This is the level counter-level game theory argument; i.e. the best way for a president to protect his children from kidnapping for ransom is to make clear in advance that he will not yield even if they are taken (and somehow force everyone to believe him, which is the murkier part).
Anyway, I imagine responses to the piece are going to be pretty tempestuous. It makes some pro-Israel assertions that aren't popular right now and uses a train of logical thought that a Facebook friend of mine described as Goebbels-ian (hopefully with full awareness of the irony, but you never know). Regardless, I welcome your thoughts.
EDIT: I should mention that The New Republic has been unashamedly pro-Israel forever. Otherwise they wouldn't have come close to printing this.
Everything about this feels way over-simplified. I would quote, but literally the whole article is the example I would use.
It's one thing to ask the questions the author is asking about Just War. Fine fine fine. It's another to paint Israel's current wartime tactics as the only wartime tactics, and thus inherently just if you've already accepted the morality of the overall campaign. And therein lies the problem- author isn't just laying out a justification for the invasion, he's laying out a justification for the way Israel is choosing to conduct the invasion as well. The first point is at least arguable from a philosophical, political and historical standpoint (for instance, your point w/ blackfox026 re. the continued existence of Israel). The second...?
Israel has more than enough support, funding, training, experience and outfitting for a ground war that would by design end up engaging way more of the militarized anti-Israel contingent than, you know, kids in a UN schoolyard, and still give them a shot at dismantling the infrastructure of violence. The fact that these instances are still cropping up is appalling, and stand completely isolate from the broader question of Just War.