Israel, Hamas, and the Theory of Just War
We’ve become lazy in the West. We no longer seek to understand civics, economics, or morality. we prefer instead to adopt the ideological positions force-fed to us by journalists, politicians, and educators who, having been ideologically captured themselves, are capable of little more than repeating phrases they themselves don’t fully understand.
The assault on free speech by supporters of “hate speech” laws and the rise in popularity of socialism and “wealth taxes” are perfect examples. These demonstrate the insight of Aristotle who is alleged to have said “give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Today’s universities might state instead: “send us your child and we’ll send you back a Marxist.” Nowhere is the failure of the education system and prevalence of lazy thinking more apparent than in the “debate” regarding the Israeli invasion of Gaza.
Anyone viewing an interview of a campus protester has likely judged them to be self-centered children filled with a false sense of moral superiority and no knowledge of history much less the complexities of the real world. They are members of the “lazy left,” indoctrinated into their beliefs about “decolonization,” “white supremacy,” and the evils of the West to such an extent that they shout antisemitic statements, not because they necessarily believe them, but because they are too lazy to find out what the words mean (A simple Google search would of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” would prove this).
Still, despite my support of Israel, I am becoming uncomfortable with the conflict. While I am tempted to take the lazy approach and adopt “my side’s” position, I prefer the analytical approach to these difficult questions: Was the Israeli attack justified? When should Israel stop? And can innocent deaths be justified?
As the concept of a “just war” has a history dating back to ancient Egypt and has long been debated in Western and Christian philosophy, it may be helpful to explore the thoughts of the great minds of the past to see if we can apply their wisdom to what we are currently witnessing in the Middle East.
Just War Tradition
The history of Christianity in the West means that that an examination of Christian theory is the most appropriate place to start and that begins with Saint Augustine (354 – 430). Augustine did not forbid war but privileged the concept of “right intention,” which demands that a “state must only fight out of necessity,” limit death, destruction, and harm, and seek “a true and lasting peace.” Thus, just war covers ad bellum (right to go to war), in bello (right conduct in war), and post bellum (justice after war).
Saint Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 – 1274) builds on this providing the basis for determining the justification for war. Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip must be measured against three requirements:
War must be fought with the authority of “the sovereign.”
Sovereignty implies statehood which in the modern world means that authority conducting the war be internationally recognized as the government of the state. The issue of legitimacy is complicated in the current conflict however the majority of nations, including Palestine (though not a state) have recognized Israel and so this requirement is fulfilled.
There must be a just cause, “namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says: "A just war won't be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Hamas’ October 7th attacks on civilians and taking of hostages, justify Israel’s response.
There must be “rightful intention.” Wars must not be fought “for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."
Once again, evidence indicates that this is a just war. Israel was attacked on October 7th and Hamas has taken hostages and called for the state of Israel to be eradicated. There clearly can be no longstanding peace while the organization retains the ability to fight.
What’s more, it is not unreasonable to argue that the Palestinian people themselves would benefit from the destruction of Hamas. Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields and from this, we can surmise that the Palestinian people would be better off if Hamas ceased to exist.
Not content with the three previous requirements, Aquinas raised the following qualifying conditions for a just war:
It must be the last resort – Met.
Hamas continues to call for Israel’s eradication.
It must have a probability of success – Met.
Israel’s state aim is the eradication of Hamas. Is this possible? It depends. Killing or capturing every member of Hamas need not be the goal. The destruction of Hamas as a fighting force or the unconditional surrender of its leaders cannot be ruled out as a possibility.
It must be appropriately proportional - Inconclusive.
“Proportionality” is a difficult and subjective concept. The principle of proportionality under the Geneva Convention “states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.” The question is of course, what qualifies as “excessive?” Given the vagueness of this definition, it is not possible to assess this requirement.
Non-combatants must be respected. Civilian casualties, while foreseeable, cannot be intended and measures must be taken to minimize them - Met.
Minimizing civilian casualties is also difficult to assess. Israel has warned civilians on many occasions (ex. here and here) to evacuate areas prior to attacks. However, warning civilians away does not mean they will or can evacuate prior to an attack. The situation is made more difficult by Hamas’ strategy of using civilians as human shields.
Conclusion
While it is impossible to determine if the eventual peace will be just, Israel's attack was justified but how and when it will end remain unanswered. History tells us that it will likely end in one of three ways, Israel will achieve its aims, it will exhaust itself or otherwise lose the will to continue, or peace will be enforced from the outside, either by the UN or by the United States. “When it should end” is easier to answer. Social Contract theory, while not the only theory of government, argues that citizens “surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.”
One of those rights must be the right to life and as Hamas holds themselves up as the legitimate authority in Gaza, it is the responsibility of Hamas to protect its citizens in the only way it can, by surrendering immediately.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
There have been so few examples of "just war" in Earth's recent history, that I approach all claims with narrow-eyed skepticism. Too many times the claims are false and riddled with other agendas. I long for a time when no war is justified.
In this case I must agree you have made your case. Well done.
It is unclear what Israel's goals/victory conditions even are. This prompted the resignation of one of Netanyahu's coalition partners: there is apparently still no plan for who will govern Gaza once military operations end. If this is true, it fails the just war condition of aiming to establish lasting peace / probability of success: how can Israel succeed without knowing what success is?