Q&A: Mass Starvation
Mass Starvation
Question
You have said several times that in war one may do anything if victory depends on it. In other words, according to your view, if starvation is the only way to win, then it is permissible to starve people.
A. Doesn’t that contradict international law?
B. Assuming international law doesn’t bother you, because in your view the war is justified, aren’t you worried that every side that thinks it is right will use starvation in order to win? After all, in the siege of Leningrad that was probably also the only way for the Germans to win, and the Germans, who in their own view thought the war was justified, believed it was legitimate to do anything in order to win.
Answer
A. I wrote what morality says, in my opinion. What does that have to do with international law? I also don’t know whether it contradicts international law, but as I said, that is not relevant to the discussion.
B. Again, not relevant. I wrote my opinion about what morality says. You can afterward choose not to do it because of international law. In any case, that is a second-order consideration. But to this new question of yours I will now answer: I am really not worried about those consequences. Hamas will do whatever it wants regardless of international law and regardless of what we do. So our violating the law has no effect at all on the outcome. Of course, one may be concerned about the world’s reaction and refrain from doing it for that reason. But again, that is a different discussion.
Discussion on Answer
It has minor value, which is overridden by more urgent and important values. Especially since this is not a law I would want to be universal, certainly not against terrorist organizations. And finally, when the other side does not observe international law but uses it as a cynical shield, it is null and void like the dust of the earth. By the way, Jewish law is the same. When someone uses Jewish law as a cynical shield, it is void. That is why it is permissible to kill a thief even on the Sabbath, and there are other examples too.
Do you not see value in upholding the law itself? By the rule of the categorical imperative, for example?