Just war theory can guide israel
Fighting hamas
There can be no question that Israel has a right to defend itself.
But there are legitimate questions about how it does so. Its many
friends and allies have insisted that it must comply with the
stipulations of international law, and Israel has said it intends to do
so. Its generals argue that to minimise civilian casualties it has
accepted extra risks to its own soldiers. But above it all hangs the key
question: is Israel’s war aim – the elimination of Hamas – achievable?
The principles of the Just War tradition are at the bedrock of
international law and are the moral basis for the legal requirements
that Israel has to comply with. And one of the primary questions that
Just War theory asks each side in any armed conflict is, Do you have a
reasonable prospect of success?
In the case of Hamas the answer
to this question is manifestly and definitively No. It is inconceivable
that Israel could be erased from the map. But can Israel eliminate
Hamas? There is a growing body of opinion, in Israel and outside it,
that this war aim is not achievable either – even if Israel was to
pursue its war on Hamas without regard for civilian casualties. It is in
this context that the calls for a ceasefire make most sense. The
fighting has to stop at some point, and pleas for a ceasefire are a
compassionate response to the agony of the Palestinian people. But a
ceasefire would relieve the pressure on Hamas and allow it to regroup
and prepare to continue its terrorist attacks on Israelis. And the
hostages would remain captive. If the war is not winnable by Israel,
what happens to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in
international law and derived from Just War principles? If Israel’s very
existence was at stake, any means available to prevent its destruction
might be considered proportionate. But despite the genocidal ambitions
of Hamas and its backers, the survival of the state of Israel is not at
stake, even if it suits some Israeli politicians to say so.
There is another question raised by the Just War tradition: were Israel’s actions the “last resort”? Before the massacres of 7 October, Israel’s policy towards Hamas was “containment”. On that day containment failed. But this was not necessarily because the policy was unsound. It was because Israel failed to execute it effectively. Supposedly impregnable barriers around the Gaza Strip were breached, and the Israeli army was too thin on the ground to respond quickly and effectively to the attacks. Hamas had meanwhile been allowed, even secretly encouraged, to grow stronger. This suggests gross negligence at the very least, and public opinion in Israel is pointing the finger at prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Despite Pope Francis coming close to arguing that Just War theory is no longer applicable, the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law do need a firm foundation in moral values. Just War principles provide no quick and easy answers. But without them, what is the world left with? The answer is exemplified by Hamas, and its lawless death cult.
No comments:
Post a Comment