Shall we now give "peace a chance" in Gaza? No, a thousand times no. Better make that fifteen-hundred times no, to be more in accord with the number of Israelis savagely murdered by Hamas. Sometimes, certainly, in this case, the cry from all decent civilized people should be, instead, "Let's give war a chance." On admittedly rare occasions, this is the best path to peace, indeed, the only path to peace.
Robert sees William in the street. They are total strangers. They have no history with each other. Whereupon Bob marches up to Bill and punches the latter in the nose. Bill's response, a totally natural one, is to want to kick the crap out of Bob. But as William raises his fist and is about to retaliate against Robert for this unwarranted and gratuitous attack, Robert pleads: "Let's give peace a chance."
If we can ignore the possibility that William should not have struck back against Robert (for instance, he should have allowed the police deal with this person guilty of assault and battery), there are two justifications for William to retaliate against Robert.
First, the deontological. Bob started up with Bill without any justification whatsoever. Justice supports, no, requires, that the latter visit upon the former at least payment in kind (abstracting from a jail sentence for the perpetrator). If William is a pacifist and refuses to kick Robert's teeth in, he is within his rights. However, in so doing, he will be reducing the amount of justice now existing on the planet.
Second, there is pragmatism. This, too, is on the side of the victim responding in kind to the criminal. If this does not occur, this bully will likely only escalate his initiatory violence in future.
Well, but what if Bob has been punching Bill every now and then for decades, attacking his house and family over and over again? Moreover, he continues to do so even when Bill demolished a part of his house and gave that piece of property to Bob so he can begin building something of his own but instead of "giving peace a chance", Bob decided not only to keep punching Bill but increasing the rate of its depredations? Bill, then, has no choice but to strike back.
There is no "police" presence in the Middle East. Some had hoped that the League of Nations would have performed this task. Others placed their trust in this regard in the United Nations. But the latter, not for the first time, has come down on the side of Robert, that is, Hamas. No, if Israel is to survive, it is necessary that the IDF smack down Hamas. If it fails to do so, or merely slaps Hamas on the wrist in another "lawn mowing" operation, the amount of justice prevailing on this third rock from the sun will have been radically reduced.
Should the IDF aim to kill Gazans who are now in effect held hostage by Hamas? Of course not. But this terror organization habitually uses these people as shields. They deliberately hide behind their own children. They place rocket launchers and weapon deposits in hospitals, mosques, schools, residential buildings, etc.
If the IDF were to hold their fire under such conditions, they will have in effect have committed suicide for the entire nation of Israel. If X is hiding behind Y, an innocent person, and X is shooting at Z, another guiltless individual, and the only way that Z could defend himself against X would be by shooting at him through the body of Y, Z would be justified in so doing. Otherwise, X, Hamas, will have gotten away with this cowardly practice.
What can we say to those do-gooding peaceniks who now demand a cease-fire; who call for "peace;" who now favor "negotiations"? They never ever demand that Hamas disarm; that Hamas cease building tunnels which enable assassins to commit atrocities on helpless Israeli women and children; that Hamas no longer send rockets eastward; that they return all Israeli hostages; that they surrender. Now, only now, when Israel is delivering to Hamas its rightful deserts are they demanding that the IDF cease and desist. Moreover, what is there to "negotiate"? How many Israelis is Hamas allowed to kill? Is Israel supposed to negotiate its right to live? To ask this question is to answer it.
No. The only present, proper, path to peace, to enduring peace, is, paradoxically, through war. This was the policy that the US pursued against Germany and Japan at the end of World War II and this is the policy that Israel should now pursue. Only through total victory in the present war can true peace be attained.
A pause in the fighting? Sure! As soon as all of the Israeli prisoners held by Hamas are released. Then and only then a three-day pause!
Block and Futerman are authors of The Classical Liberal Case for Israel (Springer, 2021, with commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu)
