Introduction:
The unrelenting battle between Israel and Hamas is part of the Levant's Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is one of the world's longest-running conflicts, dating back to the mid-twentieth century. Several efforts have been made to resolve the issue as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as well as other measures to settle the greater Arab-Israeli conflict.
Wikipedia cites 16 wars or warlike confrontations in this conflict since the formation of the state of Israel in 1948—nearly one per five years.
This essay will evaluate the ethical soundness of Israel's armed response to Hamas, following the October 7, 2023 attack on its southern border by thousands of Hamas terrorists, using Just War Theory.
This framework offers a moral lens to evaluate the justifiability of military action, using just cause, legitimate authority, limited objectives and proportionality, right intention, reasonable chance of success, and last resort.
Just War Theory
Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics dealt with by moral philosophers, theologians, and military leaders. This concept specifies the conditions that must be fulfilled for a war to be ethically justified. Though it has roots in religious thought, Just War Theory is now a part of secular philosophical and international legal debates on the ethics of warfare.
Just War Theory didn't originate from a single philosopher. It is a doctrine that has progressed over centuries, influenced by different religious, philosophical, and cultural viewpoints. Nevertheless, certain key figures have played a crucial role in shaping and developing it.
Cicero:
Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman statesman, philosopher, and orator, believed that war should not be the first course of action in any conflict. He advocated for a peaceful resolution of disputes through diplomatic means and negotiation. Only when all efforts have been exhausted, and the safety of the innocent is at stake, should war be considered as an option.
Additionally, Cicero stressed the importance of ethical conduct during wars and the need for public declaration of war. These ideas were revolutionary in pre-Christian ethics and served as a foundation for the development of the Just War doctrine. Cicero's theories bridged classical philosophy with future Christian and international legal perspectives on justified conflict.
Saint Augustine:
St. Augustine of Hippo was an early Christian theologian and philosopher who is well-known for developing the first theory on a just war in the context of Christian philosophy. His ideas on safeguarding peace, defending against threats, and protecting the innocent and the Christian faith as legitimate reasons for war have made a significant contribution to the Just War theory.
St. Augustine strongly believed that love and peace should always be the purpose behind engaging in war, even if it involves violent actions. He recognized the complexities of human nature and the need for war in certain circumstances to prevent greater evil or promote peace. Therefore, he argued that war could be just, but only if it met specific conditions, such as waging war under legitimate authority, pursuing a just cause like self-defense, and being guided by the right intention, such as establishing a just and peaceful resolution.
St. Augustine's works have established a moral framework that has influenced both theological discourse and political policy for centuries to come, providing a basis for justifying war under certain circumstances.
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Saint Thomas Aquinas, a prominent Christian philosopher and theologian in the Scholastic tradition, built on Augustine's ideas in his work "Summa Theologica." He further developed the concept of a just war and outlined more detailed criteria for it. These included just cause, legitimate authority, and right intention, which became fundamental in later Just War theory.
By combining Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas significantly improved the Just War theory. He established standards that attempted to control the justification and conduct of war. In his seminal book, "Summa Theologica," Aquinas defined three primary premises for a just war.
Firstly, it must be undertaken by a legitimate authority. Secondly, it must have a just reason, such as self-defense or restoring peace. Thirdly, it must be fought with proper intention, not for aggressive or cruel objectives. These principles created an ethical framework that not only governed medieval Christian thinking but also had a significant impact on the development of international humanitarian rules governing warfare.
Hugo Grotius:
Hugo Grotius is widely known as the "Father of International Law" because of his significant contributions to the development of natural law theory. He believed that states possess natural rights, which include the right to self-defense. Grotius argued that nations are bound by natural law in their dealings with other countries, and he established principles for just causes for war, such as self-defense and reparation for harm. He also introduced rules for lawful conduct within war, which included the protection of non-combatants.
Grotius formulated rules for conducting warfare that influenced later international conventions. He greatly influenced Just War theory by transitioning it from a theological perspective to a basis in natural law and international relations. His work de-emphasized the role of divine intervention in human affairs, grounding the justification and conduct of war in legal and moral consensus that transcended religious and national boundaries.
The October 7, 2023 Attack: Context and Implications
On October 7, 2023, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict witnessed a significant escalation. Thousands of Hamas militants launched a massive attack on Israel's southern border, which surpassed in scale and intensity all previous attacks. The level of planning and barbarity indicated that Hamas had adopted a new strategic approach.
This was not a spontaneous uprising but an orchestrated operation. The attack caused significant human casualties and extensive material damage, which only intensified the existing tensions in a region already burdened by decades of historical disputes and political strife.
The Israeli forces were surprised by the ferocity and scale of the attack and responded quickly and decisively. Their primary objective was twofold: to neutralize the immediate threat posed by the Hamas militants and to re-establish a sense of deterrence to discourage similar attacks in the future. However, the rapidity and extent of Israel's response sparked international debate, with many questioning the ethical boundaries of warfare, especially in a conflict as layered and sensitive as the Israeli-Palestinian one.
To fully understand the ramifications of both the Hamas assault and the Israeli retaliation, one must view the events through the lens of the Just War framework. This philosophical doctrine offers a structured means to assess the morality and justification of war, considering principles like rightful intention, proportionality, and the legitimacy of the involved parties. Utilizing this framework will provide a more nuanced understanding of the events of October 7 and the subsequent military and political reactions.
Applying the Principles of Just War Theory to the Current Israel-Hamas War
1. Just Cause:
The principle of "Just Cause" is a fundamental concept in Just War Theory. It states that war can only be justified if it is pursued for reasons of great moral significance. This usually includes situations like defending against an outright aggression, protecting innocent civilians from harm, or rectifying a serious and sustained injustice. The core of this principle is to ensure that wars are not fought for trivial or self-centered reasons but are grounded in ethical considerations that are more important than any individual interests.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The conflict between Israel and Hamas has deep historical roots and involves a variety of issues, including territorial disputes, security concerns, and long-standing grievances. Israel argues that it has a just cause to engage in the conflict because it needs to protect its citizens from rocket attacks, terrorist incursions, and other security threats coming from Gaza.
Israel’s primary argument is that it has the right and duty to safeguard its citizens. On the other hand, Hamas sees its actions as a form of resistance against what they call Israeli occupation. They assert that their struggle is aimed at addressing perceived systemic injustices and defending Palestinian rights and sovereignty. Both sides claim moral justification based on the Just Cause principle, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of the conflict.
2. Legitimate Authority:
The principle of "Legitimate Authority" in Just War Theory emphasizes the importance of ensuring that wars and military engagements are initiated and overseen by entities with the appropriate jurisdiction and mandate. This criterion aims to prevent factions or individuals from waging war arbitrarily or without the consensus of the community they represent. The idea is to ensure that military actions are carried out with a level of responsibility and accountability, stemming from a recognized and valid governing structure. Essentially, this means that wars should only be waged by those who have the legal right and moral responsibility to do so and that they should be accountable for their actions and decisions.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The principle of Legitimate Authority presents different perspectives in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Israel is a recognized sovereign nation with an established government that makes decisions on military actions based on its institutional processes. Therefore, Israel's use of military force is grounded in its status as a sovereign state with a functioning governance structure.
On the other hand, Hamas' claim to legitimate authority is more complicated. While Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, not everyone recognizes it as a legitimate governing authority. Several countries and international entities consider Hamas a terrorist organization, which affects its perception and standing on the international stage. Therefore, although Hamas views itself as a representative body defending Palestinian interests in Gaza, its authority to wage war remains a point of contention, particularly in the eyes of the international community.
3. Limited Objectives and Proportionality:
The limited objectives principle holds that the goals of war should be specific and well-defined, with the ultimate aim of establishing a fair and lasting peace. Proportionality dictates that the amount of force used should be appropriate to the objective, ensuring that excessive or indiscriminate force is avoided, especially when it could harm non-combatants.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The Israel-Hamas conflict presents a complicated situation that requires careful consideration of various principles. Israel aims to protect its people and territory and often responds to threats like rocket launches and tunnel infrastructures by undertaking military operations. However, these actions, such as air strikes and ground incursions, have faced scrutiny and debate regarding their proportionality, especially when they cause civilian casualties in densely populated areas of Gaza. The challenge lies in finding a balance between achieving military objectives and minimizing harm to civilians.
On the other hand, Hamas launches rockets towards Israeli towns and cities, with clear objectives in mind. However, these attacks indiscriminately target population centers and have raised questions concerning the proportionality of the means employed and the broader objectives pursued, particularly considering the potential for civilian harm in Israel. The actions and strategies of both sides highlight the challenges of applying and agreeing upon the principles of limited objectives and proportionality in modern, asymmetric conflicts.
4. Right Intention:
The principle of "Right Intention" in Just War Theory emphasizes that the reasons for going to war must be morally justifiable, and not driven by ulterior or malicious motives. The ultimate goal must always be to re-establish a state of just peace, which ensures that military actions are not used as tools for settling scores, expanding territories, or any other purposes that deviate from achieving a just and lasting peace.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is a long-standing issue that has been characterized by intense violence and deep-seated animosity. The situation is complicated by the fact that both sides claim to have the best intentions, which can make it difficult to assess the sincerity of their actions.
However, when we look at the methods that both parties have used to achieve their goals, as well as the outcomes that have resulted from their actions, it becomes clear that there are serious questions to be asked about the true motivations of each side. This is where impartial analysis becomes crucial, as it provides an objective perspective on the situation and helps to ensure that conflict resolution efforts are transparent and effective.
Ultimately, it is only through the careful examination of all parties' intentions, as well as the outcomes of their actions, that we can hope to achieve a lasting and equitable resolution to this complex and deeply entrenched conflict.
5. Reasonable Chance of Success
According to the principles of Just War Theory, a military engagement must have a reasonable chance of success, meaning that it should have a realistic prospect of achieving its objectives. This principle ensures that lives are not wasted in hopeless endeavors and wars aren't started without clear strategic foresight or merely for symbolism. The idea is based on the belief that military action should be purposeful and strategic, with the potential for actual improvement in the situation compared to inaction.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The Israel-Hamas conflict is complex, with different dynamics of power and success. Israel has advanced military capabilities and usually achieves immediate tactical objectives when it commences operations by targeting specific threats or launching broader operations. Its military superiority allows it to achieve these tactical successes with precision.
On the other hand, Hamas operates from a different strategic framework. Although it is outmatched by the Israeli Defense Forces, it employs methods of asymmetric warfare such as guerrilla-style operations and rocket attacks to achieve strategic victories. The group's actions are often intended to rally support, make political statements, or influence international opinion. While it cannot achieve a conventional military triumph over Israel, its definition of "success" is not necessarily territorial gain or military dominance but could be in terms of political or symbolic victories.
In essence, both entities approach the conflict with distinct metrics of success and leverage their strengths accordingly. This highlights the various interpretations of the "Reasonable Chance of Success" principle in real-world scenarios.
6. Last Resort:
The principle of "Last Resort" in the Just War Theory states that military action should only be taken when all other peaceful options for resolution have been tried and found ineffective. This means that war or military interventions should not be the first choice, but rather the final option when diplomatic and other non-violent methods fail. The objective is to ensure that conflicts are not escalated without proper justification and to emphasize the significance of peaceful resolutions.
Application to the Israel-Hamas Conflict:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's longest-running and most complex conflicts. It is a multifaceted issue that has been ongoing for decades, and it is rooted in a complex web of historical, political, and territorial disputes. The conflict is primarily between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist political organization that governs the Gaza Strip.
Israel's military actions are often portrayed as necessary responses to immediate threats. Its government and military argue that they are acting in self-defense against Hamas, which has launched thousands of rockets into Israel and carried out suicide bombings and other attacks. Israel also argues that it has a right to defend its citizens and to maintain its security in a volatile region.
On the other hand, Hamas views its actions as part of a broader struggle for Palestinian rights. Hamas argues that it is fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression and that its attacks are a response to Israel's military actions and blockade of Gaza. Hamas also argues that it is defending the rights of Palestinians, who have been displaced and oppressed by Israel for decades.
The conflict has led to the loss of thousands of lives, both Israeli and Palestinian, and has caused immense suffering on both sides. Despite numerous attempts at peace negotiations over the years, a lasting solution to the conflict has yet to be found.
Conclusion:
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a complex and enduring dispute that has deep historical, cultural, and political roots. It has far-reaching implications that go beyond the immediate region, affecting international relations, policies, and public opinion.
Using Just War theory as a tool to evaluate the ethical underpinnings of the actions taken in this conflict provides a structured approach. By examining the October 7, 2023 attack and Israel's response, this theory sheds light on the motivations, objectives, and outcomes of the engagement. However, it is challenging to make definitive judgments as the lines between justice, morality, and strategy are often blurred.
Instead of focusing on theoretical considerations, the priority for all parties involved and the international community should be to establish a sustainable path toward peace. Military actions may provide temporary solutions or deterrence, but they are not long-term remedies. A genuine and lasting resolution can only arise from mutual respect, sustained dialogue, and a commitment to understanding and addressing the core grievances of both sides.
The ongoing cycles of violence are a clear indication of the costs of inaction and the need to move beyond entrenched positions. For the sake of future generations, it is crucial to redouble efforts in fostering an environment of trust, collaboration, and mutual coexistence. Only then can the wounds of the past begin to heal, and a peaceful future be envisioned for Israelis and Palestinians.
References
Anscombe, Elizabeth. “War and Murder,” from Richard A. Wasserstrom (ed.), War and Morality, Wadsworth (1970).
Black, I. (2017). Enemies and Neighbors: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017. Atlantic Monthly Press.
Bregman, A. (2002). Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947. Routledge.
Franceschet, A. “Brian Orend, "War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective Philosophy in Review, Vol. 21, no. 3, June 2001, pp. 164-7.
Gelvin, J. L. (2014). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge University Press.
Gunning, J. (2008). Hamas in politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence. Columbia University Press.
Harel, A., & Issacharoff, A. (2004). 34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah, and the War in Lebanon. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hroub, K. (2006). Hamas: A Beginner's Guide. Pluto Press.
Mishal, S., & Sela, A. (2006). The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence. N.Y. Columbia University Press.
Ovendale, R. (2004). The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars (4th ed.). Pearson.
Paskins, B., & Dockrill, M. (1979). The Ethics of War. Duckworth: London.
Richard Norman (1995). Ethics, Killing and War New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Roy, S. (2007). Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Pluto Press.
Tessler, M. (2009). A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2nd ed.). Indiana University Press.
Thomas Nagel “War and Massacre” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (2): 123-144. 1972.
Walzer, M. (1992) Just and Unjust Wars: a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. (New York): Basic Books
Walzer, M. (2015). Just and Unjust Wars (5th ed.). Basic Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment