My ethics chatbot vs. Rabbi Rick Jacobs @URJPresident in @WashingtonPost ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, May 12, 2025

My ethics chatbot vs. Rabbi Rick Jacobs @URJPresident in @WashingtonPost

The Washington Post published an op-ed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union of Refirm Judaism, where he argues that Israel must allow food into Gaza in the same way it has in the past and the proposed methods are immoral.

For the past two months, Israel has banned food and supplies from entering Gaza. This is the longest complete blockade it has ever imposed. Just days ago, the Israeli cabinet voted to create designated zones in southern Gaza for food distribution to be administered by U.S. security contractors. This plan, which would entail shutting down most of the existing humanitarian aid sites and soup kitchens, is terribly flawed. There is no time frame by which the new food distribution centers would be up and running, and it is not at all certain that the new sites would provide enough aid to alleviate the suffering. In contrast, during the most recent ceasefire, Israel significantly increased the amount of food aid to Gaza, easing widespread hunger.

Starving Gazan civilians neither will bring Israel the “total victory” over Hamas it seeks nor can be justified by Jewish values or humanitarian law. Will this policy bring home the 59 remaining hostages, including the 24 who are still alive? It’s unlikely — and contrary to the wishes of almost 70 percent of Israelis who, in a recent poll, prioritized the hostages’ return over that elusive “total victory.” Of equal concern, far-right Israeli politicians see the aid blockade as part of a broader plan to permanently push most Gazans from northern Gaza and replace them with Jewish settlements.

As a proud Zionist who continues to feel deep solidarity with the people of Israel, including those who wear the Israel Defense Forces uniform, and as I have said on numerous occasions since Oct. 8, I cannot be silent in the face of the immense suffering of civilians in Gaza, including hundreds of thousands of children. Hamas is willing to sacrifice thousands of Palestinians by hoarding humanitarian aid; Israel must not. Depriving Gazans of food and water will not make Israel safer or hasten the return of the hostages. Each of us who loves Israel must say so — and urge Israel to change this policy.

Since Rabbi Jacobs couched his argument in terms of morality, I thought this is an excellent test for my Jewish Ethics Chatbot to see if his position is, in fact, moral.

My positions that I explained to the chatbot (during its clarifying questions) are :

-Destroying Hamas is a higher ethical imperative and a plan to provide food while shutting out Hamas, which Jacobs all but ignores, is the most moral choice.

- Israel's proposal is meant to provide food for Gazans while shutting out Hamas.

- If Israel had been allowed to do a full blockade early in the war, the war would have been over long ago and much suffering avoided.

- This war is is a "milchemet mitzvah," an obligatory war under Jewish law, to desroy Hamas.

- World opinion is not relevant - the concept of "chilul Hashem" does not appl since criticism is motivated by obsessively hating Israel and not concern over civilian deaths, as the silence of the world over war-caused famines in Yemen and Sudan and elsewhere are largely ignored. Therefore Israel must do the most moral choice without concern over world criticism.

Once those parameters were done, here is what the chatbot answered:

From a structured Jewish ethical perspective, when a nation faces an existential threat, its first duty is self-preservation—to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. This qualifies as a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war of defense), where even morally costly strategies can become permissible if they are both necessary and effective. In this case, if bypassing Hamas while delivering humanitarian aid is feasible and sincere—as you assert—then this plan honors both Pikuach Nefesh (saving life) and Brit (national covenantal duty) without capitulating to the enemy’s manipulation of civilian suffering.

While the suffering of innocent Gazans is tragic, Jewish ethics does not obligate a nation to self-sabotage its defense to alleviate enemy-inflicted civilian harm—especially when an alternative aid model is being attempted in good faith. Indeed, Jewish law explicitly forbids using starvation as a weapon, but it also requires distinguishing between cutting off civilian life-support and cutting off enemy exploitation of aid. If aid can be restructured to reach civilians without empowering Hamas, then a temporary, targeted pressure to facilitate that shift may be ethically justified under Pikuach Nefesh and Tzedek (justice).

Rabbi Jacobs’ call to prioritize immediate humanitarian access, while rooted in compassion, arguably underweights the Jewish duty of Emet (facing hard truths). If increased aid during the ceasefire led to a military resurgence for Hamas, then a stricter wartime blockade with built-in humanitarian lanes may in fact reflect a tragic but necessary moral triage—not a betrayal of Jewish values but their disciplined application under fire.

I then asked further:

Would you say that Rabbi Jacobs' article is problematic as well by not being dan l'chaf zechut on the reasons for Israel's proposed plan to find an alternative way to feed Gazans?

The chatbot answered:

Yes, I think that's a fair critique.

Rabbi Jacobs’ op-ed deeply emphasizes moral accountability and humanitarian suffering—core Jewish values—but he does not appear to give the proposed Israeli plan the benefit of the doubt (dan l’chaf zechut) that it might be a sincere attempt to balance military necessity with compassion. He criticizes the new distribution zones without seriously engaging with their intended function: to prevent Hamas from stealing aid and to deliver help more safely and effectively.

Jewish ethical discourse often insists that we judge others favorably when their actions might plausibly be interpreted as moral, especially fellow Jews acting in defense of life. By neglecting that interpretive charity, Rabbi Jacobs’ critique could be seen as falling short of that standard—even if his broader moral concern is genuine and important.

If Rabbi Jacobs wants to answer these criticisms within his concept of Jewish ethics, I would be most happy to publish his response.