Comment by skybrian
2 years ago
I’m hoping for a utilitarian justification, not something in terms of moral rights. The problem with a moral right to war, while traditional, is that it seems to make whatever follows permissible? Sort of a get-out-of-jail free card for atrocities.
You do make a utilitarian justification with your claim that attacking al Qaeda helped to prevent another 9/11 attack. I haven’t studied it enough to know whether it did that. There have been similar terrorist movements since then. Perhaps increases in airline security did more against that particular attack?
Also, al Qaeda was hiding in the mountains, not under a city. The consequences for civilians are different enough that I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.
For historical background about changing attitudes towards civilian casualties, Bret Devereaux’s latest post [1] seems pretty good.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/12/08/fireside-friday-december-8-202...
Traditional utilitarian arguments are out of place here, unless you realistically apply game theory and only consider Nash equilibrium outcomes. Otherwise you end up comparing the present outcome you don't like to a fantasy outcome that could never be.
On October 7th Hamas killed or captured ~1400 Israelis in an indiscriminate and violent cross-border attack, then unleashed a barrage of rockets on Israeli cities. Many failed, and the iron dome intercepted most of those that got through, but not all, and at great cost.
This was an active state of war, started by Hamas, not Israel. Hamas uses the people of Gaza as disposable human shields. These militants will use every unfair trick to gain advantage and kill more Israelis. They have consistently violated cease fires in the past, and turned humanitarian aid into instruments of war (the rockets, for example, are built using water pipes provided by European countries for the Gazan people).
Evil regimes that treat their own people as disposable need to be gotten rid of, and are unwilling to negotiate in good faith for a settlement. War is really the only viable option here, and the IDF tactics have been chosen to make this war as quick as possible, for a variety of reasons including the safety of the populace.
This is all about what Hamas has done. I'm more interested in the choices available to the Israelis. Even if one concedes that war is necessary, there are many ways to fight a war and some are worse than others. It's not a binary choice between going to war and doing nothing. There's more to going to war than deciding to go to war.
The military goals aren't very clear. "Ending Hamas" is vague. It's not all that clear where Israel wants to end up after the war is over. What's supposed to happen to Gaza?
Also, what are the rules of engagement, and can they be justified? (A bare assertion that IDF tactics are justified is not enough to satisfy my curiosity about what's going on.)
Explaining all that would be more in-depth than I'd expect anyone to write in an Internet comment - it would take a longer article. But these are the things I'd expect if Israel were serious about justifying its actions to an open-minded but skeptical audience, and I haven't really seen it. Perhaps I've missed it, though?
(Although I don't think the invasion of Iraq was justifiable, it's notable that the Bush administration tried to justify it. For example, famously sending Colin Powell to the UN to make a speech about weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to be true. I also remember reading about serious planning for occupation after the war. That didn't go like they expected.)