27 theses on the current situation in Gaza
I am not an expert on the Israel/Palestine conflict. My qualifications to speak on the history of the topic are alarmingly pedestrian: I read and wrote a bit on this as an undergrad; I've read a modest amount on it in years since; and I had some provocative and eye-opening experiences during my two visits to Israel and my one visit to the West Bank. I have not been to Gaza. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the geo-political situation. I have not followed the developments of the past few months and years especially carefully. I don't know as much as I'd like to.
To the extent I am an 'expert' on anything, however, it is just war theory/the ethics of war. It was the subject of my dissertation; I've written a fair bit beyond on the topic; I've spent countless hours with other experts in the field; I've read endlessly on it; I've worked with and taught this to military service members for years.
What follows are some related but disconnected theses on the current situation, rooted in some common themes and principles from just war theory and ethical issues that surround it. These reflect the best of my understanding of the facts, but they might of course change if new information comes out. Ordinary "Fog of War" caveats, and so on.
I'm sharing these because I have found that much of the proto-analysis of the conflict has involved drawing conclusions about moral questions without considering what the arguments actually entail, or the premises they rely on. Thoughtfulness in times of conflict and violence is a tough ask, but we can do better. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider how some of these theses might be joined together to form a broader argument, but that's not my task here.
Hamas's attack—including kidnapping and murdering civilians—was a war crime, an act of deliberate terrorism, and morally wrong. No plausible theory of just war says otherwise.
To the extent that Hamas poses an ongoing unjust threat to Israel—specifically, its civilians—Israel has just cause to defend itself. This does not mean that it can do whatever it wants to achieve that just cause; it just means that it has just cause to fight back. This also does not license pure aggression, pure retaliation, revenge, or broader attempts to destroy Gaza. Having a just cause is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for justified war.
Israel's military response to Hamas has consisted of many war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilian residences with blatant disregard for their safety. Israeli officials have also commented publicly that they aim to decimate Gaza; they intend to shut off power, water, and food to Gaza residents; their aim is to make Gaza a 'tent city'. These, too, are morally horrific claims, which, if followed by actions, are also war crimes.
Israel's continued and relentless occupation of the Palestinian Territories is unjust. I do not mean merely the occupation of land and people, which is sufficiently unjust on its own, but also the consistent and deliberate expansion into Palestinian communities, the demeaning conditions to which Palestinians are forcibly subject, the deliberate second-class citizenship of Palestinians (even those who live in Jerusalem), the inability to self-govern, the significant limitations to their freedom and welfare, and the various forms of neglect and violence to which they are routinely subject. This is especially true of those condemned to live in Gaza.
Life in Gaza is utterly miserable for most people. It is an open-air prison. They can't leave in at least two senses: most of them have no reasonable way of getting out legally; and leaving is financially—not to mention socially, relationally—impossible. Both of these factors are almost exclusively due to choices made by the Israeli government, though of course Hamas is also, to a certain degree, responsible for the latter. (See also thesis 19 below.) The fact that they cannot leave factors into our judgment of what Israel is doing to them. To shut off their food, etc., is to starve them. They cannot go elsewhere, lest they be killed for trying to do so. They have no recourse, redress, or prospects. Israel's current plan is to kill them quickly (through bombing) or slowly (through starvation). Both are morally wrong.
Unjust occupation, particularly under these conditions, also provides a just cause for war. Again, this does not mean that one can use whatever means they like to pursue that just cause. Again, a just cause is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for justified war.
Gaza is not Hamas; Hamas is not Gaza. Gaza is a territory with ordinary people, many of whom (shockingly half, on some estimates) are children. These people are not, under any plausible description, legitimate targets of military violence. Israel often says otherwise; this is wrong, both factually and morally. To target them is a serious violation of international law and deeply morally wrong. They are off-limits. To target them intentionally repeatedly should shock the conscience. It is reported—reports I'm inclined to believe—that Israel has done this many, many times already since the beginning of the conflict.
It is somewhat unlikely that another similar attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians will happen soon, given the massive capabilities of the IDF, and the comparatively weaker capabilities of any armed groups on the Palestinian side. But it is incredibly likely—guaranteed, even—that the citizens of Gaza will experience violence and chaos for a long time to come. Thousands have already died; many more will die in the coming weeks. If they don't die as a direct result of violence, they will die from the effects of war—specifically, the disruption to healthcare, water, food, etc. This has implications for how we think of who is most vulnerable right now, and how we direct our attention.
Gaza is not functionally democratic. Hamas was formally elected to power in 2006, but their current government is not, in any meaningful sense, a product of a democratic process. Their power in Gaza (and the West Bank) is, therefore, de facto, not de jure. Gazans do not have a reasonable say in their leadership. Hamas does not formally represent the will of the people of Gaza.
This—Hamas's de facto leadership—is both a consequence and an explicit goal of Netanyahu's vision for the state of Israel. Netanyahu (and others in leadership in Israel) saw Hamas as a positive thing for their (Israel's) goals—namely, to avoid actual, plausible negotiations concerning Palestinian statehood. He said, paraphrased: "those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Accordingly, to the extent that we are interested in the question of blame distribution, it is not as though Hamas's position in Gaza is entirely their own creation. Israel—and Netanyahu—bear significant responsibility for their continued role. This seems especially true when we consider the relationship between the people of Gaza and their de facto leadership, and what this might mean for their perceived liability (see below). This is to say nothing of the continued plans under Netanyahu's leadership to aggressively expand Israel beyond its current borders and provoke Palestinians further. Many Israelis—including the editorial board of Haaretz—hold Netanyahu significantly responsible.
However, some supporters of Palestine have suggested that Israel is fully responsible for the attacks. This is not true, in the moral sense. In other words, provocation might be an explanation for the conflict, but is no justification for war crimes. It might be justification for military action directed at military targets; but it is no justification at all for the particular methods Hamas has employed thus far.
And yet, understanding that Hamas's desire to initiate conflict with Israel does not come from nowhere is an important contextual factor that many overlook in their desire to quickly identify Good Guys and Bad Guys. To insist that highlighting this observation now is "bad timing" or "in poor taste"—or, worse, necessarily anti-semitic—is a specious rhetorical challenge, not a serious moral one.
While many Palestinians do support Hamas, most reports (which are pretty unreliable) suggest that number is around 50%, perhaps even lower. This means that at least half of all Palestinians residing in Gaza or the West Bank do not support the leaders to which they are beholden (with no formal recourse for electing another party), and presumably do not identify with nor endorse the methods they use to respond to the Israeli occupation. I say 'at least', because it's quite likely that some portion of those who support Hamas do so for other strategic reasons—better the devil you know, perhaps—but do not endorse their military tactics. And presumably a great many Gazans do not support what Hamas just did to Israel.
The fact that a government—de facto or de jure—acts in a morally reprehensible way does not mean the citizens under that authority are therefore liable to harm. (This, incidentally, was the logic of Osama bin Laden in his famous "Letter to America", which, in his mind, justified 9/11.) If this were true, then there would be both a case that the Israelis who were killed by Hamas were liable to that harm, and that the civilians in Gaza are liable to the harm they face. But no reflective person thinks this.
And yet, some provocative types have recently taken to soapboxes to claim that Israeli civilians are legitimate targets of war by virtue of their role in the occupation of Palestine. This is false, both legally and morally. To claim this is to deliberately obfuscate the moral distinction between civilian and military targets. It’s a bizarrely alienating political tactic, and it distracts from morally legitimate efforts to support the Palestinian people.
And yet, it seems Israeli leadership is taking a similar line toward Palestinians. "Israel’s president Isaac Herzog accused Palestinians in Gaza of being collectively responsible for the attack. “It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians [being] not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true,” he said on Friday. “They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’état.”" This sounds like a war-crime in progress, to say nothing of its cynicism and bleak inhumanity.
Thus, the Palestinians are also not liable to the harms the Israelis are inflicting on them. The argument is even stronger here—not that it needs to be—due to the aforementioned fact of their being represented by a group that is not democratically accountable.
Part of Gaza shares a border with Egypt. At the time of writing this, Egypt has not opened its border to Palestinian refugees. Jordan (which shares a border with the West Bank, but not Gaza) also says it does not plan to accept Palestinian refugees. The reason why is complicated. One rationale that is often cited is that countries like Egypt and Jordan do not want to facilitate the potentially permanent displacement of Palestinians. In other words, if those living in Gaza were to leave, they might never return, which would be the death knell for Palestinian statehood. According to some, “If you were to talk about [Egypt as an] alternative home, this would be the end of the Palestinian question.” This strikes me as broadly well-intentioned and big-picture thinking; but forcing those who are currently being mercilessly attacked, and who have no other way to escape the carnage, to endure these constant threats, makes Egypt partly morally responsible for the deaths of those who would have otherwise escaped. It should be up to the Palestinians whether to stay or go, and Egypt has a duty (as does any state) to house refugees fleeing from violence. Statehood should not be forced upon them when they desperately want to flee. Egypt should not get to control whether another state exists, and in what form.
To "stand with" a country/territory/people is a morally and politically ambiguous act. To "stand with", e.g., Ukraine is presumably not to endorse every military tactic, nor to endorse everything the country has done, currently does, or will do in the future. But there is a point at which the explicit and deliberate strategy of a country's military is morally dubious enough to render "standing with" that country a statement or political act that requires more nuance and clarification. Israel's current military approach, which centers on deliberately decimating Gaza with absolute disregard for civilian lives and homes, is unquestionably morally reprehensible. Anyone who is expressing that they "stand with Israel" ought, prudentially and morally, to clarify what they mean by that. Anyone who sees what Israel is doing and does not, at a minimum, question their support of the country is deserving of our moral skepticism.
"Standing with" presumably also—or instead—involves expressing solidarity with the people, not the government. To the extent this is true, then those who "stand with" Israel—i.e., the Israeli people—should also stand with the Palestinian people. Indeed, if the underlying rationale for why one would wish to express solidarity with the Israeli people is that they have experienced significant unjust violence and injustice, then this applies equally to the Palestinians—both in the current moment, given Israel's response; and more broadly, given the dire situation that Gazans have endured for decades. To express solidarity with the Israeli people and not the Palestinian people is, in the absence of some misunderstanding of the facts, a morally dubious position, to say the least.
The principle of necessity—to which every plausible theory of just war subscribes—holds that military violence must be necessary—that is, it must be an option of last resort, and must do better than all morally relevant alternatives at achieving similar moral ends. Hamas's attack on Israel was clearly unnecessary. But Israel's attacks on Hamas are also unnecessary, and to the extent they are state-sanctioned, deliberate, and ongoing, are in many ways more terrifying. Revenge is not a recognized just cause for war.
It is also clearly unnecessary to decimate homes; shut off water, electricity, and food; and effectively punish civilians in Gaza for the crimes of their unelected leaders. These harms are therefore unjust. Warning civilians to evacuate before bombing is morally necessary, but not sufficient. (Note: there are reports that these warnings have been essentially ambushes.)
The U.S. ought not support regimes in their efforts to perpetrate war crimes as a matter of policy. Israel is perpetrating war crimes as a matter of policy. Therefore, the U.S. should not support the Israeli regime in its current mission. This is different from supporting the Israeli people themselves, or supporting rebuilding efforts, etc., which is something the U.S. (and others) should be involved in.
But if the U.S. believes that helping the Israeli people is morally important, then they ought to think the same is true—perhaps even more so, given what I've said above—of the people of Gaza. For reasons of moral consistency alone, the U.S. should provide aid and relief to Gaza. It appears to be on its way to doing so, but the choice is not merely binary (should we/shouldn't we), but also one of amount. Given the conditions laid out above, the U.S. should give substantial and ongoing aid to Gaza, as a matter of moral principle.
Speaking of the U.S., I think it would be useful for Americans—particularly those on the right, who most loudly claim to be freedom-loving and detest government control of their lives—to reflect on what they would do, or what they would endorse, if they were in the position of those living in Gaza. Suppose your town were forcibly annexed by the neighboring town, which now wholly controls your entire power grid, your water, your borders, your emigration/immigration privileges, your land management, your political rights, and your safety. (This is to say nothing of the ethnic hatred that boils beneath the surface.) Americans often think of themselves as champions of freedom—typically to a fault; often ignorant of the ironic ways this has been made manifest globally—and yet have experienced nothing even remotely close to what citizens of Gaza have endured for generations. If they had, I suspect many would be proudly in support of fighting back in some form or fashion. To be sure, this is not an endorsement of what Hamas did; see (1) above. But it invites one to consider, with greater moral clarity, what is really at stake in the broader conflict.
Relatedly, it is perfectly coherent and reasonable to think that what Hamas just did is horrible—both because it involved war crimes, and because it will certainly lead to reprisals by Israel that will harm citizens of Gaza in profound ways—while also thinking that this particular case highlights—at the psychological level, not the moral—the utter desperation of the people of Gaza to have meaningful political self-determination. It is perfectly reasonable, acceptable, appropriate, and good to ask: What should the people of Gaza do? This is the clearest case of asymmetric warfare we have seen in modern times. Their attempts to fight back have been systematically thwarted, and have led to systematically worsening treatment. The people of Gaza are unlikely to get meaningful freedom through diplomatic means; they've tried, and failed, for as long as they've existed. If the question had not been asked seriously before now, it might seem that now is an inopportune time to raise it. But at the political/psychological level, this is precisely the root cause. What should the people of Gaza do? They shouldn't murder, kidnap, and torture civilians—that's obvious, as I've stated repeatedly. Few, if any, who seriously raise this issue in good faith are suggesting that what Hamas did was just. But the horrors we've witnessed prompt an urgent question: what should the people of Gaza—and, yes, their leaders—do? Further, what should we—the U.S., a self-described beacon and champion of freedom—do to influence their prospects for freedom? It is a moral failure that the U.S. has enabled, supported, and funded Israeli domination over the Palestinian people for as long as it has. I am not optimistic that the U.S. will suddenly change it's approach to Middle East politics. If anything, this looks to further entrench existing positions. But if enough people begin to view the situation with greater moral clarity, perhaps it will at least yield some positive change.
To close, let me say that the discourse surrounding this has all been incredibly disheartening. There are obvious moral truths, many of which I just articulated; and there are more complex issues, which reasonable people can discuss and disagree on. And then there are patent falsehoods, such as the idea—to which alarmingly many subscribe, apparently—that criticizing Israel is tantamount to anti-semitism, or supporting Palestine is tantamount to endorsing Hamas. (Many have claimed that rallies in support of Palestinian lives are "Pro-Hamas" rallies, which is truly baffling.) It is truly frustrating to witness how poor our political conversation has gotten. I knew it was in bad shape, but this just confirms it.
A few things I've read on the conflict that have been illuminating, provocative, or interesting. I don't necessarily endorse all of the claims in these, though.
"What is permissible in the war against Hamas?" by Barak Medina and David Enoch (the latter is a very well-respected moral philosopher, whom I met when I was in Jerusalem.)
"Israel must defeat Hamas--and then get serious about peace" by Jo-Ann Mort and Michael Walzer (the latter, again, is a respected philosopher and one of the leading voices in contemporary just war theory.)
"Beyond moral condemnation" by Rajan Menon
—JVD