Americans, before we entangle ourselves in the profane happenstances of foreign wars, should step back and recall our own national interest. The deepest interest is our legitimate existence, and America’s rests on our self-conception in a creed, holding that all persons are equally endowed with unalienable rights to live by their own lights, and that governments exist to secure those rights.
Our national interest calls, before we immerse ourselves in ugly practicalities, for all persons to have those rights and live by such governance. To the extent that is impossible, our interest is in everyone having the best chance to develop toward that image. It is an abstract principle, which never takes full living form. But progress toward it, to the greatest extent possible for all, is the evidence that our founding is not based on some idealistic fantasy cooked up by an odd cultural sect 250 years ago. Freedom and development, in the words of scholar Amartya Sen, are, both together, the increase in people’s capacity to lead the lives they would choose, and America has a stake in nurturing them.
When different groups are at war, over elements that each deems essential for its people’s rights and freedom, they appeal to “justice.” The profanity of war has dominated relations between Israelis and Palestinians for almost a century. It is only possible to talk about this war, and justice, by recalling that just war theory has two facets. There is jus ad bello, the question of the justice of any given war, and jus in bello, that of justice in the conduct of war.
Palestinians, neighboring Arab peoples, and many Muslims, see an underlying injustice ad bello. To many, opposition to the Israeli state’s existence constitutes a quest to restore justice. Israelis cite the terror attacks that Palestinian groups have used over the decades, particularly the atrocities of October 7, as a deep injustice in bello.
As is the case in intractable conflicts, both sides contest each other’s invocations. Israel’s response to terror has and will kill civilians. Though they take pains and risks to confine their strikes to military targets, between the realities of combat and the conditions of siege, the sheer number of deaths is a horror. The issue of Israel’s continued existence raises a specter of injustice in its demise. The disputes go on forever, through the justice of dominion over occupied lands and juridical encroachment on them, through the fact of functioning democracy within the one side and serial misgovernment of the other, through serial cynical undermining of peace processes by one government or another. This intransigence, after the infliction of death and deprivation, is in the nature of war.
Again, before immersing ourselves in the infinite loops of argument, what would ultimately fit America’s national interest? Probably for Israelis to live without the threat of armed attack and for Palestinians to live under just government, with the opportunity to develop in prosperity and freedom, as Sen might say. If both are impossible together now, our interest is for a path to open up toward that condition. While all sides will say that that’s all they’ve wanted, it is crucial for Americans to keep our end game in view, for our own guidance. Our interest could conceivably be served in a wide range of approaches, from leaving the whole question to the warring parties to trying to micromanage all the combatants. It is also impossible to ignore the wider geopolitics in play, whether of Iranian, Saudi, Turkish and other interests in the Middle East, or of “great power” uses of the war to contest each others’ interests.
We cannot pursue or protect our national interest without facing ugly and dangerous choices. We therefore need to ensure that we set the path for our own involvement by deliberate consideration, in terms of that core interest, before taking on the arguments of beleaguered peoples or belligerent rulers.
Has America chosen its path by deliberate consideration, or considered deliberation, of our core national interest? Probably not. Current policy has a feel of reflexive reaction to events, channeled by historical commitment to Israel, spiked by revulsion at a barbaric assault, tempered by concern for Gazan civilians, and complicated by our own diverse factions’ various animosities. A not-unusual “yes-but” quality comes out – diluting our pledges to support Israel, trivializing our concern over civilian pain in Gaza, and appeasing those who fear Iranian intent but not engaging Iran fully. This criticism is not partisan – “yes-but” has permeated U.S. regional policy since at least 1980, through administrations of all stripes.
Any answers will be beyond difficult; even deliberating our next practical steps is always an exercise in contention and confusion. There are no satisfying solutions. That said, the worst thing for America is to engage in this intractable, bitter conflict in unconsidered reactions. We must align the “big ideas” coherently. Consideration starts by naming America’s goal, in our own terms. Only in that context can we then choose rational and sustainable approaches to profane war, cynical geopolitics, and ugly impasse, as best we can.
Common Conviction 