Terrorist attacks on developed democracies not only inflict death and social trauma, but confront those societies with a peculiar type of problem. Military action to eliminate the perpetrators and deter future atrocities is justified under the most rigorous ethics, all the more so when civilians suffer such barbarities as Hamas inflicted on October 7. And yet – terrorist groups often hide amongst civilian populations, and modern militaries use firepower that makes them prone to kill civilians, despite any precautions they may take. The retaliating state faces a choice between justified counterattack and watering it down to avoid killing other innocents, between inflicting wrongful death itself and legitimizing terrorist atrocities.
The strain of this choice is all the greater for societies where modern economies and rule of law are the norm. Murder, torture and rape of civilians is completely outside our expectations. But to people inured to dictatorial rule or poverty’s indignities, the extra degree of personal brutality, between civilian death by beheading on the one hand or errant missile on the other, may not mark a difference in kind. If a weaker nation is also less developed politically and economically, its people may very well see terrorism as their only recourse. Add the perception that Israel is a creation of westerners – even if not a “colonization” – and the “global South” may not see the outrage that rich democrats feel over the Hamas attacks.
Terrorism, an outgrowth of guerilla warfare, is meant precisely to put stronger nations in danger from weaker ones. Presumably the weaker aims to gain a political settlement. Many seem to feel that the richer, stronger nation ought to engage politically, even with terrorists, if only for “peace.” Must a stronger nation engage politically with an adversary that uses terrorism?
And what’s America supposed to do? We abhor civilian deaths in war, no matter who they are. Picking sides can be taken as valuing one set of civilians over another. And favoring Israel can seem to show an arrogance of the affluent, while siding with Hamas risks taking company with anti-Semitism.
In the long run, we would wish for development for all, to the point where tangible security enables personal freedom, prosperity, and political rights for all. We would wish for peace and just settlement of territorial disputes, with an opening to affluence and freedom as salve and reward for any who feel shortchanged. And we do feel that comprehensive development – Development as Freedom in Amartya Sen’s terms – would broaden expectations that terrorism and brutality are exceptions rather than worldly norm. But this image would require many resolutions of many disputes.
Meanwhile we muddle. We tell Israel to restrain its war against Hamas, at the same time arming them, thus neglecting, in some part, both the grievances of Palestinian civil society and Israel’s security concerns. Our students and activists divide along lines that feel driven by our domestic political allegiances more than concern for principle.
Our own common principles give us our only starting point. We want that long term picture, as we hold that all persons have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot countenance the destruction of Israel, where government does serve its people’s rights – although departures from impartial rule of law weaken that attachment. We cannot condone the disenfranchised state of the Palestinian people – but their political entities too often turn out to be bad actors.
If muddling is unavoidable, we can at least say that we’re conflicted. Muddling in clearer terms may even help. It may be that we could lower our profile in the conflict, and stop trying to pull other nations in to play some role to help us. This may require us to convince global rivals to stay uninvolved also, and that this arena is outside anyone’s core interest. Perhaps tensions might ease. Can we simply say our principles call for freedom, independence and growth for the Palestinian people and for the endurance of Israel in its democracy; that we abhor terrorism and deplore “collateral damage;” and that we will have difficulty satisfying anyone? If we do, might we at least gain credibility in our values?
Common Conviction 