Hamas Attacks Israel: The Conundrum of Rules of Engagement in Modern Warfare

On 10/7/23, in a sudden and alarming escalation of hostilities, Hamas launched an offensive against Israel, prompting a swift retaliation. With this act, the region teeters on the brink of an all-out war. A crucial aspect of this conflict, and indeed many modern wars, lies in the observance, or lack thereof, of the rules of engagement. While Hamas’s actions reportedly eschewed these rules, a pressing question emerges: Is Israel bound to adhere to the rules of engagement even as it seeks to defend itself?

Historical precedents offer insights. Throughout human history, warfare stands out as a transformative force, shaping civilizations and redrawing borders. Strategy, tactics, and the inherent will to triumph have always taken center stage in such conflicts. Yet, a persistent question that arises in the theatre of war is that of limits: how far can a warring entity go in its quest for victory?

The theoretical concept of a “fair war” has been a topic of debate for ages. From the ancient codes of conduct, such as chivalry in medieval Europe, to the modern, structured frameworks like the Geneva Conventions, rules have been set, more often aspirationally than practically. When examining past conflicts, it becomes evident that victories rarely came to those who strictly adhered to such guidelines. From the unrestricted tactics of the Mongol conquests to high-stakes decisions in World War II, the annals of history highlight the effectiveness of unrestricted warfare.

Nations, unlike individuals, operate on collective objectives, driven by the primary aim of safeguarding their legal residents’ and citizens’ safety, security, and prosperity. Given this mandate, when faced with adversaries that ignore established rules, as seen with Hamas’s recent actions, the immediate response leans towards ensuring survival and strategic advantage, even if it means sidestepping established conventions.

However, such a pragmatic approach begets deeper ethical inquiries. Can the global community, even in the face of immediate threats, aspire to uphold a universally accepted set of warfare rules? Where does one draw the line between self-defense and maintaining a moral high ground?

In conclusion, the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel brings to the fore a long-standing debate on warfare ethics. Historically, the path to victory has often meandered outside the bounds of established rules of engagement. Yet, as nations navigate the tumultuous waters of modern conflicts, the challenge remains: balancing immediate security imperatives with the broader aspiration for a just and stable global order.