As the anniversary of Hamas's attack on Israel approaches on October 7, we need to reflect not only on what happened, but also on the deeper, more universal tragedy of war.
Tragedy in its classical form arises not only from destruction but also from moral conflict. When actors are faced with choices that require sacrifice, when ideals collide with necessity, when the best intentions still result in suffering. The tragedy of war lies not only in the violence it brings, but also in the moral dilemmas and inevitable human costs.
Israel's ongoing struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah provides a stark example of this tragic dynamic. Israel faces these conflicts as a democratic state bound by international law and the principles of just war. In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah have built their strategies on deliberately targeting civilians and using their own citizens as human shields.
This moral asymmetry puts Israel in a tragic position: no matter how carefully it plans or how accurately it attacks, it cannot completely avoid harm to innocent people.
In the plays of ancient Greek playwrights, tragedy often arises from the clash of opposing values: duty and compassion, justice and mercy, survival and morality. The protagonist often faces impossible choices, and every choice involves some kind of loss or suffering. In this sense, tragedy is not about failure, but about the limits of human agency and the inevitability of suffering, even for those who are trying to do the right thing.
Israel is in a similar tragic situation. Its primary responsibility is to protect the public from existential threats. But Israel faces an enemy that uses civilians as shields, pushing Israel into a situation that even efforts to minimize damage cannot fully prevent. The tragic reality is that even states with the best intentions and advanced capabilities cannot wage war against such adversaries without incurring civilian casualties. The dilemma lies in the tension between survival and morality, between the need for security and the desire to avoid the very suffering that war brings.
Modern international relations scholars rely on classical understandings of tragedy to explain state behavior. Regarding John Mearsheimer, tragedy It stems from the anarchic nature of the international system itself. In the absence of a global authority to prevent conflict, states are forced to prioritize survival above all else, often acting in opposition to their own moral values. In the security competition between nations, war becomes inevitable and has tragic consequences.
Mearsheimer argues that states are not inherently evil or aggressive. Rather, the structure of the international system compels them to act in ways that ensure their survival, even if this leads to suffering and destruction. Despite its moral commitments and harm mitigation efforts, Israel is driven by the need to protect itself from hostile forces that deny its right to exist. This security obligation places Israel in a tragic position, where actions necessary for survival inevitably harm innocent people.
Richard Ned Lebow his work It adds yet another layer of political realism and the tragic nature of international relations. He argues that tragedies occur when leaders and nations pursue noble goals but are thwarted by the constraints of the international system, human nature, or unforeseen circumstances. Israel's pursuit of a just and secure peace continues to be undermined by its adversaries' refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue, their tolerance of terrorism, and the region's geopolitical realities. The tragic irony here is that while Israel's efforts to act morally are often criticized, Israel's enemies are emboldened by the very suffering they cause.
Ribow's analysis also highlights the role of hubris, a classical Greek concept commonly seen in tragic heroes who believe they can control their own destiny. Israel's military superiority and advanced technology may provide a sense of control over the battlefield, but even the most precise attacks cannot completely eliminate the risk of harm to civilians in modern urban warfare. . If there is arrogance, it lies in the belief that war completely eliminates tragedy.
Classical tragic heroes are often torn between two equally compelling but irreconcilable demands, and Israel is no different. A state's responsibility to protect its citizens conflicts with its desire to uphold humanitarian values, and no amount of technological sophistication or moral intent can resolve this tension. Israel's efforts to reduce civilian casualties, such as the use of precision strikes, advance warning, and evacuation procedures, reflect a conscious attempt to reduce the human cost of war. However, these efforts cannot eliminate the suffering inherent in conflict.
Israel is not trying to maximize civilian casualties. In fact, Israeli military doctrine is designed to avoid civilian casualties. However, the tragic consequences of civilian deaths remain, testifying to the unavoidable reality of war in densely populated areas. In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah actively embrace civilian suffering as part of their strategies, including using human shields, deploying military infrastructure in civilian areas, and celebrating martyrdom, and have a complete commitment to the laws of war. It shows a great deal of neglect.
The tragic irony here is that while Israel has come under scrutiny for the civilian casualties that have occurred despite its precautions, it has also received support for the very suffering its adversaries are deliberately causing. This is something that is praised by people.
The tragedy of war lies not only in the violence and destruction, but also in the moral dilemmas it imposes. Israel's struggle against Hamas and Hezbollah is a tragic conflict. Because Israel forces the nation to navigate an impossible moral terrain where every action to ensure survival comes at the cost of unforeseen suffering.
But the true measure of tragedy lies not simply in the suffering caused, but in the efforts made to prevent it. Israel's attempt to wage war in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, even against adversaries who reject its norms, reflects Israel's determination to reduce the inevitable tragedy of war. . In doing so, Israel faces the tragic reality that no war is free and no amount of restraint can eliminate the suffering of armed conflict.
War is always tragic, but the difference between those who seek to minimize suffering and those who enjoy war remains a fundamental moral distinction. In the tragic arena of international conflict, Israel stands as a nation striving to uphold its values in the face of an enemy who thrives on the chaos and suffering of war.
Andrew Latham He is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and an adjunct fellow at Defense Priorities, Inc. in Washington, DC.
