In "War and Massacre" by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits to what can be done to an enemy, even if it is for the general good. He believes that such an idea is based on the principles of absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of utilitarianism, which is based on the principle that morality is determined by its consequences (consequentialism). But could we really generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in war? By identifying with a concrete example, I will seek to expand on Nagel's account that an action taken by a country at war would be prohibited even if it was for the general good. In mid-November last year, amid growing tensions around the world, In the Middle East, Israel launched a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza on Wednesday, killing Hamas military commander Ahmed Al-Jabari during of an airstrike. This strike against a car carrying the commander marked the start of what the Israelis call Operation “Pillar of Defense”. Following this “surgical” assassination, the Israeli Air Force struck more than 20 underground rocket launch sites belonging to Hamas (the terrorist organization ruling the Gaza Strip) and Islamic Jihad. According to Palestinian sources, these strikes killed six additional Palestinians. However, this attack on the commander and launch sites came as an immediate response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire in previous weeks and to prevent other "Palestinian factions from further strengthening their arsenals." In a statement made by the spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces, he justified the assassination of Ahmed Jabari by stating: "The first objective of this operation is to eliminate...... middle of paper ... ...future threats from Hamas, a hostile terrorist organization. In my opinion, Nagel's view regarding the moral structure of war is a bit too narrow. When we relate war actions to the absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold up in issues such as the Middle East conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess right and wrong by simply assessing a particular action taken by a country in wartime. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and an airstrike are clear actions for the general good, but in absolutist terms, Nagel would have difficulty seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable. news/hamas-militant-leader-killed-in-israeli-airstrikes/