The current “exchange rate” of civilian deaths
in the ongoing Israeli-Hamas War
Background
The question of whether one human life can be considered more valuable than another is a deeply complex and contentious issue in ethics.
Many ethical systems, including deontology, virtue ethics, and rights-based ethics, argue that all human lives have equal inherent worth. These systems would typically reject the idea that one life could be more valuable than another. They emphasize principles such as dignity, respect for persons, and equal rights, which are incompatible with valuing some lives more than others.
However, consequentialist theories like utilitarianism assess actions based on their outcomes, and in some situations, these theories might lead to the conclusion that it’s morally permissible or even obligatory to prioritize some lives over others if doing so leads to the greatest overall good.
Relativism, which holds that moral truths are relative to cultural or individual perspectives, might also allow for the possibility that some lives are valued more than others in certain contexts.
So, while many ethical theories would argue against considering one life more valuable than another, it’s not an absolute rule across all ethical systems. It’s also important to remember that ethics is a field of ongoing debate and discussion, and different people may interpret and apply these theories in different ways.
In consequentialism, particularly in its most common form known as Utilitarianism, the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. If the overall happiness or welfare is increased, then the action can be considered morally right, even if it involves harm to some individuals.
Applying this framework to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, a consequentialist might argue that while the bombings caused immense suffering and loss of life, they ultimately led to the end of the war, which prevented further loss of life and suffering on a potentially larger scale.
However, this perspective is highly controversial. Critics would point out the immense human cost of the bombings, which killed an estimated 200,000 people, many of them civilians, and caused long-term health and environmental damage. They may argue that such actions are never justifiable, regardless of their outcomes, and that alternative actions should have been pursued.
It’s also important to note that different forms of consequentialism might reach different conclusions. For example, rule consequentialism, which considers the consequences of a rule or policy rather than individual actions, might argue against the use of nuclear weapons due to the potential for widespread and indiscriminate harm.
Ethics is a complex field, and different ethical theories often lead to different, sometimes conflicting, moral judgments. It’s also a deeply personal field, and individuals may weigh the importance of different ethical principles differently based on their own values and beliefs.
Both from an ethical and humanistic perspective, the loss of a civilian life due to terrorism and the loss of a civilian life due to collateral damage in a retaliatory attack are tragic and deeply regrettable.
In the eyes of most ethical theories, all human lives have equal inherent worth. Neither act of violence makes one life more valuable or worthy than the other. In both scenarios, innocent lives have been lost, which is a profound tragedy.
Deontological ethics, for example, would argue that both acts are morally wrong because they involve the intentional or negligent killing of innocent people, which violates the principle of respect for persons.
Consequentialist theories like utilitarianism would also view both acts as morally problematic because they result in suffering and loss of life. Although consequentialists sometimes justify harm to individuals if it leads to a greater overall good, many would argue that the large-scale harm caused by terrorism and retaliatory attacks cannot be justified.
Rights-based ethics would also condemn both acts, as they violate the basic rights of the individuals who are killed.
In sum, while different ethical theories may approach these issues in different ways, none would typically argue that one civilian life is worthier than another based on the circumstances of their death. It’s important to remember that each life lost in such situations is a tragedy, and efforts should be focused on preventing such losses in the first place.
Data
The figures below represent the number of Palestinians and Israelis who were killed since 2008 in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel in the context of the occupation and conflict.
Palestinian fatalities: 6,407
Israeli fatalities: 308
Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #15
(21 October 2023)
Analysis and Conclusion
- What is proportional retaliation?
- What is an acceptable “exchange rate” for civilian casualties in war?
- When enough is enough?
Proportional retaliation in war refers to the principle that a state’s response to an act of aggression should not exceed the severity of the initial attack. It is rooted in the Just War Theory, a set of criteria used to determine whether a war is morally justifiable.
The principle of proportionality is one of the key components of Just War Theory, alongside other concepts like just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, and last resort. Proportional retaliation aims to prevent escalations of violence and unnecessary harm, particularly to civilians.
In practice, assessing proportionality can be complex and subjective. What one party views as a proportional response, another might see as excessive or insufficient. It’s also important to note that proportionality is generally considered alongside the principle of distinction, which requires parties to a conflict to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants, and to avoid targeting the latter.
Despite these challenges, the principle of proportional retaliation remains a fundamental part of international humanitarian law, which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons.
Israel’s military vowed to increase its aerial bombardment of Gaza, and carried out an airstrike on what it said was a militant compound under a mosque in the occupied West Bank, as it signaled it was readying for a new phase of war against Hamas, including a potential ground operation.
CNN
Ethnic cleansing refers to the deliberate and systematic removal or extermination of a particular ethnic, racial, or religious group from a specific geographic area with the intent to create a region inhabited by people of a single ethnicity, race, or religion. Methods used can range from forced migration and deportation, mass killings, rape, and torture, to destruction of property and other acts of violence intended to cause physical harm or instill fear in the targeted group.
The term “ethnic cleansing” came into wide usage during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, but the practice predates the term. Some examples throughout history include the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide.
Though similar in many ways to genocide, ethnic cleansing is not officially recognized as an independent crime under international law. However, acts commonly associated with ethnic cleansing, such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts, can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
I believe that if Israel rushes headlong into Gaza now to destroy Hamas — and does so without expressing a clear commitment to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority and end Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank — it will be making a grave mistake that will be devastating for Israeli interests and American interests.
It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
I am talking about the Camp David peace treaty, the Oslo peace accords, the Abraham Accords and the possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The whole thing could go up in flames.
This is not about whether Israel has the right to retaliate against Hamas for the savage barbarism it inflicted on Israeli men, women, babies and grandparents. It surely does. This is about doing it the right way — the way that does not play into the hands of Hamas, Iran and Russia.
If Israel goes into Gaza and takes months to kill or capture every Hamas leader and soldier but does so while expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank — thereby making any two-state solution there with the more moderate Palestinian Authority impossible — there will be no legitimate Palestinian or Arab League or European or U.N. or NATO coalition that will ever be prepared to go into Gaza and take it off Israel’s hands.
That is why I believe that Israel would be much better off framing any Gaza operation as “Operation Save Our Hostages” — rather than “Operation End Hamas Once and for All” — and carrying it out, if possible, with repeated surgical strikes and special forces that can still get the Hamas leadership but also draw the brightest possible line between Gazan civilians and the Hamas dictatorship.
But if Israel feels it must reoccupy Gaza to destroy Hamas and restore its deterrence and security — I repeat — it must pair that military operation with a new commitment to pursue a two-state solution with those Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza ready to make peace with Israel.
The hour is late. I have never written a column this urgent before because I have never been more worried about how this situation could spin out of control in ways that could damage Israel irreparably, damage U.S. interests irreparably, damage Palestinians irreparably, threaten Jews everywhere and destabilize the whole world.
I beg Biden to tell Israelis this immediately — for their sake, for America’s sake, for the sake of Palestinians, for the sake of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/opinion/biden-speech-israel-gaza.html
I particularly want to challenge the suggestion, more implicit than explicit, that Gazan lives matter less because many Palestinians sympathize with Hamas. People do not lose their right to life because they have odious views, and in any case, almost half of Gazans are children. Those kids in Gaza, infants included, are among the more than two million people enduring a siege and collective punishment.
Israel has suffered a horrifying terrorist attack and deserves the world’s sympathy and support, but it should not get a blank check to slaughter civilians or to deprive them of food, water and medicine. Bravo to Biden for trying to negotiate some humanitarian access to Gaza, but the challenge will be not just getting aid into Gaza but also distributing it to where it’s needed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/opinion/israel-gaza-palestine-children.html
Discover more from Hierarchical Democracy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
