In some ways this seems like Monday morning quarterbacking. Are we actually learning from history or just feeling good about rehashing an event we didn’t participate in (wasn’t born yet), feeling morally superior (that’s not what I would’ve done), or attempting to find some grounds on which to justify Israel’s response to Hamas, no matter what form it takes.
If my parents were still alive, I would ask them for an educated opinion since they lived through WWII. I have their wedding pictures of my father and two of his three brothers all in uniform from different branches of the military. His eldest brother was in the action of the Pacific theater and couldn’t leave his base.
My father and uncles (the two at the wedding survived) never spoke much about their experiences. What I did hear I learned many years later, wasn’t the entire truth, because my father had a habit of making light of things.
I don’t believe that our government has any business telling Israel what to do or how to do it. Our government doesn’t have an exemplary record of giving good advice or doing the right things. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle are woefully lacking in leadership, communication skills and common sense. Whether Israel gets it right or wrong, that’s on their leadership. and one for historians to haggle over.
Paid agitator and students with underdeveloped brains won’t move the needle with me and I suspect a few others regarding Israel. I believe that a higher power is in charge.
We agree that our government has taken a very nagging tone in dealing with Israel--indeed that's a big part of my point here!
I don't think the students are moving the needle, but I worry that they represent others with whom Hamas is (amazingly) managing to win the PR war against Israel.
What would you say of the allied demand for unconditional surrender from Japan? I think that point is largely missed in this discourse—we wouldn’t have had to invade (and by extension, wouldn’t have decided to use the bomb to AVOID invading) if we’d blockaded and negotiated.
Perhaps, but then the moral weight is on their leadership for not surrendering, right? Especially if we’re gonna be consistent since Gaza is a current consideration.
There’s also a very strong case to be made—from contemporary Japanese and American sources—that the bigger factor in the surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and potential invasion of Hokkaido; however I’m not as concerned about that as much as debating whether unconditional surrender was a reasonable and historically consistent demand. I lean away from that.
Interesting. I think you're holding on to nukes for deterrence value is more problematic for your view that you realize. I do respect your view. I just don't agree. War is hell. It should be. God gives the sword to the civil authorities. Don't wage war to begin with.
When I protest that the a-bomb isn't Christian because it targeted civilians, I've had otherwise good thinkers tell me "actually, it was dropped on military targets", which seems to me like a big exercise in missing the point. By that logic, if one had a bomb which would destroy half the planet, but you aimed it at a bomb factory, you get a pass.
These are all good arguments you make. Even simpler and more elegant is "thou shalt not make war on the trees."
Hiroshima was abhorrent. Dresden was abhorrent. Sherman's march was abhorrent. The bans were a one-time prescription for Israel during the time of the judges. That's the only time in God's economy and history that war on civilians was just. All other arguments are special pleading, antibiblical, and often making a wax nose out of Augustine.
Christian warfare should include a lot of assassination (crushing the head). Ehud was a man ahead of his time. Modern leaders don't like that idea very much; they have a gentleman's pact to do war the satan-way.
Historian Evan Thomas’ excellent 2023 book, “Road to Surrender” draws on the diaries of Henry Stimson (Sec. of War), Gen. Carl Spaatz (Pacific Strategic Bombing Head), and, very importantly, Japanese Foreign Minister S. Togo, for a behind-the-scenes look at their decision-making.
These diaries and the records of the Japanese War Council show that the Japanese preferred death to surrender. In their culture, surrender was the ultimate disgrace and the associated betrayal of the Emperor was unthinkable. They preferred one final climatic battle - even if it cost the life of every Japanese man, woman and child.
Only after the bombs were dropped was Foreign Minister Togo finally able to convince the Emperor to surrender.
Yes, as horrific as it was, it apparently took those bombs to end the war.
Ben Shapiro is arguing against his case. The moral calculation he makes to justify the bombs is a carbon copy of globalists Thanos-like justifications for abortion campaigns: kill now, so we don't have to kill later and more. I will never understand balancing a certain outcome with a hypothetical as anything but a bankrupt morality. Why? Because it's no different than the moral musings of a genocide. Nobody embarking on a genocidal mission does it without an allegedly moral argument: there's always an existential threat bound to materialize and purportedly worse than the damage sought that you can concoct and sell it to your constituency.
I don't think anyone is morally obligated to have an opinion (on this or any war) but as a journalist who thinks a lot about ethics and has it as part of my job description to articulate views on things, I think it's worth grappling with.
Thank you Bethel for writing this article. It will continue to move and stir me for days;
Thanks so much for reading!
In some ways this seems like Monday morning quarterbacking. Are we actually learning from history or just feeling good about rehashing an event we didn’t participate in (wasn’t born yet), feeling morally superior (that’s not what I would’ve done), or attempting to find some grounds on which to justify Israel’s response to Hamas, no matter what form it takes.
If my parents were still alive, I would ask them for an educated opinion since they lived through WWII. I have their wedding pictures of my father and two of his three brothers all in uniform from different branches of the military. His eldest brother was in the action of the Pacific theater and couldn’t leave his base.
My father and uncles (the two at the wedding survived) never spoke much about their experiences. What I did hear I learned many years later, wasn’t the entire truth, because my father had a habit of making light of things.
I don’t believe that our government has any business telling Israel what to do or how to do it. Our government doesn’t have an exemplary record of giving good advice or doing the right things. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle are woefully lacking in leadership, communication skills and common sense. Whether Israel gets it right or wrong, that’s on their leadership. and one for historians to haggle over.
Paid agitator and students with underdeveloped brains won’t move the needle with me and I suspect a few others regarding Israel. I believe that a higher power is in charge.
We agree that our government has taken a very nagging tone in dealing with Israel--indeed that's a big part of my point here!
I don't think the students are moving the needle, but I worry that they represent others with whom Hamas is (amazingly) managing to win the PR war against Israel.
What would you say of the allied demand for unconditional surrender from Japan? I think that point is largely missed in this discourse—we wouldn’t have had to invade (and by extension, wouldn’t have decided to use the bomb to AVOID invading) if we’d blockaded and negotiated.
Some say that would have similarly cashed out in civilian deaths, since Japan would have happily allowed its civilians to starve before surrendering.
Perhaps, but then the moral weight is on their leadership for not surrendering, right? Especially if we’re gonna be consistent since Gaza is a current consideration.
There’s also a very strong case to be made—from contemporary Japanese and American sources—that the bigger factor in the surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and potential invasion of Hokkaido; however I’m not as concerned about that as much as debating whether unconditional surrender was a reasonable and historically consistent demand. I lean away from that.
Oh sure, don't disagree there. I'm merely repeating the argument I've seen people make.
Interesting. I think you're holding on to nukes for deterrence value is more problematic for your view that you realize. I do respect your view. I just don't agree. War is hell. It should be. God gives the sword to the civil authorities. Don't wage war to begin with.
Of course, war is hell. Nothing here denies that.
When I protest that the a-bomb isn't Christian because it targeted civilians, I've had otherwise good thinkers tell me "actually, it was dropped on military targets", which seems to me like a big exercise in missing the point. By that logic, if one had a bomb which would destroy half the planet, but you aimed it at a bomb factory, you get a pass.
These are all good arguments you make. Even simpler and more elegant is "thou shalt not make war on the trees."
Hiroshima was abhorrent. Dresden was abhorrent. Sherman's march was abhorrent. The bans were a one-time prescription for Israel during the time of the judges. That's the only time in God's economy and history that war on civilians was just. All other arguments are special pleading, antibiblical, and often making a wax nose out of Augustine.
Christian warfare should include a lot of assassination (crushing the head). Ehud was a man ahead of his time. Modern leaders don't like that idea very much; they have a gentleman's pact to do war the satan-way.
Difficult topic. I was helped in thinking about this by getting a look at the Japanese War Cabinet as shown in “Road to Surrender” by Evan Thomas.
Not familiar. Thanks for the rec! What's Thomas's basic conclusion?
Historian Evan Thomas’ excellent 2023 book, “Road to Surrender” draws on the diaries of Henry Stimson (Sec. of War), Gen. Carl Spaatz (Pacific Strategic Bombing Head), and, very importantly, Japanese Foreign Minister S. Togo, for a behind-the-scenes look at their decision-making.
These diaries and the records of the Japanese War Council show that the Japanese preferred death to surrender. In their culture, surrender was the ultimate disgrace and the associated betrayal of the Emperor was unthinkable. They preferred one final climatic battle - even if it cost the life of every Japanese man, woman and child.
Only after the bombs were dropped was Foreign Minister Togo finally able to convince the Emperor to surrender.
Yes, as horrific as it was, it apparently took those bombs to end the war.
Ben Shapiro is arguing against his case. The moral calculation he makes to justify the bombs is a carbon copy of globalists Thanos-like justifications for abortion campaigns: kill now, so we don't have to kill later and more. I will never understand balancing a certain outcome with a hypothetical as anything but a bankrupt morality. Why? Because it's no different than the moral musings of a genocide. Nobody embarking on a genocidal mission does it without an allegedly moral argument: there's always an existential threat bound to materialize and purportedly worse than the damage sought that you can concoct and sell it to your constituency.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Shapiro an apologist for genocide, but I do think his reasoning is very flawed.
Why do feel you must render a judgement on Israel's actions?
I don't think anyone is morally obligated to have an opinion (on this or any war) but as a journalist who thinks a lot about ethics and has it as part of my job description to articulate views on things, I think it's worth grappling with.