The IDF is *not* the most moral army. Who cares?

A military's goal should not be to win a theoretical contest of virtue. It should be to win the war it is forced to fight — as humanely as possible but, ultimately, as decisively as necessary.

IDF soldiers operating a drone in Lebanon (photo: IDF/X)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Over the weekend, Israeli ex-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon gave a damning interview to Israel’s most popular TV channel, in which he asserted that the IDF is not “the most moral army in the world.”

First of all, we should take his words with a grain of salt: They were equally political (in opposition to Israel’s current government) as they were accurate or sensical. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own political viewpoints, but just because someone has a certain title (e.g. ex-Defense Minister) does not mean that what he or she says is a matter of fact.

At the same time, I have been guilty of using this argument since October 7th — that the IDF, by and large, is “the most moral army in the world.” It is a comforting refrain, a shield against the torrents of criticism, moral relativism, and outright hostility hurled at Israel in times of conflict.

When faced with accusations of disproportionate force or deliberate civilian casualties, invoking the IDF’s moral framework feels like an anchor in a sea of hypocrisy. It is a way to push back against the double standards, the warped narratives, and the denial of our self-declared enemy’s blatant war crimes.

But deep down, I know that this argument, while true in many respects, is incomplete. It plays into a game we were never meant to win — a game where the rules are rigged, and the scoreboard does not measure survival, security, or justice, but rhetorical optics and moral grandstanding. By leaning on this claim, I have sometimes fallen into the trap of trying to justify Israel’s right to defend itself, as though morality were the price of that legitimacy.

The truth is, the IDF’s morality is not what makes its actions justifiable. What justifies them is the necessity of protecting lives and ensuring the survival of a nation (Israel) that has been under siege since its inception. Highlighting the IDF’s restraint and ethics is important, but it should not be a prerequisite for support or understanding. Wars are fought because survival is non-negotiable, not because one side wins a moral beauty pageant.

And so, while I will always be proud of the IDF’s efforts to uphold ethical standards, I must remind myself — and others — that Israel’s right to defend itself does not hinge on being the “most moral.” It hinges on the simple, unassailable truth that every nation has the right to protect its people, even when the world holds it to impossible standards.

---

The idea of “the most moral army” — while flattering — emerges from a peculiar need to inject virtue into a profoundly unvirtuous enterprise. War is brutal, messy, and frequently devoid of easy ethical binaries.

Although codes of conduct like the IDF’s Tohar HaNeshek (Hebrew for “Purity of Arms”) demonstrate admirable intent, they should not be the yardstick by which a military’s success is judged. If an army prioritizes winning the moral contest over winning the war, it risks betraying its primary obligation: safeguarding its citizens against harm.

This is particularly true when confronting enemies that operate outside the bounds of morality. Consider terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which not only disregard the Geneva Conventions but actively weaponize their own civilian populations, turning homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools into tools of war. Against such adversaries, ethical considerations must not paralyze action.

Indeed, holding one’s army to an unattainable moral ideal while the other side revels in moral nihilism risks turning virtue into a strategic liability.

None of this is to suggest that armies should abandon ethical considerations altogether. Far from it. The IDF’s aims to minimize civilian casualties, even at the cost of operational complexity, are laudable. They reflect not only Jewish values but also the principle that countries with Western ideals can and should hold themselves to higher standards.

But this ethos must serve as a guiding principle, not a millstone. When rules of engagement are weaponized against an army — forcing hesitation, doubt, or self-censure in the face of immediate danger — morality has been weaponized against itself.

If morality is to be a shield rather than a burden, it must be pragmatic. The question should not be whether the IDF can claim the gold medal in a non-existent competition of moral armies. The question should be whether its conduct reflects a balance: upholding the core tenets of human dignity while decisively achieving its missions.

Some critics might argue that, by eschewing the pursuit of moral supremacy, the IDF risks descending into the same moral murk as its enemies. This is a false equivalence. The difference lies in intent.

While terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally target civilians as a strategy, the IDF operates within a framework designed to minimize harm to non-combatants, even when doing so endangers its own soldiers. That difference is profound, and it is enough. Insisting on more than this risks confusing morality with martyrdom.

Israel exists in a region where ethical abstraction is a luxury. Its adversaries do not pause to ponder the morality of their actions, and its survival is not a philosophical exercise, but an existential imperative. To persist in this context, the IDF must focus on its core purpose: to defend the Jewish state and its citizens. It should act decisively, without apology, and with an unflinching eye on reality.

To demand that the IDF remain “the most moral” while shouldering the responsibility of protecting a country surrounded by implacable enemies is not only unfair but intellectually dishonest. No army in history has been tasked with such a standard, nor should it be. Morality is not a competition, and wars are not won by those who fight with the cleanest hands, but by those who fight with the clearest purpose.

In a perfect world, armies would not exist at all, let alone need to contend with moral dilemmas. But in the imperfect world we inhabit, where threats to life and liberty are all too real, the IDF’s goal should not be to win a theoretical contest of virtue. It should be to win the war it is forced to fight — as humanely as possible but, ultimately, as decisively as necessary.

The most moral army? Perhaps it is time we stop insisting on the title. The IDF, the State of Israel, and the Israeli people do not need it. What Israel needs is an army that can confront a reality devoid of morality, ensuring the safety of its people and the survival of its nation.

That, in itself, is an act of moral proportions.

---