When the Threshold Replaces the Law

People keep asking whether the strike was legal. But legality is no longer where such decisions begin. By the time the law appears, the threshold has already spoken. The real question is not whether the act can be justified afterward, but when a state decides that waiting has become the greater danger.

In moments of perceived existential danger, states do not begin with law. They ask whether the danger has crossed a line beyond which inaction becomes politically, militarily, or psychologically intolerable. Once that line is judged to have been crossed, law does not disappear. It is retained, but demoted. It becomes the language of retroactive arrangement.

This is why so much public debate feels false even when it sounds intelligent. One side speaks as though legality still governs the primary site of decision. The other side mocks legality as a luxury item for people protected by distance. Both are wrong. Law still matters. But increasingly it matters only after the threshold has already been crossed, after the machinery has already moved, after the admissible has silently displaced the merely lawful.

This is not a novelty of the present conflict. In 1967, the threshold appeared as the point at which waiting itself was judged intolerable. At Osirak, it........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)