Philosophers have long tried to develop clear moral principles to govern the conduct of warfare. Here's why they're engaged in a fierce debate over Gaza.
A much needed essay, thoughtful well structured, and neutrally argued in a world of media/ social media noise. Interesting to note that Walzer (which I loved in 1978) is still one of the best sources for thinking about the just war. I would be very interested in your conclusions on the debate- perhaps for a second essay. We do need to get away from the opposing echo chambers which drive people into pro or anti- "my side right or wrong". The situation (as you have discussed) is far more nuanced. I continue to have a position that detests both Hamas and the Netanyahu cabinet; is pro Israel and Palestinian statehood; and am utterly against both anti-semitism and anti Islamophobia. It is very weak thinking to equate anti Netanyahu / Smotrich et al with anti semitism (if so much of Israel (eg the Haaretz newspaper )would fall into that category). The Gaza war is clearly now not being fought as a just war; I hope but sadly do not expect a peaceful and just settlement.
Very much so. I've been speaking out against anti Semitism since 1977, and am also hugely against Netanyahu , Smotrich, and Ben Gvir etc - I'd recommend reading Haaretz , the progressive anti Netanyahu Israeli newspaper. More critical and better informed than much of the British press.
I would be interested to know if you think this horror unfolding in Gaza would be different had the US election result been a Democratic victory. Your essays dauntlessly illuminate the hard stuff – thankyou.
It’s impossible to say with certainty, but I expect there would have been substantially more pushback - especially behind the scenes - and in terms of strings attached to US weapon sales, particularly compared to the unrestricted support from Trump in more recent months. Harris was probably less sympathetic to Israel than Biden, but it’s hard to say for sure how she would have behaved (and how Israel might have behaved differently too).
Thank you for this essay, Brian. In a moment when moral clarity is so often reduced to slogans or weaponized to silence, your writing offers something rare: intellectual rigor without abstraction and empathy without equivocation. It’s a relief to encounter a voice willing to engage the ethical stakes of this war without resorting to dogma or denial, and doing it in a way that is clear-eyed, thoughtful, and compelling to read. Thank you.
This kind of honest, uncomfortable, historically grounded, and principled reasoning is exactly what we need more of. I’m deeply grateful for the tone, the depth, and the moral seriousness you bring to such a devastating subject. Thank you.
An excellent essay, thank you. While it wasn’t the focus of the essay, it is important to remember that October 7 was to a great extent the outcome of 75 years of Israeli oppression of Palestinians; it didn’t happen out of the blue. And Gaza in particular has been harshly oppressed since Israel’s exit in ‘05. Israel controlled its borders; inward and outward movement of people and goods, including food; airspace; and offshore waters. In a way, Gaza was a massive prison. In such a situation it shouldn’t surprise anybody that violence eventually erupted.
“Shouldn’t surprise” is just one step short of “we can justify.” There is no moral justification for mass murder and mass rape. These are immoral acts, no matter who commits them. They cannot be excused. All right thinking pale must condemn them.
Condemning evil acts by Israel or by Israelis is never a justification of evil acts by Palestinians.
This is entirely irrelevant - unless your goal is to justify those acts.
Figure out what you’re trying to do. Either you do believe that past oppression justifies current barbarism, in which case it’s not barbarism. Or you don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways.
Trying to justify one side or the other in this contest of horror and barbarism simply perpetuates the trap that both parties would like to see the rest of the world fall into. Both the Israeli right wing and Hamas are genocidal apocalyptic cults. Making excuses for either side is a mistake.
“Many world leaders are actually not very intelligent people and are swayed by their biases” so that they often fail to accurately forecast outcomes based on their strategic goals and intentions.”
If ever there was an argument for insisting on advisor expertise to guide decision making of our leaders, this is it. If ever there was a poster child for bad decisions it is a self proclaimed “genius” president who declares, “Nobody knows more about X than I do.”
Brilliant essay, Brian. I learned a lot from it and restacked it before I had even finished it. Unfortunately, those who most need to read and understand it won't do so. I'd be very interested in a collated book of these essays.
Brian, there is credible intelligence about Oct 7 was available and that Bibi conveniently chose to ignore it. And Bibi's long habit of feeding the beast that keeps him in power, Hamas. Oct 7 was despicable but also happened just in time before Bibi could be removed from power by democratic activism in Israel. Coincidence much? Oct 7 has benefited nobody more than Bibi who is prolonging an unjust war merely to stay in power. I appreciate your analysis of this issue through the lens of war ethics. But the real problem is Bibi is just another corrupt leader like the ones in Africa and Asia that you have researched.
The pit in my stomach and the fact that I was holding my breath meant to my simple mind that I was reading something profound. Thank you for helping me make sense of the senseless.
Again a very thought provoking piece. I waited to read it because I have a bit of the ’recoiling’ from the horror sickness going on.
There is a lot to think about here. I remember back in the early 80s, as a student in the Pioneer Valley of 5 universities/colleges in Western Mass, taking a course in just war theory. I was a Smith Poly Sci major at the time.
It makes me uncomfortable twisting and turning these decisions of maniacal leaders…in this day and age I would suggest Vladimir and Bibi in this club… by way of these applied philosophies.
You state:
Nonetheless, when we evaluate the morality of an act of war, our task is not to subjectively evaluate what a leader hoped would happen—we can never know for sure what is inside their minds—but instead judge the most likely outcome of that action based on the available evidence. And here, to my mind, lies the nub of the problem with Israel’s enigmatic endgame in Gaza.
But these theories of just reason to go to war and just conduct of war they are imbedded either mens rea. In a criminal trial in the US this is a very subjective element …tricky to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have read Fluke and many of your Substack posts. I know that you are a skeptic of the ’science’ that is sometimes cited in retrospect to explain individual choices that shape history. (Forgive the generalization.) I suppose what I still want is some sort of framing of these huge moral moments in human history…past, PRESENT, and future…that reaches beyond the templates we have used in political science and philosophy to have a greater accounting and expectations of the choices made by people with the power of the office/leadership.
I think your two scenarios get to the crux of the issue: there isn't a realistic pathway for current Israeli tactics to lead to the complete destruction of Hamas, alongside the survival of the wider population of Gaza. Denial of food by itself can't achieve this aim, since in a warzone, there's no realistic scenario where civilians get to eat while the men with guns starve. Wars often involve the threat of civilian suffering as an incentive for the other side to make terms, but that doesn't make sense if you know from the outset that the opposing armed force is largely indifferent to civilian suffering, as seems to be the consensus on Hamas.
There's a debate to be had about moral permissibility of the level of firepower used to take out militants, displacement of civilians within the Strip, and so on, but at a macro level it seems we have a simpler calculus at work. Israel has close to complete control of the food supply in Gaza (since it has destroyed most of the agricultural land and also largely prevents fishing along Gaza's coast). According to official Israeli data, the amount going in per day is compatible with the long-term survival of only a fraction of Gaza's pre-war population, even if all the food going in could somehow be distributed efficiently and peacefully. At the same time Israel does not allow Palestinian civilians to leave the Gaza Strip, at least not in any significant numbers (we can say Egypt is complicit here as well, but that doesn't absolve Israel of the responsibility that comes with effectively holding civilians within the warzone). Whatever the intentions, such a policy makes certain outcomes biologically inevitable if continued for long enough. So the proportionality question has to be asked at the level of the entire Gaza Strip, not just for localized military actions.
Very helpful essay, as usual, thank you Brian. One question: it’s been repeatedly alleged that a major motivation for Bibi’s conduct of the war—possibly the most important one—is his own political survival and avoiding conviction on corruption charges. You didn’t mention those allegations in your essay, but they seem pertinent (if they’re true) to the evaluation of Israel’s conduct. Obviously, a leader’s choice in waging a war for personal and corrupt reasons would color our evaluation of the ethics of the war. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on that aspect of this.
Thanks for a fascinating overview. My main thought, throughout was stated by the recent critics you cite: 'they argue that the war has morphed from a just one to an unjust one"--that seems to be what is happening.
Yes, Israel had just cause to attack Hamas after 10/7, but quite apart from whether the military objective has been achieved or considerations of proportionality, the intentions of the far right NOW we don't have to guess, and as you say, those intentions are ethnic cleansing and taking over Gaza FOR Israel; the settlers on the West Bank mirror this. This war has another political aspect; Bibi's need to keep his far right supporters happy for his own personal ends, saving him from his political corruption trial. So it doesn't really matter what he intended back after the attack, if his intent--and that of his government-- now jives with the far right. Query whether Bibi is a leader or just a follower by this time.
On proportionality. One thing to look at is whether Hamas ever actually posed an EXISTENTIAL threat to Israel. I'd say no, no matter what its rhetoric. But Israel has always had the capability (and now the execution of that) to be an existential threat to Gaza and Palestinians in general
My feeling about "human shields" is that it has also deteriorated from a mildly valid reason to a mere excuse for murderous mayhem. That does tie in with the idea that Hamas was never an existential threat. Is it necessary to kill EVERY Hamas operative hiding under a hospital?
It doesn't really surprise me that there are some Gazans now supporting Hamas. They didn't, as a whole, pre-10/7. Hamas got to complete power via a coup and people in general aren't very big on being ruled by the results of a coup. But now, and for a long time now, Hamas HAS to be seen as the only force actually trying to resist the slaughter. Who would YOU support after your whole family had been killed, the killer or the only group that seems to be resisting more killing. That doesn't make those who sympathize with Gazan supporters themselves pro Hamas. It just means one can understand the motives of those under attack.
It seems to me to be a category error to consider everyone who was a Hamas member a terrorist. In a government by coup, it is often a requirement to be a party member just to have a job as, say, a DMV clerk. That doesn't have to mean such a person buys into the overall rhetoric.
What I guess I conclude is that morphing from just to unjust war (jus ad bellum) is something, from your description of the philosophies, is something that philosophy of war hasn't really dealt with. This is quite apart from the acts of the soldiers in fighting, which more and more seem to rise to war crimes--particularly at the famine stage we are now in. "Keeping order" is no excuse-we all know about the use of non-lethal weapons now, thank you LA--
Finally, does the philosophy of war have thoughts on those who support a war though not actually taking part in it? As in those admiring the idea of a Gaza Riviera full of name-branded hotels.
Ramya, another commentator on this post, put her finger on what I think is a major contributor to this situation. Even General Michael Flynn (as horrible as he is) recently said that he had never seen a border as fully guarded as the section that Hamas breached. Yet, the breach came during the fairly brief time when soldiers were inexplicably given unscheduled leave. We cannot ignore the selfish actions of a corrupt leader trying to avoid accountability when talking about this war. Netanyahu is making nice with the extreme right wing, so as to keep them placated. Otherwise, they’d leave him to face the consequences of the bribery charges against him.
This is so important, and such a generous effort, and as always so well written that I just restacked it for my readers (the few; the precious) as I was about to post something re Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. And also, just because. Live long and prosper. Namaste.
I'd argue that by definition, war is an existential threat the goal of which is unconditional surrender and obliteration of any resources or will to resist domination of the opposing side. It is a sadistic fight to extinction that is always a crime. The essay, I believe, deals with lesser conflicts where there is hope of survival. England, for instance, was sadistically destroyed around 1068 AD and divided among or by the conquerors. That pacification has lasted to today. The question, I suppose, would be if a moral conflict could have achieved the the same.
A much needed essay, thoughtful well structured, and neutrally argued in a world of media/ social media noise. Interesting to note that Walzer (which I loved in 1978) is still one of the best sources for thinking about the just war. I would be very interested in your conclusions on the debate- perhaps for a second essay. We do need to get away from the opposing echo chambers which drive people into pro or anti- "my side right or wrong". The situation (as you have discussed) is far more nuanced. I continue to have a position that detests both Hamas and the Netanyahu cabinet; is pro Israel and Palestinian statehood; and am utterly against both anti-semitism and anti Islamophobia. It is very weak thinking to equate anti Netanyahu / Smotrich et al with anti semitism (if so much of Israel (eg the Haaretz newspaper )would fall into that category). The Gaza war is clearly now not being fought as a just war; I hope but sadly do not expect a peaceful and just settlement.
My position is much the same as yours, Paul. Sadly, too many have refexively conflated disagreement with Israel's actions as antisemitism.
Very much so. I've been speaking out against anti Semitism since 1977, and am also hugely against Netanyahu , Smotrich, and Ben Gvir etc - I'd recommend reading Haaretz , the progressive anti Netanyahu Israeli newspaper. More critical and better informed than much of the British press.
I would be interested to know if you think this horror unfolding in Gaza would be different had the US election result been a Democratic victory. Your essays dauntlessly illuminate the hard stuff – thankyou.
It’s impossible to say with certainty, but I expect there would have been substantially more pushback - especially behind the scenes - and in terms of strings attached to US weapon sales, particularly compared to the unrestricted support from Trump in more recent months. Harris was probably less sympathetic to Israel than Biden, but it’s hard to say for sure how she would have behaved (and how Israel might have behaved differently too).
Thank you for this essay, Brian. In a moment when moral clarity is so often reduced to slogans or weaponized to silence, your writing offers something rare: intellectual rigor without abstraction and empathy without equivocation. It’s a relief to encounter a voice willing to engage the ethical stakes of this war without resorting to dogma or denial, and doing it in a way that is clear-eyed, thoughtful, and compelling to read. Thank you.
This kind of honest, uncomfortable, historically grounded, and principled reasoning is exactly what we need more of. I’m deeply grateful for the tone, the depth, and the moral seriousness you bring to such a devastating subject. Thank you.
As always, Brian, you provide a clear articulation of the muddy and confounding. Thank you.
An excellent essay, thank you. While it wasn’t the focus of the essay, it is important to remember that October 7 was to a great extent the outcome of 75 years of Israeli oppression of Palestinians; it didn’t happen out of the blue. And Gaza in particular has been harshly oppressed since Israel’s exit in ‘05. Israel controlled its borders; inward and outward movement of people and goods, including food; airspace; and offshore waters. In a way, Gaza was a massive prison. In such a situation it shouldn’t surprise anybody that violence eventually erupted.
“Shouldn’t surprise” is just one step short of “we can justify.” There is no moral justification for mass murder and mass rape. These are immoral acts, no matter who commits them. They cannot be excused. All right thinking pale must condemn them.
Condemning evil acts by Israel or by Israelis is never a justification of evil acts by Palestinians.
I was not in any way excusing the events of October 7. It was horrible.
I was observing that the roots of October 7 are buried in 75 years of Israeli oppression/ethnic cleaning of Palestinians.
This is entirely irrelevant - unless your goal is to justify those acts.
Figure out what you’re trying to do. Either you do believe that past oppression justifies current barbarism, in which case it’s not barbarism. Or you don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways.
Trying to justify one side or the other in this contest of horror and barbarism simply perpetuates the trap that both parties would like to see the rest of the world fall into. Both the Israeli right wing and Hamas are genocidal apocalyptic cults. Making excuses for either side is a mistake.
“Many world leaders are actually not very intelligent people and are swayed by their biases” so that they often fail to accurately forecast outcomes based on their strategic goals and intentions.”
If ever there was an argument for insisting on advisor expertise to guide decision making of our leaders, this is it. If ever there was a poster child for bad decisions it is a self proclaimed “genius” president who declares, “Nobody knows more about X than I do.”
Brilliant essay, Brian. I learned a lot from it and restacked it before I had even finished it. Unfortunately, those who most need to read and understand it won't do so. I'd be very interested in a collated book of these essays.
Brian, there is credible intelligence about Oct 7 was available and that Bibi conveniently chose to ignore it. And Bibi's long habit of feeding the beast that keeps him in power, Hamas. Oct 7 was despicable but also happened just in time before Bibi could be removed from power by democratic activism in Israel. Coincidence much? Oct 7 has benefited nobody more than Bibi who is prolonging an unjust war merely to stay in power. I appreciate your analysis of this issue through the lens of war ethics. But the real problem is Bibi is just another corrupt leader like the ones in Africa and Asia that you have researched.
Thanks … I was going to write a comment very similar to yours!!!
The pit in my stomach and the fact that I was holding my breath meant to my simple mind that I was reading something profound. Thank you for helping me make sense of the senseless.
Brian,
Again a very thought provoking piece. I waited to read it because I have a bit of the ’recoiling’ from the horror sickness going on.
There is a lot to think about here. I remember back in the early 80s, as a student in the Pioneer Valley of 5 universities/colleges in Western Mass, taking a course in just war theory. I was a Smith Poly Sci major at the time.
It makes me uncomfortable twisting and turning these decisions of maniacal leaders…in this day and age I would suggest Vladimir and Bibi in this club… by way of these applied philosophies.
You state:
Nonetheless, when we evaluate the morality of an act of war, our task is not to subjectively evaluate what a leader hoped would happen—we can never know for sure what is inside their minds—but instead judge the most likely outcome of that action based on the available evidence. And here, to my mind, lies the nub of the problem with Israel’s enigmatic endgame in Gaza.
But these theories of just reason to go to war and just conduct of war they are imbedded either mens rea. In a criminal trial in the US this is a very subjective element …tricky to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have read Fluke and many of your Substack posts. I know that you are a skeptic of the ’science’ that is sometimes cited in retrospect to explain individual choices that shape history. (Forgive the generalization.) I suppose what I still want is some sort of framing of these huge moral moments in human history…past, PRESENT, and future…that reaches beyond the templates we have used in political science and philosophy to have a greater accounting and expectations of the choices made by people with the power of the office/leadership.
I think your two scenarios get to the crux of the issue: there isn't a realistic pathway for current Israeli tactics to lead to the complete destruction of Hamas, alongside the survival of the wider population of Gaza. Denial of food by itself can't achieve this aim, since in a warzone, there's no realistic scenario where civilians get to eat while the men with guns starve. Wars often involve the threat of civilian suffering as an incentive for the other side to make terms, but that doesn't make sense if you know from the outset that the opposing armed force is largely indifferent to civilian suffering, as seems to be the consensus on Hamas.
There's a debate to be had about moral permissibility of the level of firepower used to take out militants, displacement of civilians within the Strip, and so on, but at a macro level it seems we have a simpler calculus at work. Israel has close to complete control of the food supply in Gaza (since it has destroyed most of the agricultural land and also largely prevents fishing along Gaza's coast). According to official Israeli data, the amount going in per day is compatible with the long-term survival of only a fraction of Gaza's pre-war population, even if all the food going in could somehow be distributed efficiently and peacefully. At the same time Israel does not allow Palestinian civilians to leave the Gaza Strip, at least not in any significant numbers (we can say Egypt is complicit here as well, but that doesn't absolve Israel of the responsibility that comes with effectively holding civilians within the warzone). Whatever the intentions, such a policy makes certain outcomes biologically inevitable if continued for long enough. So the proportionality question has to be asked at the level of the entire Gaza Strip, not just for localized military actions.
Very helpful essay, as usual, thank you Brian. One question: it’s been repeatedly alleged that a major motivation for Bibi’s conduct of the war—possibly the most important one—is his own political survival and avoiding conviction on corruption charges. You didn’t mention those allegations in your essay, but they seem pertinent (if they’re true) to the evaluation of Israel’s conduct. Obviously, a leader’s choice in waging a war for personal and corrupt reasons would color our evaluation of the ethics of the war. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on that aspect of this.
Agree!!!
Thanks for a fascinating overview. My main thought, throughout was stated by the recent critics you cite: 'they argue that the war has morphed from a just one to an unjust one"--that seems to be what is happening.
Yes, Israel had just cause to attack Hamas after 10/7, but quite apart from whether the military objective has been achieved or considerations of proportionality, the intentions of the far right NOW we don't have to guess, and as you say, those intentions are ethnic cleansing and taking over Gaza FOR Israel; the settlers on the West Bank mirror this. This war has another political aspect; Bibi's need to keep his far right supporters happy for his own personal ends, saving him from his political corruption trial. So it doesn't really matter what he intended back after the attack, if his intent--and that of his government-- now jives with the far right. Query whether Bibi is a leader or just a follower by this time.
On proportionality. One thing to look at is whether Hamas ever actually posed an EXISTENTIAL threat to Israel. I'd say no, no matter what its rhetoric. But Israel has always had the capability (and now the execution of that) to be an existential threat to Gaza and Palestinians in general
My feeling about "human shields" is that it has also deteriorated from a mildly valid reason to a mere excuse for murderous mayhem. That does tie in with the idea that Hamas was never an existential threat. Is it necessary to kill EVERY Hamas operative hiding under a hospital?
It doesn't really surprise me that there are some Gazans now supporting Hamas. They didn't, as a whole, pre-10/7. Hamas got to complete power via a coup and people in general aren't very big on being ruled by the results of a coup. But now, and for a long time now, Hamas HAS to be seen as the only force actually trying to resist the slaughter. Who would YOU support after your whole family had been killed, the killer or the only group that seems to be resisting more killing. That doesn't make those who sympathize with Gazan supporters themselves pro Hamas. It just means one can understand the motives of those under attack.
It seems to me to be a category error to consider everyone who was a Hamas member a terrorist. In a government by coup, it is often a requirement to be a party member just to have a job as, say, a DMV clerk. That doesn't have to mean such a person buys into the overall rhetoric.
What I guess I conclude is that morphing from just to unjust war (jus ad bellum) is something, from your description of the philosophies, is something that philosophy of war hasn't really dealt with. This is quite apart from the acts of the soldiers in fighting, which more and more seem to rise to war crimes--particularly at the famine stage we are now in. "Keeping order" is no excuse-we all know about the use of non-lethal weapons now, thank you LA--
Finally, does the philosophy of war have thoughts on those who support a war though not actually taking part in it? As in those admiring the idea of a Gaza Riviera full of name-branded hotels.
Ramya, another commentator on this post, put her finger on what I think is a major contributor to this situation. Even General Michael Flynn (as horrible as he is) recently said that he had never seen a border as fully guarded as the section that Hamas breached. Yet, the breach came during the fairly brief time when soldiers were inexplicably given unscheduled leave. We cannot ignore the selfish actions of a corrupt leader trying to avoid accountability when talking about this war. Netanyahu is making nice with the extreme right wing, so as to keep them placated. Otherwise, they’d leave him to face the consequences of the bribery charges against him.
This is so important, and such a generous effort, and as always so well written that I just restacked it for my readers (the few; the precious) as I was about to post something re Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. And also, just because. Live long and prosper. Namaste.
I'd argue that by definition, war is an existential threat the goal of which is unconditional surrender and obliteration of any resources or will to resist domination of the opposing side. It is a sadistic fight to extinction that is always a crime. The essay, I believe, deals with lesser conflicts where there is hope of survival. England, for instance, was sadistically destroyed around 1068 AD and divided among or by the conquerors. That pacification has lasted to today. The question, I suppose, would be if a moral conflict could have achieved the the same.