Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Hacker: "Humphrey, are you saying that Britain should not support law and justice?"

Humphrey: "No, of course we should, Prime Minister. We just shouldn't let it affect our foreign policy"

Hacker: "We should always fight for the weak against the strong"

Humphrey: "Well then, why don't we send troops to Afghanistan to fight the Russians?"

Hacker: "The Russians are too strong".

There is going to be an element of reality in any decision-making. The level of reaction which an attack is going to provoke should be considered before conducting it, regardless of any moral equivocating over whether there would be moral justification for that reaction.

However, in this case, there is no need for any such moral equivocating. "Might has right" has principle limitations. AK-47 vs kibbutz may be a practical problem for those kibbutz people who were unable to fight back (not all of them were unable), but there is no doubting that the laws of war are in principle on the Kibbutzian side. You have, in principle, the right to defend your home in Ireland. In practice, the law doesn't allow you the means to do it. Does this mean that might has right if you're seventy and the intruder is thirty? Of course not. It just means that the 70-year-old is going to unfortunately and unlawfully die and repercussions will have to come after the fact, see DPP v Barnes (and indeed, repercussions did come for Mr Barnes, not that Mr Forrestal was in any position to appreciate this). Principle and practical results don't always match.

But here there is no principle which excuses 7 Oct. Had Hamas crossed the border and killed a thousand soldiers in their barracks, arguments could be made. The question is not "did Hamas have a justification to attack Israel", or even "did Hamas have a justification to kill a thousand Israelis". The question is "how did they attack, and who did they kill?". 766 civilians were killed. That's what most everyone talks about. The 373 security forces personnel killed in addition are not talked about in the larger discussion. The international outrage is over the organized wanton mass murder of civilians, not the raiding of bases. The military are treated as a separate category both legally and morally, and actions against a military are equally a separate principle. I would observe also that the international outrage against Israel right now isn't about the fact that they've decided to destroy Hamas as an effective organisation, but because people are perceiving excessive civilian casualties. It's the same argument.

Palestinians may not have the military capability to carry out what are arguably some legitimate political goals which have existed for years (Not all of their goals, obviously, but "leave us alone" I think would be one of them.) Israel does have the military capability to carry out what are arguably legitimate political goals. Until 7 Oct, the active destruction of Hamas would be difficult to justify as one of them. By 8 october, that changed, and we are now seeing the result. This is why I said one must be thoughtful before poking the bear. The idea that you may feel (or have) a legitimate grievance worthy of action does not mean that it is impossible for the other side to feel (or have) a legitimate reason for a reaction far in excess of what you can do.