I generally agree with the comments so far emphasizing Israel’s right to defend itself, the necessity of using force against evil men, and the danger of applying “turn-the-other-cheek” logic to affairs of state. (As Robert T. Miller rightly points out, governments are not human beings called to holiness, but agencies responsible for defending the innocent cheeks of their citizens.) And I’m inclined to concur that the various Vatican statements on the current crisis in Lebanon have left something to be desired, hinting at a moral equivalence and a too-strong presumption against the use of military force.
Yet it’s also true that there are moral obligations involved in war making besides the obligation to only make war in a righteous cause¯and one of the most pressing, with apologies to Lionel Trilling, is the moral obligation to be intelligent. And this is where I sense¯based on reports like this one and this one , from sources with no anti-Zionist axes to grind¯that Israel has gone dramatically astray in this campaign. It’s not that they don’t have the right to pursue Hezbollah into Lebanon, to attack the terrorist group’s infrastructure and impose a cost on those who harbor terrorists, even if the pursuit of these objectives puts innocents at risk. But they also have the duty, when the stakes are so high and so many lives hang in the balance, to avoid taking large-scale military action unless they have a high degree of confidence in the operation’s ultimate success. And thus far I’ve seen very little to justify such confidence.
This is how I feel, increasingly, about the moral calculus surrounding the Iraq War as well¯that an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein probably met just-war criteria in the abstract (for reasons that have been amply discussed in the pages of First Things ), but that both in conception and execution our actions have failed miserably to live up to the moral obligation not to take foolish risks in dangerous situations. Our cause in Iraq¯like the Israelis’ cause in Lebanon¯may be entirely just, but justice is rarely served by folly.
(Access contributors’ biographies by clicking here .)
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…