On Self-Defense

The Moral Imperative of Retaliatory Force

On September 17, hundreds of pagers exploded in Lebanon and Syria, wounding thousands and killing at least a dozen people. The pagers were distributed by Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based terrorist militia, but it is likely that Mossad, the Israeli national intelligence agency, planted explosives in the pagers to target Hezbollah agents while simultaneously destroying their communication abilities. The next day, thousands of radios exploded, causing hundreds of further casualties.

While many have praised Mossad’s unprecedented operation, others have condemned it for its destructiveness. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote that “Israel's pager attack…  clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict.”

Ilhan Omar, another U.S. Representative, said that “Netanyahu's reckless disregard for civilian lives in the pager attack in Lebanon is yet another example of why we need to cut off military aid.”

Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, also spoke out against the attacks, saying that they were “shocking” and their “impact on civilians unacceptable.” Further, he wrote that “simultaneous targeting of thousands of individuals, whether civilians or members of armed groups, without knowledge as to who was in possession of the targeted devices, their location and their surroundings at the time of the attack, violates international human rights law and, to the extent applicable, international humanitarian law.”

The standard of warfare which these political figures place on Israel is fantastical. Even in the pager explosions, an attack so precise that, despite wounding almost 3,000 people and killing 37, only four civilians died, AOC and Ilhan Omar still expect better. Since humanity has yet to invent bullets that pass safely through civilians and only kill terrorists, Israel’s use of small explosives planted inside devices that were distributed directly to Hezbollah agents is just about the most effective way to kill terrorists while minimizing damage to noncombatants that I can imagine.

It certainly seems that, to people like AOC and Ilhan Omar, no matter what Israel does, it is in the wrong, and no matter what Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, or Iran do, they are just fighting for their liberty against Israeli oppression. So what is the source of this double standard?

I believe that there are several key philosophical errors that the pro-Hezbollah activists make. In this article, I will attempt to describe the metaphysical facts which these activists do not understand or unjustly dismiss. The deepest one is metaphysical: that self-defense, by its nature, is and must be destructive. The next one is ethical: that self-defense is moral. Lastly, I will argue that the standard for proper self-defense should be the complete elimination of any threat rather than a “proportional” response, and that all the effects of retaliatory force are the moral responsibility of the instigator.

The definition of self-defense that I will use is from dictionary.law.com, which states that self-defense is “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger.” This definition also applies on the international level. In this article, I will only be considering retaliatory force in which a real, objective threat has been posed. 

Physical force is only justified when used in response to an initiation of force by someone else. The reason that physical force is justified is that individuals have a right to their lives and property. A right is a “moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” When an aggressor infringes on an individual’s rights, the victim is morally justified in responding to that infringement. The only effective way to respond is by eliminating the threat.

But what about compromising, or negotiating, or just talking things out? Isn’t there a way to defend oneself without resorting to violence?

No. At least, not a reliable way. And when it is your life and property on the line, there is no reason to risk losing everything in order to protect your enemy. Your enemy is the one who has initiated violence, meaning that they have rejected the societal principles of peace and engaging in win-win transactions. Once they have violated your right to your life, they have forfeited their right to theirs. Once an enemy has violated those principles, they cannot claim the benefits of the principles for themselves. 

There is nothing to be gained by compromising with evil: any compromise, by definition, involves the destruction of your values. A compromise is a meeting point between two extremes. If one side of a compromise means getting left alone, and the other side means getting murdered, any meeting point involves injury.

Notice that self-defense does not involve temporarily deterring a threat, or minimizing its effects. Proper self-defense involves the complete obliteration of a threat — so that it can never harm anything ever again. In life-or-death situations, you don’t pull your punches.

The only way to protect yourself from evil is by destroying it. That is the nature of self-defense. The only question is: will it be your life or theirs?

The source of AOC and Omar’s moral confusion is their acceptance of the doctrine of altruism. Ayn Rand defined altruism as the idea that “man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value”. Altruism dictates that one should sacrifice himself to others. In combat situations, this entails the sacrifice of oneself to his enemies.

Despite altruism’s deep roots in contemporary morality, I think that most people would agree that self-defense in black-and-white situations is justified. However, the question becomes much more difficult when other factors are introduced. It’s relatively easy to see who is morally superior in an altercation between a hold up man and a civilian. On the other hand, cases like modern urban warfare are far less black and white, since so many people are involved, and it is often difficult to tell who is a threat and who is not. So, when noncombatants are wounded by exploding pagers, on whom does the responsibility lie?

There are some important, well-grounded arguments in regards to the degree of innocence of noncombatants who have sanctioned an evil government (such as Gazans who elected Hamas, and who approve of the Oct. 7 massacre). However, I will not go in depth on this topic, because I think there are often cases in which risking the destruction of truly innocent people (i.e. children) is warranted. These cases are inexplicably sad and horrible. It is reasonable to feel grief, anger, and hatred when innocents are put in harm’s way — and these emotions should be directed at the party who started the conflict, and who forced the defender into protecting itself.

It is impossible to defend oneself without inflicting physical damage to someone or something. On the international level, this means that self-defense involves destruction on a massive scale. To expect a victim to inflict as little damage to an attacker is an impossible, anti-life standard. It means leaving a victim paralyzed, unable to act in his own defense without risking hurting a noncombatant. In frantic life-or-death situations, it is neither possible nor desirable to omnisciently assess a situation and neutralize a threat without risking “unnecessary” damage. It is unjust to place such responsibility on the person responding to an attack against them. When an aggressor initiates physical force, any external damage inflicted is on the aggressor, not the victim.

The principle of the right to life is absolute. This means that if one concedes that protecting one’s life is moral, then it follows that any action towards that end is also moral. When a country defends itself by bombing its enemy, the blame for any collateral damage is on the aggressor. To place the responsibility of minimizing collateral damage on the defender is to deny the defender its right to defend itself by any means necessary. In other words, impeding a victim’s defense is dismissing their right to their life.

Another crucial point is in regards to terrorists who hide behind civilians in order to protect themselves. I contend that the best way to save the lives of innocents, in the long term, is to unreservedly obliterate such terrorists. Firstly, this shows the terrorists that they cannot save themselves by hiding behind innocent civilians, and this strategy will be rendered ineffective, decreasing its use. Secondly, this effectively gets rid of the subhuman creatures that hide underneath schools and hospitals in order to protect themselves and their weapons.

I won’t go too deep into historical evidence for my arguments in this article (perhaps it will be a topic for a subsequent one). However, to offer one example, contrast the almost 80 years of peace and prosperity in Japan after the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the decades of death and suffering (and current threat) from North Korea following the unwillingness of the U.S. to eviscerate its enemy during the Korean War.

War is horrible. When a free country is faced with war, its only priority should be to win, so that peace can be restored. In war, a free country should promptly annihilate its enemy while suffering as little damage to itself as possible. If the U.S., Israel, or any other free nation accepted this attitude towards self-defense, the pathetic evildoers and warmongers of the world wouldn’t stand a chance.