War and Massacre, by Thomas Nagel

In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.
In mid-November of last year amidst rising tensions in the Middle East, Israel launched a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza on Wednesday, killing the military commander, Ahmed Al-Jabari of Hamas in an air strike. This strike on a car carrying the commander stemmed the beginning to what is known by the Israeli’s as operation “Pillar of Defense”. Following this “surgical” assassination, the Israeli air force struck over 20 underground rocket launch sites belonging to Hamas (governing terrorist organization in Gaza) and the Islamic Jihad. According to Palestinian sources these strikes killed an additional six Palestinians.
However, this attack on the commander and launch sites came as an immediate response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire over the previous weeks and prevention of other “Palestinian factions from building up their arsenals further. In a statement made by the Israeli Defense Force spokesman, he justifies the assassination of Ahmed Jabari stating “The first aim of this operation is to br...

... middle of paper ...

...future threats from Hamas, a hostile terrorist organization.
In my opinion, Nagel's opinion regarding moral structure in war is a little too narrow-minded. When relating actions in war to absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold ground in issues like the middle-eastern conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess the right and the wrong by simply evaluating one particular action that country has taken in war. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and air strike are clear actions for the overall good, however by absolutist terms, Nagel would have a difficult time seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable.

Works Cited

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-militant-chief-killed-in-israeli-airstrikes/