The moral tragedy of the Israel-Hamas War

The Israel-Hamas War is in it’s second month as Israel seeks the destruction of Hamas for it’s October 7th atrocities against Israeli civilians — men, women, elderly and children alike. The Hamas terrorist attack sought to and has achieved it’s objective in initiating a massive Israeli response which is now in it’s second month. On top of the heinous actions of Hamas, they also then kidnapped over 200 Israeli civilians and now holding them as hostages.

The war began with massive Israeli aerial bombardment of key targets in Gaza as it sought to prepare the battlefield for an eventual ground invasion which began on the 27th October. Since then Israel has effectively cut Gaza in two military zones, the north where it is focusing it’s efforts on Hamas infrastructure around Gaza City and the south where it’s trying to evacuate and herd Gazan civilians so as to keep non-combatant deaths to a minimum. However in any urban war, civilian deaths tragically are an inevitability and the world has seen horrific scenes of Gazan civilians suffer as Hamas uses them as human shields and places that are ordinarily protected by international law — schools, hospitals etc used as military facilities.

The other predictable outcome is the outcry of Palestinian supporters globally and the also predictable outcome of the explosion of antisemitism on display across in particular, western democracies.

Against this backdrop those who refuse to take sides have grappled with the moral dilemma of fighting a war in urban areas, where Hamas is using civilians as human shields and the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) causing what it appears to be significant collateral damage.

As the conflict escalates, the moral quandaries intensify. The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of just war theory, is being severely tested. Israel’s military actions, while aimed at neutralising a legitimate threat, raise questions about the balance between military objectives and the unavoidable civilian toll. This conflict plunges into the heart of Gaza’s urban landscape, where the line between combatant and non-combatant blurs tragically. Hamas’s tactics of embedding military assets in schools and hospitals not only contravene international laws but also deepen the humanitarian crisis, exposing civilians to unimaginable peril.

The most difficult question — if we accept Hamas uses Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza as an underground military base, does it justify fighting around the hospital that causes mass casualties amongst civilians?

The plight of Gazan civilians, caught in the relentless crossfire, underscores a profound moral crisis. Their suffering extends beyond immediate physical harm, embedding long-lasting trauma and despair in a population already reeling from years of strife. This human cost, often overshadowed by the broader geopolitical narrative, demands a more central role in the discourse.

Can we look at the situation and just say “Well it’s Hamas’s fault” That response does not seem sufficient yet the truth is, is that if Hamas surrendered tomorrow the fighting would stop and no further civilian lives would be lost.

Furthermore, the conflict spotlights the intricate mesh of international law and human rights. The use of civilian structures for military purposes by Hamas, and the consequent Israeli response, navigate a contentious legal and ethical landscape, challenging the established norms of warfare.

Amidst this turmoil, the moral responsibilities of both parties come under scrutiny. The international community, too, grapples with its role, torn between the urgency of peace and the complexities of justice and accountability. This conflict is not just a regional dispute but a global moral conundrum, reflecting the profound challenges of modern warfare where civilian life, international law, and moral responsibility intersect in a disquieting maze.