Who Is to Blame for Civilian Deaths in Gaza? | The American Spectator

A man straps two children to his chest, draws a knife, and charges toward you screaming death threats. Your own child cowers behind you. You have seconds to decide: allow this attacker to murder you and your child, or defend yourself by shooting him.

If you choose to defend yourself, you face another split-second choice. A headshot might spare his children but gives you only a 50 percent chance of survival. A body shot ensures your safety at 99 percent certainty but kills the innocent children strapped to the attacker’s chest.

What would any reasonable person do?

The Ethics of Self-Defense

The moral answer is clear. You must defend yourself and your child. Neither ethics nor law demands that innocent people sacrifice their lives to aggressors. You would aim for the body shot because you have no obligation to gamble with your family’s survival for marginally better odds of sparing the aggressor’s children.

But who bears moral responsibility when those innocent children die?

The attacker created this nightmare scenario. He weaponized his own children, turning them into unwilling human shields while attempting murder. Had he not launched his deadly assault, his children would be alive. Every tragic consequence flows directly from his decision to use them as protective cover for his violence.

To blame the defender ignores the fundamental principle of moral causation. The person who initiates deadly force while deliberately endangering innocents bears full responsibility for all resulting harm.

Gaza Through the Moral Lens

This scenario precisely mirrors the conflict in Gaza, where Hamas has systematically embedded its military operations within civilian infrastructure.

Israeli forces discovered extensive command facilities beneath Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical center, complete with tunnels and weapons storage. UN officials have documented rockets and ammunition stored in schools run by UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Hamas routinely launches attacks from residential neighborhoods, mosques, and schools, deliberately positioning civilians between themselves and Israeli forces.

When Israel responds to rocket attacks and terrorist operations, civilian casualties sometimes occur. The international community, most certainly including Israel, rightfully mourns every child’s death. But moral clarity demands we identify who created these deadly circumstances.

The Legal Precedent

Consider how we assign responsibility in criminal law. When Timothy McVeigh was executed for bombing the Oklahoma City federal building, his surviving family members suffered profound consequences. His relatives faced social stigma, financial hardship, and lasting psychological trauma. Yet no reasonable person blamed the justice system for these secondary effects.

The courts held McVeigh, and only him, fully responsible for all consequences flowing from his terrorist act, including harm to his own family. This principle of criminal accountability has governed civilized societies for centuries: those who choose to commit violent crimes bear complete responsibility for the resulting chain of suffering.

Hamas’s Calculated Strategy

Hamas could immediately end civilian suffering by releasing Israeli hostages and ceasing terrorist operations. Instead, the organization has repeatedly rejected ceasefire proposals that would have saved Palestinian lives while securing humanitarian aid and hostage releases.

Hamas leaders have publicly stated that civilian casualties serve their political objectives. Senior official Ghazi Hamad declared that Hamas welcomes civilian deaths because they generate international sympathy and pressure on Israel. This represents a level of calculated cruelty that treats Palestinian children as expendable propaganda tools.

The Moral Reality

Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths that result from defending its population against terrorist attacks launched from civilian areas. Hamas bears complete responsibility for every civilian casualty that occurs when they deliberately embed military operations in schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.

Those who argue otherwise, however well-intentioned, have lost sight of basic moral principles that distinguish between aggressor and defender. They mistake tragic outcomes for moral equivalence, ignoring the fundamental difference between those who target civilians and those who reluctantly but necessarily harm them while protecting their own people from terrorist attacks.

The man who straps children to his chest while attempting murder is solely responsible when those children die during his victim’s act of self-defense. Hamas, which uses Palestinian civilians as human shields while conducting terrorism, bears sole responsibility for civilian casualties that result from Israel’s defensive actions.

Until the international community acknowledges this moral truth, the suffering will continue. Hamas will keep sacrificing Palestinian lives for propaganda victories, secure in the knowledge that much of the world will blame their victims instead of them.

READ MORE from Walter E. Block:

It’s Not Fair! Disproportionate Deaths in the Middle East

When Seeing Race is Helpful

Donald Trump Should Enter Retirement