the face of existential threats, and even then, it delivers condemnation.

As the conflict with Iran intensifies, Israel finds itself navigating a reality few countries have ever faced.

Iran has made its intentions unmistakably clear for decades. The destruction of Israel is not rhetoric for domestic consumption. It is official Iranian policy. It is repeated openly, consistently, and without apology.

When Iran strikes, it does not distinguish between civilian and military targets. In fact, it purposefully targets civilians. And it doesn’t only target Jews. Rockets do not ask who is religious or secular, Jewish or Muslim, Israeli or Arab. They fall where they are aimed, and often where they are not, with one purpose in mind: to kill, to terrorize, and to destabilize.

Israel, in contrast, is forced to think not only about survival, but about responsibility. This includes responsibility toward all of its citizens: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze. The diversity of Israeli society is often overlooked, but in moments of crisis, it becomes impossible to ignore. Protection must extend to everyone, without exception.

That is why restrictions on public gatherings were imposed. Not as a political statement, but as a practical necessity. In wartime, large crowds are not just gatherings. They are potential mass casualty events waiting for a single missile.

Yet when Israel extended these restrictions during Ramadan, including closing access to major religious sites, the response was immediate outrage. The accusation was predictable: Religious discrimination. Oppression. A supposed targeting of Muslim worshippers.

The reality was different. The restrictions applied across the board. Muslims were not permitted at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Christians were not permitted at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jews were not permitted at the Western Wall or the Mount of Olives. This was not selective enforcement. It was a universal policy driven by security concerns….

Another example illustrates this pattern with uncomfortable clarity. A toddler [in Gaza] was found approaching the Israeli border alone. In any other context, this would be seen for what it is. A child placed in danger, likely as part of a calculated attempt to provoke a reaction.

Hamas was hoping that the Israelis might shoot at the child, providing the terror group with a ghastly propaganda “win” if he were hurt or, better still from Hamas’ view, were killed. No such luck; the Israeli soldiers did not fire, but instead took the child to the Red Cross.

Much of the world has already decided, in defiance of all the evidence, that the IDF is guilty of “genocide.” Rational discussion about the absurdity of this charge is no longer possible. Minds have been made up, and Israel is an arch-villain. For some on the left, Israel behaves “like the Nazis,” and for such people as the mindless Jewish actor Wallace Shawn, Israel is declared to be “worse than the Nazis.”

As Easter approaches, restrictions on religious gatherings once again draw criticism. Clergy voice frustration. Observers condemn the limitations. But the fundamental question remains unanswered: What is the acceptable level of risk? How many lives can be gambled in the name of normalcy?

This is a reference to Israel’s preventing a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Pierbattista Pizzaballa. Israel was denounced for this, accused of being anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Few in the world’s media bothered to note that the exact same ban was applied to would-be Jewish visitors to the Western Wall, and to those Muslims who were prevented from visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque. All three religions were being treated exactly the same, and the temporary ban on visits was only done for security reasons. Iran had already hit targets in the Old City, including one that resulted in shrapnel hitting very close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Israelis were determined to prevent religious leaders and their flocks from being harmed. The ban on visits was for their own good.

Israel is being asked to fight a war against enemies, including Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, that always and everywhere are either indifferent, or deliberately attempt, to hit Israeli civilians, but the IDF is then condemned when, no matter how hard it tries not to strike civilians, it inevitably does hit some, because that is the nature of urban warfare where the enemy embeds itself and its weapons within civilian areas. Much of the world preposterously accuses Israel of “genocide” — a grotesque charge, given Israel’s manifest intent to minimize civilian casualties. West Point Professor John Spencer, an expert on urban warfare, has declared that “Israel has done more and implemented more measures to prevent civilian harm than any military in the history of urban warfare.” Nor is he alone in such a judgement. But how few have read, or understood, those studies.

The IDF is being asked for moral perfection in its conduct of war. No other army on earth has been held to such a standard. But the IDF comes as close as any.