Israel’s moral dilemma and the tragedy of war

As we approach the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, we should reflect not only on the events that transpired but also on the deeper and more universal tragedy of war.

Tragedy, in its classical form, emerges not only from destruction but also from moral conflict — when actors face choices that demand sacrifice, where ideals clash with necessity and where the best intentions still yield suffering. The tragedy of war is not only in the violence it brings but in the moral dilemmas and inevitable human costs it imposes.

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. Hamas and Hezbollah, in contrast, have built their strategies on the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of their own people as human shields.

This moral asymmetry places Israel in a tragic position, where no matter how carefully it plans or how precisely it strikes, it cannot fully avoid causing harm to innocents.

In the plays of the ancient Greek dramatists, tragedy often emerges from the clash between competing values — between duty and compassion, justice and mercy, survival and morality. The hero often faces impossible choices where every option involves some form 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 trying to do the right thing.

Israel is in a similar tragic bind. Its primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from existential threats. Yet it faces enemies who exploit civilians as shields, forcing Israel into a position where its efforts to minimize harm cannot entirely prevent it. The tragic reality is that even a nation with the best intentions and advanced capabilities cannot wage a war against such adversaries without causing 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 scholars of international relations have built upon the classical understanding of tragedy to explain the behavior of nations. For John Mearsheimer, tragedy stems from the anarchic nature of the international system itself. As no global authority exists to prevent conflict, states are forced to prioritize survival above all else, often engaging in actions that contradict their moral values. War becomes an inevitable part of the security competition between states, with tragic outcomes.

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 when those actions lead to suffering and destruction. Despite Israel’s moral commitments and efforts to mitigate harm, it is driven by the need to defend itself against hostile actors who reject its right to exist. This security imperative forces Israel into a tragic position, where actions necessary for survival inevitably cause harm to innocents.

Richard Ned Lebow, in his work on political realism and the tragic nature of international relations, adds another layer. He argues that tragedy arises when leaders and states pursue noble goals but are thwarted by the constraints of the international system, by human nature or by unforeseen circumstances. Israel’s pursuit of a just and secure peace is continually undermined by its adversaries’ refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue, their embrace of terrorism and the geopolitical realities of the region. The tragic irony here is that Israel’s efforts to act morally are often criticized, while its enemies are emboldened by the very suffering they cause.

Lebow’s analysis also emphasizes the role of hubris, a classical Greek concept often found in tragic heroes who believe they can control their fate. Israel’s military superiority and advanced technologies may provide a sense of battlefield control, but even the most precise strikes cannot fully eliminate the risks of civilian harm in modern urban warfare. The hubris, if there is any, lies in the belief that war can ever be fully free of tragedy.

The classical tragic hero often finds themselves torn between two equally compelling but irreconcilable demands, and so too does Israel. The state’s responsibility to defend its citizens clashes with its desire to uphold humanitarian values, and no amount of technological sophistication or moral intent can resolve this tension. The efforts made by Israel to mitigate civilian casualties — including the use of precision strikes, advance warnings and evacuation procedures — reflect a conscious attempt to reduce the human cost of war. These efforts, however, cannot eliminate the suffering inherent in conflict.

Israel does not seek to maximize civilian casualties — in fact, its military doctrine is designed to avoid them. Yet the tragic outcome of civilian death remains, a testament to the inescapable realities of war in densely populated areas. In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah actively embrace the suffering of civilians as part of their strategy by using human shields, positioning military infrastructure in civilian areas and celebrating martyrdom — revealing a total disregard for the laws of war.

The tragic irony here is that while Israel is scrutinized for the civilian casualties that occur despite its precautions, its adversaries are celebrated by their supporters for the very suffering they intentionally cause.

The tragedy of war lies not just in the violence and destruction but in the moral dilemmas that war imposes. Israel’s struggle against Hamas and Hezbollah is a tragic conflict because it forces the state to navigate an impossible moral terrain, where every action to ensure survival comes at the cost of unintended suffering.

Yet the true measure of tragedy is not merely in the suffering caused but in the efforts made to prevent it. Israel’s attempts to wage war in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, even against adversaries who reject those norms, reflect its commitment to mitigate the inevitable tragedy of war. In doing so, Israel faces the tragic reality that no war can be fought without cost, and no amount of restraint can eliminate the suffering of armed conflict.

While war is always tragic, the difference between those who seek to minimize suffering and those who revel in it remains a fundamental moral distinction. In the tragic theater of international conflict, Israel stands as a state striving to uphold its values in the face of an adversaries that thrive on the chaos and suffering of war.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.