Sounds more like a utopian fantasist to me, not dealing with reality. Why do soldiers from the good side have to.put their own lives at risk or minimize the chances for their success or have to placate bedroom warriors who don t have their lives on the line. Even more so when you are fighting against a vile and reprehensible enemy. His views sound good on the pages of a book, but not in reality. Evil is done, you take care of it!!
There is something arid and infuriating about this discussion, as it omits so much as a mention of the consequences to Israel if it does not achieve its stated objective – fully supported by the vast majority of Israelis – to remove Hamas as a political entity and eliminate its leadership. If Israel does not achieve this objective the enemies which surround it, funded by Iran, will learn that they can commit the kinds of atrocities just committed within Israeli territory, and survive to fight another day. These enemies do not need to inflict a “knockout blow” to destroy Israel, but if attacks of this nature occur with any repetition, it will destroy Israeli society. Not a word is said about these circumstances. It is lovely for these theorists to pontificate from the safety of their American homes, do they deem WWII to be an unjust war because the Allies did not follow their Marquess of Queensberry Rules? By the way, of course civilians should not be targeted and reasonable steps should be taken to avoid hurting them where possible, but no such discussion can occur without considering the stakes and goals of the just combatant.
That's the thing that really bothers me. We didn't ask these stupid questions in WWII, because people recognized that it was an existential war: if the Germans and Japanese were not utterly defeated, they would continue to expand their empires and bring many nations under their brutal subjugation.
Israel is fighting an existential war. Frankly, it's been fighting an existential war for all of its modern existence. The restraint with which Israel has fought has only emboldened the terrorist organizations that continue to try to wipe Israel off the map.
Agreed, however by going after Hamas, especially if they continue responding the way they are right now, Israel may win the battle and at a terrible cost but not the war or be able to pacify the threat to it's existence. All the innocents who lost their family in this war will continue the fight maybe under a different banner similar to Hamas.
And yet Israel has no clear casus belli against Iran. And no way to attack Iran except long-distance measures.
The reality is that there will always be a threat to Israel's existence until all Arab nations agree to Israel's right to exist. There will always be attacks on Israeli soil until all people who identify as Palestinians agree to either live peaceably as Israeli citizens (as many Arabs, Christians, and Druze have done) or to peacefully form Palestinian nations (which acknowledge Israel's right to exist) within the territories that Israel has ceded.
Israel has tolerated an openly hostile territory on its flank for 18 years. Now that things have broken out into open and mutual war, Gaza must be seized and de-Hamas-ized, much as we de-Nazified Germany. There is no other way to end that particular part of the threat to its existence.
His answers are responses to philosophical questions. I am sure he would be the first to tell you that even he - were he in control - could likely not navigate the moral boundaries perfectly and it can never be done in reality - but this is a standard. Just like any military plan is strategized for a 100% outcome yet knows it will not happen and hope for as close to possible with some level (say 90% successful) to be significant improvement.
He seemed like he was being very careful in what he was saying, because he knew full well that there is a difference in theorizing and dealing with reality.
Soldiers take extra risks because they themselves wouldn't want to see 2 million people nuked for the sake of their safety -- and I'll stipulate that as a rule these are not good people, but you've got some good people and you've got children and just a really big number.
I believe that what Mr. Walzer is arguing is that, while certain military actions (such as calling an artillery strike on a building from which snipers are operating and which also houses civilians) are justified from a just war standpoint and help win the military war, they can be used against the actor in the court of public opinion. This causes that actor to lose the political (or PR) war. Hence, some armies look to other means to make attacks, with more risk to their soldiers.
Philosophically I agree but realistically that's not easy to do given Hamas has the weapons and they don't. I would also imagine Hamas has local support and some sympathizers. Just imagine the spin Hamas may be weaving and if one were living in those conditions how prone their minds would be to that spin.
We did not ask questions like this in WWII. It was understood that until the people who started the war--the Nazi government--was utterly defeated, the citizens of German were officially enemies.
These new "rules of war" are designed to prevent wars from ever being really over. And "designed" may be the very term.
I read one estimate of 30,000 German civilians being killed over the 3-day bombardment of Dresden. It's a damn good thing social media didn't exist 80 years ago, the Allies would not have won.
Yes, people write as though Hamas and the Palestinians are two completely different groups that just happen both to live in the Gaza Strip; evil Hamas vs innocent Palestinians but how is one to tell the difference? Surely the Hamas fighters are Palestinian men? As for the women…
There is no "just happen to" about it. Considering that fairly recent surveys have shown that support of Hamas is as high as 70% in Gaza, I would guess that it would be very difficult to find an adult male in Gaza who did not approve of Hamas.
We live in a different time now, I would like to think at least some of the peoples are better now than during WWII. We value life more, live in better times so it's not entirely fair to compare the responses.
Clearly Hamas does not value life more. Indeed, their actions are at least as disgustingly inhumane as anything the Japanese did during WWII.
Nor do I think that human beings, on the whole, value life any differently now than they did when my parents were fighting WWII. Imagining that people in the past did not value life as we do is an ugly manifestation of Presentism.
The only people who even claim to "value life more" at this point are the Leftists, and their assertions about the value of life are largely nothing more than idealistic virtue-signaling. It's also plain that they value lives only the basis of intersectionality: in their minds, a black murderer should not be punished with more than a slap on the wrist, while Republicans "deserve" to all die of Covid.
I agree. But that makes them facilitators, not innecent civilians. There is no easy path for Israel. But the primary goal should be deterrence - exact such.a price that future incursions will be deterred.
There is no easy path for Israel and there is no easy path for Palestinians who are opposed to Hamas. As in any totalitarian state, it is difficult for them to even organize their opposition without putting their lives and their families' lives at risk. That doesn't change what Israel has to do and it also doesn't change the fact that recent polling - from before 10/7 - showed a majority of Gaza Palestinians support Hamas, though one could question how deep and even how accurate that supposed support is.
Would your opinion be the same if you were one of the soldiers being shot at?
That approach to problem solving is weak. If one person dying could save 1 million people, it's pretty obvious that the one person should die even if they don't agree.
If I were a soldier, yes, because that's the cause I chose but as a civilian no because I had no choice.
Your second argument is one where I bend my knee, if it were my life that would be an easy choice but making a choice for a life that is not mine is impossible to me even if it is one to save a million.
Semantics arguments are a waste of time. "Necessary" or "just" or whatever else you might prefer to call it, the key point was there are constraints that an ethical society should put on war.
It seems clear that the Israelis at least aspire to apply those constraints while Hamas and Iran do not.
There are Hamas terrorists who probably have no idea why they're fighting other than the fact that they've always been told (since they were children) to hate the Jews.
Does that excuse their atrocities? Of course not. But there's still going to be an Israeli soldier who is going to shoot some 15 or 16 year-old Palestinian kid with an AK that he barely knows how to use in the face.
That's not just. That just sucks. But I think that this is a necessary war for the Israelis to fight, or more Hamas terrorists will kill, rape, and burn Jews.
"Just" is a concept that belongs to a civil system. War exists outside the lines of law. War is, if not a natural right, then effectively one. If we meet within the USA, I don't have the right to take your wallet if I am stronger, because there is an overarching system to assure mutual security. If we meet on a deserted desert island, might makes right. The same rules apply globally at the state level. Applying terms like "just" or moral arguments is simply propaganda to win over allies or to stimulate one's people to success. It was the common practice of some Native American tribes to fully destroy their rivals if they won a battle, including women and children. Europeans called it barbaric, especially when it happened to their settlements. That's true within their civil rules, but who's to say under what "natural" laws that it's wrong at all? Chimps do it as well, bonobos don't.
Sorry, this is a just war if there is one. Yes, try to protect the innocents. But a 15-year-old points an AK at you, shoot him. Twice so he doesn't get up. Then hope that someone(s) besides his parents asks what ideology put the gun in his hands and why
Hey, man, believe me; I understand the concept of having to down enemy combatants (even if they're 15 year old kids), but that doesn't make it any less stupid and tragic, even if they are legitimate targets who can be justifiably shot in the face.
I agreed with you till the last sentence. Israel is reacting, and very poorly. The war may not have even happened. You can't deny the fact that they were breaking the rules and thought nothing of it. In this npr reporting they talk about Israeli expansion into areas meant for Palestinians. It's not going to get the focus because it doesn't look good on Israel. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206701213/palestinians-appear-to-have-been-killed-in-reprisal-attacks-in-the-west-bank.
I don't think Ben was looking for you or anybody to agree or disagree. People can differ. You believe one way and he believes another - never are all actions in "war" 100% right or wrong because its always based on some alleged threat from an outsider force as perceived by another group. In retrospect you can only make a judgment when all the facts are in - which they never will be - then consensus - say with Hitler WWII - is likely 96% just in US tactics given the stakes. Even then I am sure there were innocent Germans killed by carpet bombing. Remember, "in a perfect world there would be no humans".
What I tell people is that I don't live in Israel/Gaza/West Bank or the greater area - so any opinion I may have I know is without personal context - so I stay away from opinions on the justness of this war and response.
Firstly, I don't know why you trust NPR at all. I certainly don't trust anyone in the MSM.
Secondly, I'm glad we agree that there is no such thing as a "just" war. That's a mindset and philosophy that's embedded and taught as doctrine in the US military (even though I think it's a poor framework for a military to use).
Thirdly, there are civilian deaths in any war. This war is going to be exceptionally bloody because Hamas's SOP is to embed within civilian centers and use them as shields. The Israelis have tried to play ball with the Palestinians, but they're not doing it anymore.
This war is going to be brutal, nasty, and ugly. Israel will be a pariah state and condemned as evil by the "civilized" countries of the world. But I still think that they are fighting a necessary war.
This has always been one of the gray areas of things like this. But at a certain point, the people become responsible for the actions of their government. Which should hopefully motivate people to get rid of bad governments.
But yes, it does suck when someone who would otherwise be decent get saddled with a government that does not represent them.
Idk people labeled it anti semitic to say the israeli government (or regime) was responsible for the fate of its civilians. It’s been over a week but I’m remembering calls to black list students who suggested that kind of thing and even saw calls to deport foreign national students for that line of thinking
The issue, as I understand it, is that they people saying Israel brought this on themselves is 1) The level of violence. They did not attack the military. They attacked civilians for the sake of terror and took hostages. 2) Palestine has an arguable claim to Israel in the first place. So the idea that you are kicking someone out of a place that has been theirs on and off for centuries may not track. And 3) The goal of Hamas is, by their own reckoning, the erasure of the Israeli people.
That said, I am not really on board with blacklisting in general. If an individual wants to take a stand and decide that they do not want to hire a certain kind of person (say, one that believes that it is ok rape and murder), they absolutely should be free to do so. But in general I am not cool with coercing people to form a group that prevents people from living, with no possibility of redemption. However, I am willing to bet that the ven diagram of "people getting blacklisted for their pro-Hamas views" and "people that have been perfectly ok with others getting blacklisted for their beliefs" has a lot of overlap. Live by the sword...
True, but Gaza is controlled by Hamas. The Palestinian people are going to suffer because they’re governed by a bunch of thugs.
It’s sad. Really.
But I still believe that this is a necessary war for Israel to fight. Israel bears part of the responsibility for this war as well. I’m not making the case that they don’t.
“But the more civilians you kill, the more likely you are to lose the political war that always goes along with the military war”
As it turns out, you don’t even have to kill civilians. The enemy can blow up a "hospital", kill "500" "innocents" and the propagandists i.e., NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC…will immediately do their best to ensure you lose the political war.
Evidenced by the vitriolic response we’ve seen coming from college campuses and the far left, who have a stranglehold on much of media content, as well as academia.
A total fallacy. This whole concept of proportional response and morally just wars is how we get ourselves into forever wars. Its how we lost our recent wars. It’s like fighting a boxing match with 3 limbs tied up. Of course your gonna lose.
No wars are just. We won WWII by firebombing Dresden and nuking two Japanese Cities. We didn’t win these wars by avoiding civilian casualties. We won, so we got to write the history books. Did we have moral license to kill so many civilians? The only license we had was they did it first. We attacked them in response to them attacking us. A defensive war is always justified. That’s the only moral license Israel needs.
Your missing the nuance. There is a difference between whether a war in general may be considered just or unjust and whether the tactics employed are considered just or unjust.
The Allies' decision too fight WW II was a just decision. Some of the ways they prosecuted the war may be considered unjust.
Some people may consider them unjust. But how do those people justify the far greater number of casualties from prolonging the war? How do those people justify the possibility of German and/or Japanese victory if we "fight fair" and the enemy does not?
But even the way war is waged is nuanced. Would it have been more just to invade Japan? How many more allied soldiers and Japanese civilians would have been killed by invasion? Was dropping two nuclear bombs actually more just?
Turn the situation around (ie, Japan obliterated New York City and Chicago with nuclear bombs), and then answer: How many more axis soldiers and American civilians would have been killed by Japan invading the US? Was Japan dropping two nuclear bombs on the US actually more just?
But they started the aggression. If you punch someone, you can't get mad just because the other guy turns out to have bigger fists.
In hind sight I do not think the bombs were a great idea. But I don't think we could have known that at the time. Not to mention, it was likely meant to be a deterrent to EVERYONE, not just Japan.
All of that said, I do think there can be a lot of back and forth over moral superiority in situations dealing with any kind of violence. It is hard to stay totally moral and win unless your opponent is also committed to being moral. Once one side decides it is ok to kill prisoners or use military assets amongst civilians, adhering to a moral structure above that just increases the likelihood that you will have more death on your side of the equation.
"But they started the aggression." -- Are you referring to Pearl Harbor? Historians would disagree, and argue the US's (intentional) withholding of fuel to Japan was considered an act of war. FDR was looking for a way to involve the US in the war and knew that would be the result.
The 2nd bomb was meant to be a show of force for Russia.
Are you suggesting that a country has to supply other countries with whatever they want or else it is considered an oct of war? Every country that starts a war thinks they have a justification. But if you are saying that America should have kept giving Japan fuel so they could continue to pillage their way across Asia, then I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree.
Here's the best quote from the article, which is, by the way, from a third person point of view: " There has always been left antisemitism. August Bebel, the German Social Democrat, called it the “socialism of fools.”" Perfectly characterizes The Squad!
I used to always go what was formerly known as The Paper Of Record for such thoughtful - and far more importantly, even-handed, analysis, but no more. As of today, in my house, The Free Press will be officially known as The Paper Of Record. My how the mighty have fallen ....
Same here... I would always pick up a Times each morning on the way to work to read with my coffee.
I'm a retired blue collar guy with a high school education from NYC and I knew immediately and without any doubt that Israel would never even consider doing such a thing.
And yet the NYT scholars didn't have sense enough to say "Hmm...wait just a sec".
As a blue collar guy from NYC might say "fu*k em' where they breath".
If Hamas uses human shields, they are responsible for any civilian deaths that occur. If the human shields go willingly to make Israeli attacks difficult, they become combatants and are not considered civilian casualties. We are discussing a war between someone who deliberately attacks civilians and uses civilians for cover and someone who does neither, it is easy to see who is fighting a just war justly.
I believe Walzer would agree with you. He’s referring to the war of public opinion. Like many evil people, Hamas is well aware of their ability to shape popular opinion and how willing the “international community” is to believe unfavorable things about the west and especially Israel.
Technically, the terrorists are all civilians. They don't wear uniforms, they don't belong to an organized army representing a nation state. Perhaps the terms "hostile civilians" and "innocent civilians" would be more useful.
"Just war" theory is a luxury belief in that it is a theory espoused by people who get to signal their 'righteousness' but do not have to bear the costs. Every society should seek to live at peace with their neighbors, but if a neighbor violates that peace they should know that the response will be unrestrained violence. If Hamas knew that hiding behind civilians was not going to curtail Israel's response to their terrorism, they wouldn't do it. Paradoxically, espousing a luxury belief like 'just war' theory leads to more violence and more death, not less.
This was a good conversation, but I'm disturbed by the implication that what concerns us is whether "the world" will be better of if Israel fights Hamas. It's like the constant talk of how this will affect the prospects of Palestinian statehood.
You know what? It's sufficient that Israel be better off for fighting Hamas, and the Palestinians -- not just Hamas, let's be real -- have a lot to answer for, so whether this serves them or not shouldn't be our focus.
I suppose everyone has their own definition of a just war, but the last one pretty much everyone agrees fits the definition was WWII. In that war, as in every war, more civilians died than combatants. They include about 4,200,000 German civilians and about 1,972,000 Japanese civilians. The devastation required for both countries to accept unconditional surrender is beyond most civilized people’s comprehension. Yet it was accepted because the death and devastation that would have ensued had it not been achieved was even more incomprehensible.
To win the peace and dissuade the losers from precipitating another war, both countries were basically occupied by democracies so the moral rot they had been infected with could be mostly excised. Germany and Japan have prospered as a result. History doesn’t always repeat itself. Sometimes it should.
The advantage the Allies had in forcing a total surrender was that the leaders of the enemy were located inside the countries at war. I can't fathom how Israel can possibly achieve total defeat of Hamas when its leadership is comfortably ensconced in Qatar, and no one, including the U.S., is demanding Qatar give them up as war criminals.
Anyone who argues for a plan that makes war last any longer than it must is effectively arguing that more people should die than is necessary. That is not just, by any measure.
Which would mean the US is not fighting a just proxy war in Ukraine, since the Biden Admin is doing everything possible to keep it going "until the last Ukrainian."
There should have been ongoing peace talks since May 2022 at latest. The fact that the Biden Administration has not even floated such talks makes it clear that this IS a proxy war.
Which actually makes Putin look amazingly restrained in his responses to the U.S., although he may feel he has no other choice, since his only means of attacking the U.S. is nuclear.
Call in the artillery strike. To do otherwise is making the statement that the lives of the soldiers are disposable so the armchair quarterbacks can feel some sort of twisted moral superiority. The Hamas terrorists must be hunted down and finished.
The better question is, whose lives are MORE disposable (in ANY war, not just this one) - the innocent civilians who have no control over the wars their government fights, or the soldiers who willingly volunteer to risk sacrificing their lives in service to their country?
My son is one of those willing volunteers. And sorry not sorry if I would prefer my son survive to marry his fiancee and raise a family in peace in our ancient homeland, than Palestinian civilians the majority of whom do in the end support Hamas. Of course nobody but Hamas desires civilian deaths, and all would be avoided if they would unconditionally surrender. Which ain't gonna happen.
As a mother, of course that's what you would prefer. My husband is a retired US Marine and served 2 tours in Iraq. During the first I was pregnant with our first child, and during the second I cared for that child alone. While I also did not "prefer" my husband be sent to a country in which we had no business fighting and sacrificing our military, I also respected his decision to participate in it.
I disagree with your claim that most Palestinians support Hamas. I have heard and read the opposite; that most do NOT support Hamas, especially knowing their actions would result in Israel's disproportionate and indiscriminate response on Gaza, militants and civilians alike.
If they don’t support Hamas why do they raise their children to hate Israel, Israelis and Jews? Why do they allow a repressive government to keep them in poverty in the name of destroying Israel? Look at the protests of Palestinian supporters around the world. They aren’t crying out for mercy on Israel. They’re shouting for the destruction of a country that hasn’t occupied it since 2005. Those aren’t the words of peace hungry civilians.
I, too, come from a military family and my mother raised children on her own while my father went to war. It was his job and we respected it. But a child fighting a war is a different thing. He did not choose to be a soldier. People who hate him because of who he is chose it for him.
My father wasn’t fighting for survival. Neither was your husband. Liora’s son is. There is a difference.
"If they don’t support Hamas why do they raise their children to hate Israel...?" -- That's a non-sequitur. They can feel anger and resentment at how Israel treats them, while also not supporting Hamas. It's like saying their feelings alone indicate their support for Hamas. Moreover, the children don't need to be "raised" to feel a certain way toward Israel; they develop those feelings by directly seeing and experiencing Israel's (specifically, the Israeli government's) treatment of all Gazans.
"Why do they allow a repressive government to keep them in poverty in the name of destroying Israel?" -- That's nonsensical. Hamas's hands are tied due to Israel's blockade restricting both essential supplies into Gaza and movement across the border.
"Palestinian supporters...aren’t crying out for mercy on Israel. They’re shouting for the destruction of a country..." -- A couple groups, of mostly Arab ethnicity, do not represent the majority of global Palestinian supporters. Despite how Western media is spinning the narrative, most of the rallies were calling for Palestinian freedom, period. It's crucial to understand that support for Palestinian freedom does NOT equal the desire to "wipe Israel off the map" or "death to the Jews." Those talking points are a PR strategy to manipulate public opinion.
"My father wasn’t fighting for survival." -- I would argue anyone fighting for their country is also fighting for their own survival. Do we know whether Liora's son volunteered or was conscripted?
The most recent polls I am aware of - I think from 2021 - show that more than 50% support armed resistance against Israel. Of course that still leaves large numbers that don't. But with no way to identify them what is the alternative? Only to try to protect civilians as much as possible while still not putting our boys in unnecessary danger.
And I don't recall that such nuances were discussed during the US' responses to 9/11.
The idea of "just" and "unjust"wars sets up a spurious opposition in the first place -- there are only necessary or unnecessary wars. A necessary war, it should go without saying, should be fought as decently as reasonably possible, trying to minimize death and destruction for soldiers and civilians alike, and an unnecessary war, of course, shouldn't be fought at all. But incurring serious risks to one's own soldiers or one's general objectives are not reasonable. You need to win the war before you even have a chance at peace.
If you have a tumor, you remove it. To do otherwise is essentially prolonging the inevitable. You don’t take half of it out, you don’t take 90% of it out, you take it all out. You still might lose in the end, but you did your best for the greater good.
Hamas is that tumor that keeps on coming back. Clearly, doing it piecemeal hasn’t worked in 18 years.
I asked my wife how many more Jews have to die before this is solved. She started giving me a long-winded answer, and so I interrupted. The answer is zero, I told her.
And consider: even the best chemotherapy and radiation therapy have collateral damage to good tissue. You need to make sure the tumor doesn’t come back.
How do you reconcile that the same doctor trying to remove the tumor helped put it there in the first place? IOW, Israel helped create Hamas in Gaza to counteract Arafat's PLO in the West Bank, with the ultimate goal of dividing-and-conquering Palestine.
On pg 221 of the linked book: "Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a 'counterweight' to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party."
Because it was the least worst alternative at the time. Every day we learn about problems with what seemed like a good idea at the time…leeches and bloodletting, hanging witches, questions about COVID vaccine.
It doesn’t excuse Hamas turning into the tumor it is today.
It is so easy to sit back in your comfortable chair and discuss war strategy and tactics over coffee and doughnuts. It must be quite different when you are in the midst of a battle where your own life and the lives of your comrades are at risk. Let the philosophers pick up a weapon and march into battle. Then let's hear their views on the rules of engagement.
The original concept of "just war" comes from the Church and was developed at a time when wars of Conquest or for national honor or prestige were still considered acceptable in Christendom. Today as others have pointed out there are only necessary and unnecessary wars. If a necessary war fails to achieve its necessary and legitimate aims because of a refusal to use tactics that might lead to casualties then this in itself is unjust because lives will be risked and lost and the necessary goal not achieved. We all agree that the best efforts possible should be made to avoid unnecessary deaths. But the goal must be met.
Sounds more like a utopian fantasist to me, not dealing with reality. Why do soldiers from the good side have to.put their own lives at risk or minimize the chances for their success or have to placate bedroom warriors who don t have their lives on the line. Even more so when you are fighting against a vile and reprehensible enemy. His views sound good on the pages of a book, but not in reality. Evil is done, you take care of it!!
There is something arid and infuriating about this discussion, as it omits so much as a mention of the consequences to Israel if it does not achieve its stated objective – fully supported by the vast majority of Israelis – to remove Hamas as a political entity and eliminate its leadership. If Israel does not achieve this objective the enemies which surround it, funded by Iran, will learn that they can commit the kinds of atrocities just committed within Israeli territory, and survive to fight another day. These enemies do not need to inflict a “knockout blow” to destroy Israel, but if attacks of this nature occur with any repetition, it will destroy Israeli society. Not a word is said about these circumstances. It is lovely for these theorists to pontificate from the safety of their American homes, do they deem WWII to be an unjust war because the Allies did not follow their Marquess of Queensberry Rules? By the way, of course civilians should not be targeted and reasonable steps should be taken to avoid hurting them where possible, but no such discussion can occur without considering the stakes and goals of the just combatant.
That's the thing that really bothers me. We didn't ask these stupid questions in WWII, because people recognized that it was an existential war: if the Germans and Japanese were not utterly defeated, they would continue to expand their empires and bring many nations under their brutal subjugation.
Israel is fighting an existential war. Frankly, it's been fighting an existential war for all of its modern existence. The restraint with which Israel has fought has only emboldened the terrorist organizations that continue to try to wipe Israel off the map.
Celia, Again you make a logical good point based on the reality of the situation, history, and understanding the nature of humans
Exactly!
Israel may be fighting an existential war but they're going after the wrong people. Hamas is nothing without Iran.
Hamas is within reach. Iran is not.
Agreed, however by going after Hamas, especially if they continue responding the way they are right now, Israel may win the battle and at a terrible cost but not the war or be able to pacify the threat to it's existence. All the innocents who lost their family in this war will continue the fight maybe under a different banner similar to Hamas.
And yet Israel has no clear casus belli against Iran. And no way to attack Iran except long-distance measures.
The reality is that there will always be a threat to Israel's existence until all Arab nations agree to Israel's right to exist. There will always be attacks on Israeli soil until all people who identify as Palestinians agree to either live peaceably as Israeli citizens (as many Arabs, Christians, and Druze have done) or to peacefully form Palestinian nations (which acknowledge Israel's right to exist) within the territories that Israel has ceded.
Israel has tolerated an openly hostile territory on its flank for 18 years. Now that things have broken out into open and mutual war, Gaza must be seized and de-Hamas-ized, much as we de-Nazified Germany. There is no other way to end that particular part of the threat to its existence.
Yes. A game of whack-a-mole
To be fair the author's expertise is, by his own admission, hindsight and here he is being asked to speculate.
And the interviewee acknowledges that even he is not sure what ought to be done in these circumstances.
His answers are responses to philosophical questions. I am sure he would be the first to tell you that even he - were he in control - could likely not navigate the moral boundaries perfectly and it can never be done in reality - but this is a standard. Just like any military plan is strategized for a 100% outcome yet knows it will not happen and hope for as close to possible with some level (say 90% successful) to be significant improvement.
He seemed like he was being very careful in what he was saying, because he knew full well that there is a difference in theorizing and dealing with reality.
Soldiers take extra risks because they themselves wouldn't want to see 2 million people nuked for the sake of their safety -- and I'll stipulate that as a rule these are not good people, but you've got some good people and you've got children and just a really big number.
I believe that what Mr. Walzer is arguing is that, while certain military actions (such as calling an artillery strike on a building from which snipers are operating and which also houses civilians) are justified from a just war standpoint and help win the military war, they can be used against the actor in the court of public opinion. This causes that actor to lose the political (or PR) war. Hence, some armies look to other means to make attacks, with more risk to their soldiers.
Wow, that was my exact reaction. Utopian fantasies.
Would your opinion be the same if you were one of the civilians in that building with terrorists firing at US soldiers from the rooftop?
My question is if there are that many innocent civilians in Gaza why don't they round up Hamas and turn them over?
Philosophically I agree but realistically that's not easy to do given Hamas has the weapons and they don't. I would also imagine Hamas has local support and some sympathizers. Just imagine the spin Hamas may be weaving and if one were living in those conditions how prone their minds would be to that spin.
We did not ask questions like this in WWII. It was understood that until the people who started the war--the Nazi government--was utterly defeated, the citizens of German were officially enemies.
These new "rules of war" are designed to prevent wars from ever being really over. And "designed" may be the very term.
I read one estimate of 30,000 German civilians being killed over the 3-day bombardment of Dresden. It's a damn good thing social media didn't exist 80 years ago, the Allies would not have won.
Yes, people write as though Hamas and the Palestinians are two completely different groups that just happen both to live in the Gaza Strip; evil Hamas vs innocent Palestinians but how is one to tell the difference? Surely the Hamas fighters are Palestinian men? As for the women…
There is no "just happen to" about it. Considering that fairly recent surveys have shown that support of Hamas is as high as 70% in Gaza, I would guess that it would be very difficult to find an adult male in Gaza who did not approve of Hamas.
We live in a different time now, I would like to think at least some of the peoples are better now than during WWII. We value life more, live in better times so it's not entirely fair to compare the responses.
Clearly Hamas does not value life more. Indeed, their actions are at least as disgustingly inhumane as anything the Japanese did during WWII.
Nor do I think that human beings, on the whole, value life any differently now than they did when my parents were fighting WWII. Imagining that people in the past did not value life as we do is an ugly manifestation of Presentism.
The only people who even claim to "value life more" at this point are the Leftists, and their assertions about the value of life are largely nothing more than idealistic virtue-signaling. It's also plain that they value lives only the basis of intersectionality: in their minds, a black murderer should not be punished with more than a slap on the wrist, while Republicans "deserve" to all die of Covid.
I agree. But that makes them facilitators, not innecent civilians. There is no easy path for Israel. But the primary goal should be deterrence - exact such.a price that future incursions will be deterred.
There is no easy path for Israel and there is no easy path for Palestinians who are opposed to Hamas. As in any totalitarian state, it is difficult for them to even organize their opposition without putting their lives and their families' lives at risk. That doesn't change what Israel has to do and it also doesn't change the fact that recent polling - from before 10/7 - showed a majority of Gaza Palestinians support Hamas, though one could question how deep and even how accurate that supposed support is.
All true IMO.
Would your opinion be the same if you were one of the soldiers being shot at?
That approach to problem solving is weak. If one person dying could save 1 million people, it's pretty obvious that the one person should die even if they don't agree.
If I were a soldier, yes, because that's the cause I chose but as a civilian no because I had no choice.
Your second argument is one where I bend my knee, if it were my life that would be an easy choice but making a choice for a life that is not mine is impossible to me even if it is one to save a million.
Not every soldier is a volunteer. Ever hear of conscription?
I don’t subscribe to Just War theory.
All war is stupid, violent, brutal, horrific, miserable, stinky, bloody, and hateful.
Some wars are necessary, but that doesn’t make them “just”.
I believe the state of Israel is fighting a necessary war.
Semantics arguments are a waste of time. "Necessary" or "just" or whatever else you might prefer to call it, the key point was there are constraints that an ethical society should put on war.
It seems clear that the Israelis at least aspire to apply those constraints while Hamas and Iran do not.
I don't think this is an argument in semantics.
No war is just. They all suck.
There are Hamas terrorists who probably have no idea why they're fighting other than the fact that they've always been told (since they were children) to hate the Jews.
Does that excuse their atrocities? Of course not. But there's still going to be an Israeli soldier who is going to shoot some 15 or 16 year-old Palestinian kid with an AK that he barely knows how to use in the face.
That's not just. That just sucks. But I think that this is a necessary war for the Israelis to fight, or more Hamas terrorists will kill, rape, and burn Jews.
"Just" is a concept that belongs to a civil system. War exists outside the lines of law. War is, if not a natural right, then effectively one. If we meet within the USA, I don't have the right to take your wallet if I am stronger, because there is an overarching system to assure mutual security. If we meet on a deserted desert island, might makes right. The same rules apply globally at the state level. Applying terms like "just" or moral arguments is simply propaganda to win over allies or to stimulate one's people to success. It was the common practice of some Native American tribes to fully destroy their rivals if they won a battle, including women and children. Europeans called it barbaric, especially when it happened to their settlements. That's true within their civil rules, but who's to say under what "natural" laws that it's wrong at all? Chimps do it as well, bonobos don't.
Sorry, this is a just war if there is one. Yes, try to protect the innocents. But a 15-year-old points an AK at you, shoot him. Twice so he doesn't get up. Then hope that someone(s) besides his parents asks what ideology put the gun in his hands and why
Hey, man, believe me; I understand the concept of having to down enemy combatants (even if they're 15 year old kids), but that doesn't make it any less stupid and tragic, even if they are legitimate targets who can be justifiably shot in the face.
I agreed with you till the last sentence. Israel is reacting, and very poorly. The war may not have even happened. You can't deny the fact that they were breaking the rules and thought nothing of it. In this npr reporting they talk about Israeli expansion into areas meant for Palestinians. It's not going to get the focus because it doesn't look good on Israel. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206701213/palestinians-appear-to-have-been-killed-in-reprisal-attacks-in-the-west-bank.
I don't think Ben was looking for you or anybody to agree or disagree. People can differ. You believe one way and he believes another - never are all actions in "war" 100% right or wrong because its always based on some alleged threat from an outsider force as perceived by another group. In retrospect you can only make a judgment when all the facts are in - which they never will be - then consensus - say with Hitler WWII - is likely 96% just in US tactics given the stakes. Even then I am sure there were innocent Germans killed by carpet bombing. Remember, "in a perfect world there would be no humans".
What I tell people is that I don't live in Israel/Gaza/West Bank or the greater area - so any opinion I may have I know is without personal context - so I stay away from opinions on the justness of this war and response.
Firstly, I don't know why you trust NPR at all. I certainly don't trust anyone in the MSM.
Secondly, I'm glad we agree that there is no such thing as a "just" war. That's a mindset and philosophy that's embedded and taught as doctrine in the US military (even though I think it's a poor framework for a military to use).
Thirdly, there are civilian deaths in any war. This war is going to be exceptionally bloody because Hamas's SOP is to embed within civilian centers and use them as shields. The Israelis have tried to play ball with the Palestinians, but they're not doing it anymore.
This war is going to be brutal, nasty, and ugly. Israel will be a pariah state and condemned as evil by the "civilized" countries of the world. But I still think that they are fighting a necessary war.
This was is premised on equating Hamas to Palestinians, which is wrong.
This has always been one of the gray areas of things like this. But at a certain point, the people become responsible for the actions of their government. Which should hopefully motivate people to get rid of bad governments.
But yes, it does suck when someone who would otherwise be decent get saddled with a government that does not represent them.
Idk people labeled it anti semitic to say the israeli government (or regime) was responsible for the fate of its civilians. It’s been over a week but I’m remembering calls to black list students who suggested that kind of thing and even saw calls to deport foreign national students for that line of thinking
The issue, as I understand it, is that they people saying Israel brought this on themselves is 1) The level of violence. They did not attack the military. They attacked civilians for the sake of terror and took hostages. 2) Palestine has an arguable claim to Israel in the first place. So the idea that you are kicking someone out of a place that has been theirs on and off for centuries may not track. And 3) The goal of Hamas is, by their own reckoning, the erasure of the Israeli people.
That said, I am not really on board with blacklisting in general. If an individual wants to take a stand and decide that they do not want to hire a certain kind of person (say, one that believes that it is ok rape and murder), they absolutely should be free to do so. But in general I am not cool with coercing people to form a group that prevents people from living, with no possibility of redemption. However, I am willing to bet that the ven diagram of "people getting blacklisted for their pro-Hamas views" and "people that have been perfectly ok with others getting blacklisted for their beliefs" has a lot of overlap. Live by the sword...
True, but Gaza is controlled by Hamas. The Palestinian people are going to suffer because they’re governed by a bunch of thugs.
It’s sad. Really.
But I still believe that this is a necessary war for Israel to fight. Israel bears part of the responsibility for this war as well. I’m not making the case that they don’t.
But I think they have to fight this war.
“But the more civilians you kill, the more likely you are to lose the political war that always goes along with the military war”
As it turns out, you don’t even have to kill civilians. The enemy can blow up a "hospital", kill "500" "innocents" and the propagandists i.e., NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC…will immediately do their best to ensure you lose the political war.
Evidenced by the vitriolic response we’ve seen coming from college campuses and the far left, who have a stranglehold on much of media content, as well as academia.
Sadly all too true
A total fallacy. This whole concept of proportional response and morally just wars is how we get ourselves into forever wars. Its how we lost our recent wars. It’s like fighting a boxing match with 3 limbs tied up. Of course your gonna lose.
No wars are just. We won WWII by firebombing Dresden and nuking two Japanese Cities. We didn’t win these wars by avoiding civilian casualties. We won, so we got to write the history books. Did we have moral license to kill so many civilians? The only license we had was they did it first. We attacked them in response to them attacking us. A defensive war is always justified. That’s the only moral license Israel needs.
Your missing the nuance. There is a difference between whether a war in general may be considered just or unjust and whether the tactics employed are considered just or unjust.
The Allies' decision too fight WW II was a just decision. Some of the ways they prosecuted the war may be considered unjust.
Some people may consider them unjust. But how do those people justify the far greater number of casualties from prolonging the war? How do those people justify the possibility of German and/or Japanese victory if we "fight fair" and the enemy does not?
You're
But even the way war is waged is nuanced. Would it have been more just to invade Japan? How many more allied soldiers and Japanese civilians would have been killed by invasion? Was dropping two nuclear bombs actually more just?
Turn the situation around (ie, Japan obliterated New York City and Chicago with nuclear bombs), and then answer: How many more axis soldiers and American civilians would have been killed by Japan invading the US? Was Japan dropping two nuclear bombs on the US actually more just?
But they started the aggression. If you punch someone, you can't get mad just because the other guy turns out to have bigger fists.
In hind sight I do not think the bombs were a great idea. But I don't think we could have known that at the time. Not to mention, it was likely meant to be a deterrent to EVERYONE, not just Japan.
All of that said, I do think there can be a lot of back and forth over moral superiority in situations dealing with any kind of violence. It is hard to stay totally moral and win unless your opponent is also committed to being moral. Once one side decides it is ok to kill prisoners or use military assets amongst civilians, adhering to a moral structure above that just increases the likelihood that you will have more death on your side of the equation.
"But they started the aggression." -- Are you referring to Pearl Harbor? Historians would disagree, and argue the US's (intentional) withholding of fuel to Japan was considered an act of war. FDR was looking for a way to involve the US in the war and knew that would be the result.
The 2nd bomb was meant to be a show of force for Russia.
Are you suggesting that a country has to supply other countries with whatever they want or else it is considered an oct of war? Every country that starts a war thinks they have a justification. But if you are saying that America should have kept giving Japan fuel so they could continue to pillage their way across Asia, then I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree.
Here's the best quote from the article, which is, by the way, from a third person point of view: " There has always been left antisemitism. August Bebel, the German Social Democrat, called it the “socialism of fools.”" Perfectly characterizes The Squad!
"Socialism of fools" is redundant, and the Jihad Squad certainly embodies both terms.
I used to always go what was formerly known as The Paper Of Record for such thoughtful - and far more importantly, even-handed, analysis, but no more. As of today, in my house, The Free Press will be officially known as The Paper Of Record. My how the mighty have fallen ....
Same here... I would always pick up a Times each morning on the way to work to read with my coffee.
I'm a retired blue collar guy with a high school education from NYC and I knew immediately and without any doubt that Israel would never even consider doing such a thing.
And yet the NYT scholars didn't have sense enough to say "Hmm...wait just a sec".
As a blue collar guy from NYC might say "fu*k em' where they breath".
Can't we say "fuck" here?
If Hamas uses human shields, they are responsible for any civilian deaths that occur. If the human shields go willingly to make Israeli attacks difficult, they become combatants and are not considered civilian casualties. We are discussing a war between someone who deliberately attacks civilians and uses civilians for cover and someone who does neither, it is easy to see who is fighting a just war justly.
I believe Walzer would agree with you. He’s referring to the war of public opinion. Like many evil people, Hamas is well aware of their ability to shape popular opinion and how willing the “international community” is to believe unfavorable things about the west and especially Israel.
Technically, the terrorists are all civilians. They don't wear uniforms, they don't belong to an organized army representing a nation state. Perhaps the terms "hostile civilians" and "innocent civilians" would be more useful.
"Just war" theory is a luxury belief in that it is a theory espoused by people who get to signal their 'righteousness' but do not have to bear the costs. Every society should seek to live at peace with their neighbors, but if a neighbor violates that peace they should know that the response will be unrestrained violence. If Hamas knew that hiding behind civilians was not going to curtail Israel's response to their terrorism, they wouldn't do it. Paradoxically, espousing a luxury belief like 'just war' theory leads to more violence and more death, not less.
‘“If Hamas knew that hiding behind civilians was not going to curtail Israel's response to their terrorism, they wouldn't do it.”
Not true - Hamas will do ANYTHING to advance their motives!
If hiding behind civilians gained them no advantage, why would they do it?
This was a good conversation, but I'm disturbed by the implication that what concerns us is whether "the world" will be better of if Israel fights Hamas. It's like the constant talk of how this will affect the prospects of Palestinian statehood.
You know what? It's sufficient that Israel be better off for fighting Hamas, and the Palestinians -- not just Hamas, let's be real -- have a lot to answer for, so whether this serves them or not shouldn't be our focus.
"What Makes a War Just?"
I suppose everyone has their own definition of a just war, but the last one pretty much everyone agrees fits the definition was WWII. In that war, as in every war, more civilians died than combatants. They include about 4,200,000 German civilians and about 1,972,000 Japanese civilians. The devastation required for both countries to accept unconditional surrender is beyond most civilized people’s comprehension. Yet it was accepted because the death and devastation that would have ensued had it not been achieved was even more incomprehensible.
To win the peace and dissuade the losers from precipitating another war, both countries were basically occupied by democracies so the moral rot they had been infected with could be mostly excised. Germany and Japan have prospered as a result. History doesn’t always repeat itself. Sometimes it should.
The advantage the Allies had in forcing a total surrender was that the leaders of the enemy were located inside the countries at war. I can't fathom how Israel can possibly achieve total defeat of Hamas when its leadership is comfortably ensconced in Qatar, and no one, including the U.S., is demanding Qatar give them up as war criminals.
Anyone who argues for a plan that makes war last any longer than it must is effectively arguing that more people should die than is necessary. That is not just, by any measure.
Which would mean the US is not fighting a just proxy war in Ukraine, since the Biden Admin is doing everything possible to keep it going "until the last Ukrainian."
There should have been ongoing peace talks since May 2022 at latest. The fact that the Biden Administration has not even floated such talks makes it clear that this IS a proxy war.
Which actually makes Putin look amazingly restrained in his responses to the U.S., although he may feel he has no other choice, since his only means of attacking the U.S. is nuclear.
Call in the artillery strike. To do otherwise is making the statement that the lives of the soldiers are disposable so the armchair quarterbacks can feel some sort of twisted moral superiority. The Hamas terrorists must be hunted down and finished.
The better question is, whose lives are MORE disposable (in ANY war, not just this one) - the innocent civilians who have no control over the wars their government fights, or the soldiers who willingly volunteer to risk sacrificing their lives in service to their country?
My son is one of those willing volunteers. And sorry not sorry if I would prefer my son survive to marry his fiancee and raise a family in peace in our ancient homeland, than Palestinian civilians the majority of whom do in the end support Hamas. Of course nobody but Hamas desires civilian deaths, and all would be avoided if they would unconditionally surrender. Which ain't gonna happen.
As a mother, of course that's what you would prefer. My husband is a retired US Marine and served 2 tours in Iraq. During the first I was pregnant with our first child, and during the second I cared for that child alone. While I also did not "prefer" my husband be sent to a country in which we had no business fighting and sacrificing our military, I also respected his decision to participate in it.
I disagree with your claim that most Palestinians support Hamas. I have heard and read the opposite; that most do NOT support Hamas, especially knowing their actions would result in Israel's disproportionate and indiscriminate response on Gaza, militants and civilians alike.
If they don’t support Hamas why do they raise their children to hate Israel, Israelis and Jews? Why do they allow a repressive government to keep them in poverty in the name of destroying Israel? Look at the protests of Palestinian supporters around the world. They aren’t crying out for mercy on Israel. They’re shouting for the destruction of a country that hasn’t occupied it since 2005. Those aren’t the words of peace hungry civilians.
I, too, come from a military family and my mother raised children on her own while my father went to war. It was his job and we respected it. But a child fighting a war is a different thing. He did not choose to be a soldier. People who hate him because of who he is chose it for him.
My father wasn’t fighting for survival. Neither was your husband. Liora’s son is. There is a difference.
Oh my goodness, where to start.
"If they don’t support Hamas why do they raise their children to hate Israel...?" -- That's a non-sequitur. They can feel anger and resentment at how Israel treats them, while also not supporting Hamas. It's like saying their feelings alone indicate their support for Hamas. Moreover, the children don't need to be "raised" to feel a certain way toward Israel; they develop those feelings by directly seeing and experiencing Israel's (specifically, the Israeli government's) treatment of all Gazans.
"Why do they allow a repressive government to keep them in poverty in the name of destroying Israel?" -- That's nonsensical. Hamas's hands are tied due to Israel's blockade restricting both essential supplies into Gaza and movement across the border.
"Palestinian supporters...aren’t crying out for mercy on Israel. They’re shouting for the destruction of a country..." -- A couple groups, of mostly Arab ethnicity, do not represent the majority of global Palestinian supporters. Despite how Western media is spinning the narrative, most of the rallies were calling for Palestinian freedom, period. It's crucial to understand that support for Palestinian freedom does NOT equal the desire to "wipe Israel off the map" or "death to the Jews." Those talking points are a PR strategy to manipulate public opinion.
"My father wasn’t fighting for survival." -- I would argue anyone fighting for their country is also fighting for their own survival. Do we know whether Liora's son volunteered or was conscripted?
The most recent polls I am aware of - I think from 2021 - show that more than 50% support armed resistance against Israel. Of course that still leaves large numbers that don't. But with no way to identify them what is the alternative? Only to try to protect civilians as much as possible while still not putting our boys in unnecessary danger.
And I don't recall that such nuances were discussed during the US' responses to 9/11.
The last election was in 2006 and Hamas beat the rival. There has been no election since, but polling shows 45% of Gazans support Hamas.
The idea of "just" and "unjust"wars sets up a spurious opposition in the first place -- there are only necessary or unnecessary wars. A necessary war, it should go without saying, should be fought as decently as reasonably possible, trying to minimize death and destruction for soldiers and civilians alike, and an unnecessary war, of course, shouldn't be fought at all. But incurring serious risks to one's own soldiers or one's general objectives are not reasonable. You need to win the war before you even have a chance at peace.
Informative and levelheaded.
If you have a tumor, you remove it. To do otherwise is essentially prolonging the inevitable. You don’t take half of it out, you don’t take 90% of it out, you take it all out. You still might lose in the end, but you did your best for the greater good.
Hamas is that tumor that keeps on coming back. Clearly, doing it piecemeal hasn’t worked in 18 years.
I asked my wife how many more Jews have to die before this is solved. She started giving me a long-winded answer, and so I interrupted. The answer is zero, I told her.
And consider: even the best chemotherapy and radiation therapy have collateral damage to good tissue. You need to make sure the tumor doesn’t come back.
How do you reconcile that the same doctor trying to remove the tumor helped put it there in the first place? IOW, Israel helped create Hamas in Gaza to counteract Arafat's PLO in the West Bank, with the ultimate goal of dividing-and-conquering Palestine.
"How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas"
https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
On pg 221 of the linked book: "Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a 'counterweight' to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party."
https://www.amazon.com/Arab-Jew-Wounded-Spirits-Promised/dp/0553447513
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Because it was the least worst alternative at the time. Every day we learn about problems with what seemed like a good idea at the time…leeches and bloodletting, hanging witches, questions about COVID vaccine.
It doesn’t excuse Hamas turning into the tumor it is today.
It is so easy to sit back in your comfortable chair and discuss war strategy and tactics over coffee and doughnuts. It must be quite different when you are in the midst of a battle where your own life and the lives of your comrades are at risk. Let the philosophers pick up a weapon and march into battle. Then let's hear their views on the rules of engagement.
The original concept of "just war" comes from the Church and was developed at a time when wars of Conquest or for national honor or prestige were still considered acceptable in Christendom. Today as others have pointed out there are only necessary and unnecessary wars. If a necessary war fails to achieve its necessary and legitimate aims because of a refusal to use tactics that might lead to casualties then this in itself is unjust because lives will be risked and lost and the necessary goal not achieved. We all agree that the best efforts possible should be made to avoid unnecessary deaths. But the goal must be met.