Question

Hello and blessings. I’d be glad to hear your opinion on Professor Avi Sagi’s argument:
 
He argues that the only justification for going to war is the principle of self-defense—we must fight in order to protect our citizens, now and in the future. From that comes the justification for the war against Hamas, and from that comes the opposition to a deal so long as it allows Hamas to continue harming Israeli citizens.
 
From there, he moves to the claim that Hamas’s condition has not changed over the past year, and that in principle we already reached, about a year ago (or a bit less, but several significant months ago), sufficiently good protection for Israeli citizens—that is, Hamas lost most of its ability to harm us.
 
From there, he argues that continuing the war (which, as stated, is fully justified) stands in opposition to the moral obligation to free the hostages. Because we have reached sufficient protection (though not maximal protection), the decision to go for a deal is the morally correct one.a0
 
I would add the following to his argument: first, judging by how the war is being conducted, it seems that we are not succeeding in defeating Hamas decisively—whether because of military unprofessionalism, or because of objective conditions that do not allow it. The implication is that there is no achievable purpose to continuing the war, and that strengthens his argument, since we will not succeed in weakening Hamas significantly beyond what we have already done (obviously over the course of 10 years we would succeed to some extent, but the progress would be negligible). Second, some argue that even if we go for a deal, we could return to fighting Hamas even if there is a 10-year ceasefire agreement, because Hamas will always give us a reason to attack it. According to those making this current argument, the claims that the world would not let us do so do not hold water here, because just as we ignored some of what they are telling us right now, we could ignore them in the future as well. The implication is that the principle of self-defense would continue to be preserved despite the deal, since we could always strike.
 
 
I am not claiming that Avi Sagi’s argument, together with my additions, is enough to stop the war and make a deal, but I would be very glad to hear your position on this whole line of argument, and for you to point out its weaknesses (since I know you oppose a deal), and perhaps also what you agree with in it. For example, I’d be interested to know whether you claim that the principle of self-defense is indeed the only justification for going to war.
 
Thanks in advance!