Answering comedian @ComicDaveSmith using a Jewish Ethical Framework

On Joe Rogan's podcast, comedian Dave Smith said this about Israeli airstrikes:

“Let’s say somebody broke onto your property and killed your family members, and you want to go kill this guy. If he goes back to his apartment building and there’s women and children inside, and your move is to blow up the building—well, what you’d be charged with is murder in the first degree…You dropped a bomb knowing innocent people were going to die. That is by definition intentional.”

Most people do not directly think on an ethical level. They have a vague idea of what ethics entails; they know what sounds like it is the right thing to do, they allow logic to be overridden by emotions. Unfortunately, most people are not equipped to answer Smith's analogy because they lack the tools to do so. 

The analogy is not just flawed but deceitful. 

John Spencer  wrote an article debunking Smith. I love the guy but I don't think he made the case as clearly as he could have.

This is purely a moral argument, and as such it needs to be answered on that level. To that end, this is a great test for the Jewish Ethics Chatbot I'm building based on age-old Jewish values. So I asked the chatbot its opinion of Smith's argument, asking it to give Smith the benefit of the doubt that he really believes this analogy and cares about morality.

Its answer clearly addresses the fundamental problem with Smith's analogy.

✅ Summary of Confirmed Facts

Dave Smith compares wartime bombing that knowingly causes civilian deaths to first-degree murder, suggesting no moral distinction between wartime and domestic violence.

This argument is applied to the Israel-Hamas conflict, likely in criticism of Israeli military responses that involve civilian casualties in Gaza.

We are assuming sincere moral concern on his part, not antisemitic intent, and addressing the claim ethically, not politically.

🔎 Triggered Core Values

From the Jewish ethical framework, these values are directly relevant:

Pikuach Nefesh (Preservation of Life): Both for civilians and soldiers on all sides.

Brit / Areivut (Civic and Communal Responsibility): National duty to protect one’s citizens.

Emet (Truth): Moral arguments must be grounded in factual and contextual integrity.

Din veRachamim (Justice and Mercy): The core tension in proportional response.

Lo Ta'amod al Dam Re’ekha (Do not stand by idly): Refusal to act in face of threats is unethical.

Moral Warfare Boundaries (Jewish political ethics): War is not amoral; it must be restrained, just, and proportional​.

⚖️ Value Conflict & Ethical Triage

Smith's argument fails to distinguish between private vengeance and public defense, collapsing two domains with different moral and halachic categories. Jewish ethics makes clear:

1. Milchemet Mitzvah vs. Murder

A war of self-defense (milchemet mitzvah) is not optional; it is morally mandated when civilians are under threat (Talmud, Sotah 44b).

Murder is forbidden as a violation of tzelem Elokim; defensive war, however tragic, is framed as protection of life—not its negation.

2. Intent and Moral Differentiation

Dropping a bomb knowing civilians may die is tragic, but not equivalent to intentionally targeting them.

Halacha and ethics distinguish foreseen but unintended collateral damage (p'sik reisha) from deliberate harm (mitkaven).

Smith’s analogy obliterates moral triage: in warfare, intending to stop rockets with tragic civilian consequence is not the same as intending to kill civilians.

3. Moral Agency of Opponent

Hamas embeds weapons in schools and tunnels under hospitals. When they fire from civilian areas, the responsibility for civilian deaths shifts partially to them (lifnei iver, lo ta'amod).

Jewish ethics still imposes strict limits on proportionality, but demonizing self-defense as murder undermines moral accountability of aggressors.

🔁 Counterproposal: An Ethically Grounded Analogy

If Smith truly seeks moral clarity, he should compare war to a police hostage situation:

“If someone takes hostages and hides behind civilians, the police may tragically kill innocents in a rescue attempt—but we would not charge them with murder, because their intent was to protect life under coercive conditions created by the attacker.”

This analogy preserves moral distinctions, acknowledges tragedy, and respects both the sanctity of life and the necessity of protection.

📘 Secular Transparency

This reasoning is replicable without Torah:

Just War Theory supports proportionality, discrimination (targeting), and necessity.

International humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions) distinguishes combatants from civilians but does not criminalize civilian deaths when proportionate and not targeted.

Moral realism—recognizing that doing nothing is itself a choice with consequences—is a shared Western ethical standard.

📎 Final Recommendation

Smith’s analogy is ethically flawed and dangerously misleading. It erases moral distinctions crucial to just self-defense and undermines the ethical burden of restraint that Israel often bears. A Jewish ethical lens upholds both the tragedy of war and the legitimacy of defending one’s citizens against terror.

I then added a factor  that the chatbot downplayed, since the tool allows arguments and refinements, and it sharpened the answer.

I would add one other fact that you don't quite call out explicitly but has bearing on the analogy: In his scenario, the motive is revenge. But Israel's motive is to destroy a group that has shown both the desire and the willingness to kill unlimited numbers of Israeli citizens. Israel's bombing a building is not intended solely to kill the terrorists inside but to be a step in destroying Hamas, which as you note, is indeed obligatory for a state to do to defend its citizens.

Excellent and crucial point. You're absolutely right—the intent and strategic objective are fundamentally different. Dave Smith's analogy rests on a retributive emotional motive (revenge for a family murder), whereas Israel’s military action is preventive and strategic, aimed at disabling a genocidal enemy that has declared and demonstrated ongoing lethal intent toward civilians.Let me integrate that into the reasoning trace with proper emphasis:

🔄 Correction to the Analogy: Motive and Objective

Smith’s hypothetical rests on an individual seeking revenge—a motive explicitly rejected in Jewish ethics (Lo Tikom – do not take revenge).By contrast, Israel’s motive is not personal vengeance but national self-defense:

Its objective is not merely to eliminate the immediate shooter (a single terrorist), but to disable a militant organization (Hamas) whose entire operating strategy is to murder civilians and which has stated genocidal goals. Destroying Hamas is a strategic military necessity, not a retaliatory impulse. Jewish political ethics frames this as part of milchemet mitzvah—a commanded defensive war against those who pose an ongoing threat​.Thus, even if both actions risk collateral damage, the moral structure of intention and target makes them categorically different:

The avenger seeks to kill someone out of personal rage, and knows innocents will die.

Israel seeks to neutralize a hostile force, and works to minimize civilian casualties even while acknowledging tragic inevitabilities.

 This example shows (one aspect of) the value of the tool I am building. 

Many more people will hear Smith’s viral soundbite than will ever read a detailed rebuttal. But if they had access to this tool, they could - in real time - ask it whether Smith’s analogy is sound. And it would guide them step by step to a deeper moral understanding.

They could argue back. Ask for clarification. Request a secular framing. And the AI would respond respectfully, not ideologically, not politically—but ethically.

It doesn’t preach. It converses. And in doing so, it makes people better.

This tool is not just about defending Israel. It’s about defending moral clarity. It acknowledges complexity. It embraces competing values. And it provides a lens that doesn’t collapse under emotional pressure or moral relativism.

I’m still refining it—testing cases, identifying where it overreaches or under-explains, making sure it remains faithful to Jewish ethics while being accessible to all. But this case shows what it can already do.

Everyone has an internal, intuitive, subconscious  ethical core where they know something doesn't sound right but they can't quite put their finger on the problem. This tool, if widely available, can potentially be a gamechanger in elevating the conversation and counter malign ideas with real values and real morality - helping people answer their own ethical doubts, counter disinformation, and articulate values they already feel but don’t yet know how to express.

No serious person can object to the core values in this framework. And that’s what gives it power—not just to win arguments, but to elevate the entire conversation.

(If you want to test it out and give me feedback, email me and I can put you on the beta testing program.)

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)