ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD
Members Only
lock close icon

Israel's Revenge, Different From Defence, is Indefensible and Counterproductive

Israel’s reputation of disproportionate retaliation has never served its own security interests.

Published: 
story-hero-img
i
Aa
Aa
Small
Aa
Medium
Aa
Large

Revenge undertaken by a government against an ‘enemy’ acting against the state and its citizenry is expected and sometimes necessary, but rides a very fine line, constitutionally and morally.

Revenge is different from defence – the failure of the latter may not justify the former. Revenge is rooted in the usually disallowed principle of retributive justice (in India, the logic of retribution is inapplicable, but incapacitation of threat is valid).

Therefore, questions arise on Israel’s ensuing morality and legality of reaction when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promises “mighty vengeance” and then tweets by quoting poet Hayim Nahman Bialik, “Revenge for the blood of a little child has yet been devised by Satan” to end all speculation about intent.

Netanyahu is fully entitled to outrage at the despicable actions of a terror organisation like Hamas, but to match (and exceed) the misconduct of a terror organisation onto the civilians of the ‘other’ side is indefensible. In such times, even the sense of proportionality in reaction takes a backseat.
Become a Member to unlock
  • Access to all paywalled content on site
  • Ad-free experience across The Quint
  • Listen to paywalled content
  • Early previews of our Special Projects
×
×