In Thomas Nagel's “War and Massacre,” 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 this 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 premise that morality is determined by its consequences (consequentialism). Even if one could actually generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in war? Identifying with a real-life example, I will try to elaborate on Nagel's account that an action taken by a country at war would be prohibited even if it were for the general good. In mid-November last year, amid rising tensions in the Middle East, Israel launched a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza on Wednesday, killing Hamas military commander Ahmed Al-Jabari in an airstrike. This attack on a car carrying the commander triggered what the Israelis know as Operation “Pillar of Defense.” Following this "surgical" assassination, the Israeli air force struck over 20 underground rocket launch sites belonging to Hamas (the terrorist organization that governs Gaza) and Islamic Jihad. According to Palestinian sources, these attacks killed six more Palestinians. However, this attack on the commander and launch sites came as an immediate response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire in previous weeks and prevented other “Palestinian factions from further upgrading their arsenals.” In a statement released by the spokesperson of the Israel Defense Forces, he justifies the assassination of Ahmed Jabari by stating: "The first aim of this operation is to bring... in the middle of paper... the future threats of Hamas, a hostile terrorist organization In my opinion, Nagel's view regarding the moral structure in war is a little too narrow. When relating the actions of war to the absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our paradigm. moral. 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 evaluate what is right and what is wrong simply by evaluating a particular action that country has taken in war this particular case, I believe that an assassination and an airstrike are clear actions for the general good, however, in absolutist terms, Nagel would have difficulty seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable. Works Cited http://www.cbsnews.com/ news/capo-militante-di-hamas-ucciso-in-attacchi-aerei-israeliani/