In a recent development surrounding the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, President Joe Biden's decision to withhold a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel has sparked a heated debate, primarily fueled by Republicans in Congress. While President Biden has been a strong supporter of Israel throughout the conflict, his decision to set limits on certain weapons raises questions about the importance of civilian restraint amid the conflict.

The argument between President Biden and the GOP is not centered around supporting Israel, but rather centers around the notion of whether Palestinian lives should be subject to any form of restraint during the war. President Biden, in a CNN interview, correctly stated that civilians have been killed as a result of the use of these bombs, leading to his decision to withhold their shipment.

However, Republicans in Congress have criticized President Biden's move, defending the use of the larger bombs and demanding their prompt delivery to Israel. In fact, a House bill was passed last week by Republicans that would cut off funds to the Department of Defense for any attempt to halt or cancel the delivery of defense articles to Israel.

The contention goes beyond a technical discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of these bombs; it delves into a moral debate. Those who defend the large bombs argue that restrictions should not be imposed on a U.S. ally, and they assert that Israel bears no responsibility for civilian casualties as Hamas initiated the conflict.

While it is undeniable that Hamas instigated the war, absolving Israel of any duty to safeguard civilian lives may lead to excessive casualties. Reports from the U.S. State Department highlight instances where Israeli airstrikes resulted in an alarming number of civilian deaths, indicating that expected civilian harm may have been excessive relative to the reported military objective.

The power of these formidable weapons heightens the risk and magnitude of civilian casualties, exemplified by the Israeli bombing of the Jabaliya refugee camp in late October, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. Critics argue that the use of imprecise 2,000-pound bombs contributes to the collapse of buildings, leading to amplified collateral damage.

Proponents of the bombs have further argued that Hamas's use of human shields renders it impossible to mitigate civilian deaths. This assertion essentially absolves Israel from its responsibility to spare civilian lives, as long as Hamas uses Palestinians as shields.

Others have attempted to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, suggesting that the Palestinian people as a whole bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas. This conflation of identities has been used to rationalize the killing of innocent civilians.

The debate has even escalated to suggestions that Israel should destroy entire areas, such as the city of Rafah, or to draw parallels between Israel and the United States' actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Such comparisons are controversial and overstep the boundaries of ethical conduct in warfare.

Amid the complexity of the conflict in Gaza, it is vital to recognize that while Hamas endangers Palestinian civilians, Israel too has a duty to minimize harm. Fighting against terrorists requires not only defeating them but also refusing to adopt their tactics or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

While President Biden's decision to withhold the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs signifies a recognition of the need for restraint, the debate surrounding it underscores the importance of setting red lines when it comes to civilian casualties. It serves as a reminder that the pursuit of victory should never come at the expense of ethical conduct, regardless of the adversary.