The scene is (all too) familiar. A terrorist attack shakes a nation-state, spreading terror and destruction. In the wake of horror, public outrage and calls for justice echo around the world. The Hamas attack on the Israeli population on October 7, 2023, sent chills through the Western world, an ally of the Hebrew state. Since then, in the media, supporters of the Palestinian people have clashed with those who defend Israel's right to retaliate against the heinous acts of a terrorist group. More than any other conflict, the one between Israel and Palestine is undoubtedly the one that arouses the most passions, for different reasons. Sometimes, attempts at explanation are seen and understood as legitimizing condemnable acts, requiring the ostracism of those who have too harsh or not harsh enough words for either side.

One month after the attack, the escalation of violence seems unstoppable. Israel, bruised by losses and a large-scale hostage-taking, retaliates by arguing that international law clearly states that an attacked country has the right to defend itself. For what purpose? To simply destroy Hamas. The goal is clear. Yet, history has shown that the elimination of the assailant never happens. This article aims to address the thorny question of the disproportionate response of nation-states to attacks by terrorist organizations. It does not seek to fuel the debate on the atrocity of terrorist acts themselves but rather to question the devastating repercussions of these reprisals, not only for the parties in conflict but also for the entire world.

Beyond historical and contemporary examples, it becomes urgent to delve into the philosophical dilemma underlying this question, to explore the concepts of just war theory, as well as the moral and legal obligations of nation-states in response to acts of terrorism. Because the Israeli-Palestinian powder keg, in light of recent years, could hardly have evolved in a different way. If this conflict is one of the most mediated, we must not forget the existence of other potentially explosive situations, geopolitical hotspots that threaten to ignite at any moment, such as the burning question of the future of Taiwan. What lessons can we learn from history to prevent future conflicts? Are we condemned to see it endlessly repeat itself? Is militarized response the only viable option to not give in to terrorists?

It is time to seriously reflect on these questions.

HISTORY IS LITTERED WITH DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSES

It is not difficult to find in recent international history disproportionate responses to terrorist acts. Some events are emblematic, others less known, but no less symbolic of the only response given to perfidious attacks. The case of Pearl Harbor is significant, and there can hardly be any debate about its direct connection to the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is true that the world was then plunged into a world war, but this act nonetheless had the consequences of defining a whole swath of international relations, as the world was redefined in a bipolar manner and the global architecture aimed first to abolish, then to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, this disproportionate response (2400 deaths at Pearl Harbor, over 200,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the radioactive fallout) led to a morbid habit that seems to strike politicians with amnesia.

A less-known case crossed French history. It is that of the uprising in Philippeville in Algeria, in 1955. 123 people, Europeans and Muslims, were savagely murdered by members of the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Philippeville. The authorities' response was not long in coming. For the Algerian nationalists, it was about avenging previous massacres, notably in Sétif, while for the French, it was simply described as a heinous and inhuman act perpetrated by wild beasts. The parallel with October 7, 2023, and the reaction, first of communication, then of retaliatory acts, does not end there. The governor of the time relied on repression that cost the lives of more than 10,000 people. Had he succeeded in delivering justice to the 123 victims of Philippeville? Had he restored order in the Algerian streets? Or had he become a butcher in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who nevertheless did not adhere to the acts of the FLN? In Gaza, as in southern Lebanon, many do not adhere to any party, wish to live in peace and support themselves, stay away from Hamas or Hezbollah. When they are bombed, see their crops and livestock destroyed by white phosphorus bombs, they nevertheless fall back on the side of the militias that appear to be the only ones, despite limited means, able to defend them.

September 11, 2001, marked the world by the magnitude of the attacks the United States suffered, by their extreme media coverage, and by the symbolism of the end of a world that many considered unipolar. Under the impetus of its population and allies, encouraged by international law, the US government of George W. Bush launched a total war against terrorism, initially targeting the Al-Qaeda group and its leader Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding in Afghanistan before directing its wrath against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, this time in defiance of that same international law. The result? Al-Qaeda still exists and survived its iconic leader, the Islamic State emerged after the exactions and ostracism of part of the Iraqi population, creating chaos and psychosis even in Europe, Iraq is a failed state where Shiite militias supported by the Iranian enemy rule, and Afghanistan has fallen back into the hands of the Taliban. While support for the Americans was unwavering after September 11, a little less so for Iraq, the disproportionate response (about 3000 deaths on September 11 against over a million in Iraq) is considered by all to be a strategic failure. President Biden, who nevertheless supported the 2003 Iraq intervention, has also warned his Israeli counterparts not to repeat this mistake.

HOW TO RESPOND TO TERRORIST ACTS?

The disproportionate response of nation-states to terrorist acts raises a complex philosophical dilemma, where ethical and moral considerations clash with imperatives of national security. "We do not negotiate with terrorists." This maxim could be attributed to every world leader, as it has been heard so often. It expresses the will not to bend in the face of terrorist acts, in a context of (often) limited political mandate but also and above all both not to give in to those who fall within the spectrum of violence and to deter others from resorting to it to defend a cause they hold dear.

However, the conflict that has flared up again in recent days gives rise to legitimate questions about such a situation. First, the question of the term "terrorist" has inflamed the French media, as some political families preferred to speak of "resistants forced by submission, repression, and violence they are subjected to" to resort to extreme violence. This designation is often ideological. To justify repression acts, during national demonstrations for example, some regimes do not hesitate to use this term to describe entire segments of their population. In this regard, the Iranian example is quite striking. The massive protests that emerged at the death of Mahsa Amini were crushed in blood, and the famous "terrorists," in fact young women and men from the civilian population, were imprisoned and/or executed following sham trials.

Does the response generated serve to regain credibility with a population realizing that they have been served "security at all costs" for electoral purposes?

"Here, the question is not to define or redefine the term 'terrorist,' but to note that its use can sometimes be a justification for the choice of response, always military. Vladimir Putin argues almost in every speech the impossibility of doing otherwise than invading Ukraine to ensure the survival of the Russian Federation. This inability to choose another path has also been highlighted by the Israeli Prime Minister in his speeches, even drawing parallels with September 11, when Americans had no choice but to strike as hard as possible. The parallel with other events seems much more difficult to make when assessing the possible consequences of a military response. Indeed, how is it that every leader of every nation can imagine that a military response will both deliver justice, enhance national security, stabilize an entire region, and eliminate any terrorist threat when, throughout history, this has never happened? How is it that terrorist acts are perpetrated during the mandates of governments that prioritize the security of their citizens, and whose warning signs are red? Can disproportionate responses be correlated with the fact that these governments commit serious strategic and political errors? Does the generated response serve to regain credibility with a population that realizes they have been served with 'all security' for electoral purposes?

Of course, no country wants to appear weak in the game of international relations, but is not the ultimate weakness in the exaggeration of strength? For a long time, geopolitical theories and world leaders, within international organizations or not, have tried to explain philosophically and ethically the response to be given to threats.

One of the philosophical bases for evaluating the proportionality of responses in a conflict is the theory of just war. This theory establishes moral criteria aimed at determining whether a war can be justified or not. According to this doctrine, war must meet several criteria such as necessity, proportionality, and distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

The necessity element requires that war be a last resort to achieve a legitimate objective. In the case of responses to terrorist acts, the question arises: is military violence the only option to protect national security, or are there less radical and more proportionate alternatives? The political solution and collaboration between states to combat terrorist organizations are often opposed to it. In the present case, the very rapid response of the Israeli defense, notably through those who have made concrete and prescient threats of retaliation, suggests the haste with which Israeli authorities wish to seek revenge.

The second criterion is proportionality. It implies that the means employed in war must be proportional to the objective pursued. If a military response results in excessive civilian casualties, it may then be considered morally unacceptable. A distinction must also be made between combatants and non-combatants, collateral damage must be minimized, and the purpose of the military operation must be to restore peace and cooperation. If all these criteria are taken into account, it is evident that the Israeli response to the October 7, 2023 attack is primarily guided by vengeance. Moreover, it is even more illogical even as Israeli citizens are hostages of Hamas and have been captured in Gaza. The intensive bombing of the enclave risks greatly compromising their survival, while the vast majority of the population first expects a strategy to secure their return.

We can understand that ethical challenges sometimes arise in contradiction to national interests and security. Political and popular pressures as well as security considerations can lead to these disproportionate decisions, and decision-makers must juggle, in very little time, with these complex dilemmas. It is noticeable that in the majority of cases, we find ourselves facing leaders elected on the basis of a desire to regain control over the security apparatus. But then, why remain insensitive to foreign or local intelligence warnings of imminent attacks? Before September 11, 2001, the CIA warned of the risks of attacks, and Commander Massoud, assassinated two days before, had informed at a press conference that Al-Qaeda was preparing to attack the American soil. A few weeks before October 7, Egyptian intelligence warned Israeli intelligence services of the boiling situation across the Gaza Strip. Why do governments, often elected by exaggerating the external threat, not listen to the warnings that are transmitted to them? It is to be believed that, in the case of the Middle East, the extreme brutality and the policy of the extreme right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu would suffice to calm the ardor and desire for revenge of the Palestinians. Beyond the desire to sabotage any peace process, these leaders therefore choose, in addition, to enter into a process of escalation which, in addition to costing the lives of millions of people, destabilizes an entire region, making coexistence even more dangerous.

This point therefore underlines the importance of these philosophical and ethical dilemmas in the debate on the disproportionate response of nation-states to terrorist acts. It highlights the need for a careful examination of the moral and legal justifications for the actions taken, as well as the call for a thorough reflection on the consequences of these responses on humanitarian and geopolitical levels.

BURIED NORMALIZATION PROCESSES ?

Vladimir Putin's Russia, by launching its "special military operation," has definitively turned its back on the Western world. While relations with the latter have often been difficult, they have still seen a significant warming at the end of the Cold War. Today, the Russian President and members of his government forcefully justify their war by carefully mentioning American belligerence. China often reproaches the United States, through its diplomats, for seeking war rather than peace. The systematic military response to terrorist attacks also poses the problem of diplomatic relations and the evolution of normalization processes.

By continuing to bombard Gaza with such force, Israel exposes itself to the redefinition of a shifting diplomatic architecture in the region.

Israel has long been isolated in the Middle East, has had to fight for its survival in a hostile environment that almost no nation has experienced in its history. This resulted in a fierce determination to assert itself, colossal defense means, and certainly legitimate paranoia above average. However, despite the failure of the Oslo Accords, the perpetual support from Western allies who are no longer in favor in the region, and the intensification of colonization in the West Bank, the Hebrew state had managed to assert itself as a major actor in the region, initiated diplomatic relations with Gulf countries, and even embarked on a normalization process with Saudi Arabia. While this rapprochement is also attributable to the rise of Persian Iran which worries a majority of the Arab world, it remains an important strategic success which guaranteed Israel more security. However, the Palestinian issue, even if it has sometimes lost weight in public opinion, cannot be separated from the religious question. While Saudi Arabia has reopened its door to the Iranian adversary, the normalization process with Israel is now at a standstill, at least largely hindered.

Knowing that the IDF is much more powerful than Hamas will ever be, is it worth sabotaging years of diplomatic efforts to show that one can strike harder than one's opponent? The risks of such an operation are therefore multiple: by continuing to bombard Gaza with such force, Israel exposes itself to the redefinition of a shifting diplomatic architecture in the region. Mostly to its advantage in recent years, despite a policy of persecution of the Palestinian population, like the increasingly stigmatized Arab Israeli population, the country risks de facto dismantling what has been undertaken in the last decade. Saudi Arabia, which was banking on a historic recognition of the State of Israel, has therefore put on hold all correspondence with Israeli diplomats. The United States, eager to achieve a resounding diplomatic victory in the region (like their Chinese rival who influenced the resumption of Iranian-Saudi dialogue), will hasten to try to restrain Israel's armed arm also for this reason. Netanyahu's "new Middle East" at the UN could well be annihilated if the Israeli army were to turn Gaza from an open-air prison to a land of desolation. Indeed, imagining that Israel manages to eradicate all branches of Hamas (an already defined objective in December 2008 during Operation 'Cast Lead'), what will happen next to the Palestinian enclave ?

It is difficult to imagine that once the IDF has withdrawn, the Israeli government will assist in reconstruction, deploy humanitarian aid, and invest in peace. Even in the event that this mission is that of the international community, which would then commit to saving what remains to be saved, the destruction, chaos, and brutality of war will only feed resentment, especially from those who have lost loved ones. These will be the vast majority. This resentment will revive the Hamas from its ashes or allow the emergence and emancipation of new terrorism hotbeds. A change of government in Israel is not to be ruled out either, but even a left-wing government willing to engage in the path of a lasting and common peace would continue to suffer the consequences of a disproportionate response to the terrorist attack of October 7.

THE URGENCY OF A NEW RESPONSE

It is rather rare for terrorist attacks to cause thousands of deaths. This was the case in the United States or Israel. The primary goal of an attack, even of magnitude, is not to count the dead. Moreover, faced with a national army going to war, the comparison in terms of loss is no longer relevant.

So, it remains impossible for any leader to negotiate with terrorists, it becomes evident that terrorism, by acting in this way, continues to win battles.

What matters when a group carries out a terrorist attack is the psychological impact it manages to create. In the case of the Hamas attack, this is verified. In no case could this "act of resistance" have shaken Israeli democracy or questioned its existence. But the terrorists have achieved several things: increasing fear among the population, toppling a government that, by reinforcing an apartheid policy, thought it was on the path to security, bringing back to the forefront a Palestinian cause in decline, breaking the normalization cycle between Israel and some Arab countries. Never did this attack have as its major objective the protection of Palestinians since it was obvious that Israel would go to war in response. So it remains impossible for any leader to negotiate with terrorists, it becomes evident that terrorism, by acting in this way, continues to win battles.

This is once again what we see in this new Gaza war. And while calls for a ceasefire are constantly repeated, Israel's "right to defend itself" is not called into question either. So, the solution seems hopeless. A country attacked reserves the right to retaliate, and this rule does not prevent abuses. Thus, all world leaders who wage wars justify them by the attacks their states are subject to. It seems quite improbable that Vladimir Putin accuses Israel of being responsible for the war when his country has not suffered the slightest attack on its soil from Ukrainian militias before the start of the invasion in 2022. So, is it all just a matter of interpretation? Starting from this principle, it is difficult to find a way out of the ongoing conflict(s). Because that's what it's all about. Bombarding an area because terrorists are there does not reduce their ability to cause harm. On the contrary, it creates new terrorist hotbeds.

Other places in the world are just waiting for a spark to ignite. What would happen if tomorrow, Taiwanese separatists staged a terrorist attack in Beijing? China's response would undoubtedly be relentless. It would force members of the Security Council to take a position on the issue. And the officially ambiguous position of the United States on the Taiwanese issue would then pose immense problems.

So, what could be the solution? Bowing down to terror? If any peace process were to resume in the days, weeks, or months to come, it would contribute to justifying the terrible attack of October 7. No country, no government would accept that. After November 13, 2015, France intensified its bombing in Syria and Iraq to reduce to nothing the nuisance capacity of the Islamic State. Undoubtedly, civilians were affected. That's undeniable. However, this escalation of violence leads to nothing good. Today, negotiation is not an option, yet nobody has a choice. Not even Israel.

If the country does indeed wish for the return of the hostages, it must hope to negotiate their return. It will not do so with bombs. The political solution remains the only viable one, and the current government must acknowledge its failure, recover the hostages safe and sound if it is still possible, and withdraw to let a government negotiate peace. Hamas was brought to power by a population at the end of its tether. World diplomacy must show that it is still standing and must stand up against these disproportionate reprisals that have no end and fuel hatred towards those who provoke it, forcing the world to endure this vicious circle.

This type of response eradicates nothing but any hope of peace.