Warring states

War refers to the usage of violence to achieve a political objective. And if there is no "political settlement" possible, then there is no formal "war"

I’ve been meaning to write this for a long time now but just not got the enthu to write it. So I thought the middle of an intense day at work is the best time to correct this deficit.

In my opinion, “war” refers to the usage of violence to achieve a political objective. Wars almost never end in total annihilation - the more common outcome is to end with a surrender or a treaty or some other kind of “resignation”. The war is used to shake up the other party, and then used to hammer out a negotiation.

This means that if you want to “go to war” against someone, you need to be prepared to negotiate with them at a future date. Or - you need to consider the other party to be worthy of negotiating with if you were to declare war against them.

This is the reason why I don’t like the concept of “war on terror” - the war on terror is not a war because terrorists are not parties who will negotiate with you, and so they will fight on to annihilation. And this is very different to the sort of wars your soldiers have been trained to fight. Similarly, “war on drugs” makes lesser sense, for drugs are inanimate and cannot negotiate.

I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now in the wake of Israel’s continuing bombardment of the Gaza Strip, in the face of massive international opposition and calls for ceasefire. I don’t have specific links to offer here, but the rhetoric as I get it is that “people” want Israel to negotiate a settlement with Hamas (responsible for the attacks that have triggered the massacre, and which rules in Gaza), but Israel is refusing to do so, instead continuing to pound Gaza.

Instead, Israel is talking up the terrorist origins of Hamas, and using that as justification for continuing to attack Gaza. Basically, what “people” want, and what the Israeli government is doing, can never converge because they seemingly have fundamentally different opinions of Hamas.

If you see Hamas as a legitimate political entity, capable of negotiations and (largely) keeping up it word, then you will think that a ceasefire and negotiated settlement is a desirable outcome following the October 7 attacks and subsequent Israeli retaliations (hoping for a settlement before some retaliation would have been impossible, since Israel wouldn’t have showed its strength then). In fact, if Israel thinks Hamas is a credible political entity, it can start negotiating NOW, after all the massacre, and hope for a favourable settlement.

However, if you think Hamas is a terrorist organisation (as the Israeli government possibly does), you start seeing the futility of a ceasefire and negotiations - for the organisation cannot be expected to try to hold on to its word. And in this situation, you want to go on a “fight till annihilation” or some such because a political settlement is not feasible.

If Hamas wants a settlement now, it needs to demonstrate that it can be a “responsible political entity”, in which case Israel might negotiate with it. And in the larger scheme of world peace, Hamas needs to be convinced to demonstrate that it is a responsible political entity, and Israel needs to be convinced that Hamas is a responsible political entity. How this can be achieved is easier said than done!