Moral Clarity part 6: The Main Points

 1. Proportionality: There is no moral equivalence between a country waging a war to protect its citizens and the activities of a terrorist group. This should be self-evident, but it seems not to be to a lot of people. A war waging country is bound by the norms and conventions of international law. A terrorist group ignores those norms and conventions. Terrorist groups intentionally employ particularly heinous barbaric tactics, and targets civilians. Terrorist groups may claim to represent people, but in fact they don't. If they represent any group, it is the interests of their patrons. Iran funds many such groups in the Middle East as its proxies in order to skirt international scrutiny and accountability. The Israel-Hamas conflict must be understood as an assymetrical conflict. The notion of proportionality cannot apply, because in this conflict the two sides are operating by different rules. We can only ask whether a response to an aggression is proportional if the parties involved are playing at the same table. The attacks of terror groups must be seen as not only a threat to particular parties directly involved in the conflict, but also as a threat to the integrity of the entire international system of norms, conventions and rules. Any response to terror must be disproportionately great, because the stakes are disproportionately high, effecting all of us. 

2. Why no ceasefire? In the commonly accepted rules of warfare a conflict ends when the two sides negotiate a cessation of hostilities, or when one side surrenders to the other. Terrorist groups, because they are unaccountable to anyone other than their patrons, do neither. They continue to fight until they die. Israel has effectively been at war with Hamas since it unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2006. Every temporary cessation of hostilities since then has only been an opportunity for Hamas to re-arm, re-fortify and prepare for the next battle. In a ‘normal’ war, between states, when one side is overwhelmed by the other side, as Israel is now doing in Gaza, the losing side typically surrenders to protect its citizens. But the demand for a ceasefire, in this case, is not actually a demand for both parties to stop hostilities, it's a demand for Israel to stop, because the perception is that Israel needs to protect the innocent Palestinians in harm's way. And why would Israel need to do this? Because Hamas won't take the most logical action to protect its own citizens, surrender. Hamas, in fact has no interest in taking any action to save innocent Palestinians. Its interest is for as many innocent Palestinians, preferably women and children, to die because it's the best way for them to get Israel to stop by bringing international pressure to bear. That would short circuit the inevitable, and perpetuate the conflict, leading to more bloodshed and death. The only logical conclusion to ensure the end of the conflict and the least casualties in the long-run, is the complete elimination of Hamas as quickly and decisively as possible. This is what the world should be cheering for.

3. The Palestinians are not Hamas: True. Therefore, any joining of Palestinian political rights/claims and Hamas's terrorist actions are merely a smokescreen to gain popular support. There are many militant and administrative factions claiming to represent the Palestinian people. In fact none of them do. The most recent polling in Gaza shows that the vast majority of Palestinians don't support Hamas and believe it is corrupt (the same for The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas.) It's the main reason there has not been elections in 16 years. Hamas would lose. The leadership of Hamas is located in Doha, Qatar, far away from Gaza and the West Bank. The upper-echelon of Hamas leaders is estimated to be worth many billion dollars. The net worth of Abu Marzuk, deputy chair of the Hamas Political Bureau, is estimated at $3 billion, while senior leaders Khaled Mashal and Ismail Haniyeh are each worth about $4 billion. Gaza is essentially a kleptocracy. Hamas is financed by Iran. Supporting the Palestinian people should mean ridding them of the kleptocrats who steal from them, deprive them, and indoctrinate their children with hate. The Palestinian situation, properly understood, is that they are not the victims of Israeli aggression, but rather of their own degradation at the hands of their supposed leaders and representatives. 

4. Being pro-peace: Those in the west who wave the Palestinian flag and chant "From The River To The Sea" are calling for the elimination of the State of Israel, the Jewish homeland. They should be seen as genocidal warmongers, not peaceniks. Being pro-Palestinian should mean being pro-peace, and being pro-peace must begin with the acceptance of the legitimacy and existence of the State of Israel. There's an often repeated truism: if Israel were to lay down its arms there would be a genocide. If the Palestinian militias (funded by Iran and corruption) were to lay down their arms there would be a chance for peace. 

5. The hostage crisis: The current hostilities should be seen first and foremost as an ongoing hostage crisis. Israel's response is not solely a response to the events of October 7th. It is a rescue operation as much as it is an operation to bring to justice the perpetrators of heinous barbaric murders. The moral calculation involved in any response must take this into account. And the question everyone should be asking themselves is, how far would I go to rescue my mother, father, sister, brother and children from a hostage-taker?