How do you alleviate a moral disaster in a fashion that is consistent with the fact that a state will, and in my judgment, should defend itself? And that we don't really like the idea of tens of thousands of civilians paying the price for that?
The link is to a podcast, with a transcript. It’s really long. I don’t expect many people to get thru the entire article, because, it’s long.
I personally felt the article helped me immensely, not because it argued strenuously for one particular viewpoint, but because it worked to educate on the complexities of the Israeli situation in Gaza and the Israeli relationship with the United States.
The right question to start with is, is this a moral disaster? And that's a question that in our legalistic way we don't like to ask. Because we like to say, hey, there are these rules and if you follow the rules, you're okay. And this is a situation where you can follow all the rules and it's not okay. And the reason for that is partly the strategic dilemma that Hamas has created. And it is partly a creature of the fact that the Israelis’ own military goals are hopelessly in conflict with one another. Let me spell that out.
...
It's a moral disaster born of another moral disaster. That's where I think the conversation should start with the question of, how do you alleviate a moral disaster in a fashion that is consistent with the fact that a state will, and in my judgment, should—but if we can't agree on should, we can at least agree on the objective will—defend itself? And that we don't really like the idea of tens of thousands of civilians paying the price for that. And actually, it keeps us up at night.