A very thought-provoking piece from Zack Beauchamp at Vox about the next steps for the Israel war. It’s complicated and well worth reading in its entirety, going into all the global, military and political implications, but this is a taste of the kind of thinking that’s gone into it and I think it’s impressive: The moral case for counterterrorism Bradley Strawser, a former US Air Force captain, has an unusual job: he is a moral philosopher working for the US Navy. His title is professor of philosophy in the defense analysis department at the Naval Postgraduate School; his actual job description is teaching America’s special operators how to fight wars as ethically as possible. When I asked Strawser how he would approach the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, he said that it was essential to hold two ideas in one’s head at the same time. First, that Israel had not only a right but a moral obligation to respond to Hamas’ vicious attack on its civilian population. This may not seem obvious, as a ceasefire would certainly lead to some immediate reduction in civilian suffering. Indeed, a temporary ceasefire to provide humanitarian relief before further Israeli escalation might well be a good idea. But an indefinite ceasefire is politically impossible in Israel — no major faction could countenance it — for reasons that speak to the very purpose of having a state. Governments owe their citizens a duty of protection, to keep them safe from external threats. If Hamas…