NYT: As Gazans Scrounge for Food and Water, Hamas Sits on a Rich Trove of Supplies

[Ontoepistemic]

52. State-Sanctioned Violence and Civilian Casualties

In the unfolding narrative of the Israeli war, one might find it difficult to untangle the web of actions, reactions, and broader consequences. Yet the urgency to do so is palpable. Indeed, the crux of the matter resides not merely in the physicality of war—of strikes and counterstrikes—but also in the ethical domain, where the application of military force becomes a troubling expression of state-sanctioned authority.

The war has taken a new, devastating turn with Israel escalating its ground operations in Gaza. This expanded operation, substantiated by air and naval forces, represents a critical moment in the war against Gaza's ruling faction, Hamas. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant remarked that the war had transitioned into a new stage, declaring that "the ground shook in Gaza" as military forces struck both above and beneath the surface.

It's vital to approach this statement with an ethical scrutiny that does not go unnoticed when one speaks of lives lost and futures shattered. The Israeli military operation, seen as retaliation for Hamas’ previous incursion into Israel, has had catastrophic consequences for the civilian population of Gaza. What becomes evident is that the retaliatory strikes do not seem to solely target combatants or military infrastructure. Instead, the reverberations are felt most profoundly among innocent civilians.

The ethical question looms large: does a state’s right to self-defense warrant a campaign that results in the mass death of non-combatants? As per the territory’s Health Ministry, the Palestinian death toll has eclipsed 7,700, a majority of whom are women and minors. Can one, in good conscience, argue that such a loss of life is proportionate to the initial incursion by Hamas? And if not, then do these actions violate the foundational principles of just war theory, which mandates both proportionality and discrimination in the use of military force?

Moreover, the very mechanics of war have made Gaza an enclave cut off from the world. Communications are largely disabled, leaving the citizens of Gaza unable to call for medical aid, even as their residential buildings crumble under the might of aerial bombardments. The destruction of basic infrastructure has not only made life insufferable for Gazans but has also curtailed their ability to narrate their own experience, allowing the Israeli military to control the overarching narrative.

In examining the American involvement, one must consider the long-standing U.S.-Israel relationship. While the U.S. has consistently defended Israel's right to self-defense, it has largely refrained from commenting on the proportionality of its actions. In this way, American foreign policy has offered tacit approval of Israel's military endeavors, thereby entering into a morally complex paradigm that prompts the question: what is the ethical responsibility of states that enable or support actions resulting in civilian harm?

These inquiries are crucial in assessing the ethical texture of the conflict. The justifications for war cannot be examined without confronting the ethical and moral dimensions that surround the death of non-combatants. The implication is not merely a theoretical discourse but has a practical bearing on the lives of thousands who find themselves entrapped in a situation not of their making.

Yet, what remains is an open-ended reflection: as the war escalates and the world watches, can we engage in a collective moral reasoning that goes beyond the superficialities of who is right and who is wrong? Could this form the basis for a global ethical dialogue, not only for the present conflict but for the manner in which all conflicts are perceived and, ultimately, resolved?

The quest for a more humane world hinges on these philosophical inquiries. As the war rages on, they are questions that neither side can afford to ignore. Just Saying.