Israel’s Just War?

BY DANIEL JUPP

Thinking about what constitutes and doesn’t constitute a just war is in fact a very old process. The Egyptians did it, as did the Ancient Greeks and the Romans. We have surviving Egyptian inscriptions telling us why particular Pharaohs were justified in their conquests, and these told us three things. A Pharaoh was allowed to conquer because he was a legitimate authority, because he had a divine mandate as the King-Priest descended from the Gods and acted as their representative on Earth, and because the Egyptian sense of order, hierarchy and justice was more developed than the justice of barbarian peoples.

Whilst much of the ancient ‘I have a god given right’ thinking has been discarded as a serious justification of war in the modern world, and while the Egyptian justifications are ultimately more theological than philosophic, we actually still see an Egyptian influence on our modern theories of ‘just war’. Like the Egyptians, we see legitimate authority as a factor which makes the justice of a conflict more evident. We distinguish for example between an elected government with international recognition as the legitimate authority in a nation and unelected groups seeking to gain power through violence and terror.

Aristotle wrote at length about what constitutes a just war. Cicero did too, and in fact it’s probably quicker to list Romans and Greeks who did not discuss the concept of just war than it is to list those who did. Confucianism tackles the definition of a just and unjust war, at length, as do the great Hindu epics. Saint Thomas Aquinas and other Christian scholars drew on Classical sources and extended them with equally lengthy Christian commentaries on what constitutes a just conflict.

Yet what do we find in the opinions given on modern conflict, in modern, mainstream sources?

We find that where once any opinion expressed would have been buttressed by references to historical discussions of the same topic, commentators today seem to prefer to talk in a little bubble of this moment, with few rules to draw on and little referencing of just war theory at all.

Proponents of just war theory look for four things in the decision to go to war. These are:

1. Competent authority. The war may only be declared by a duly constituted public authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice.
2. Probability of success. The war is only rational and just if there are rational and just aims that can be achieved. Otherwise with no hope of success the war is inflicting pointless casualties and futile destruction.
3. Last resort. The war is not one entered into eagerly, as the first choice of the group declaring war. It is forced on that group or nation by necessity, and other efforts to achieve the aims of the war (like diplomacy) have come before, or are already proven to be futile.
4. Just cause. The war must be conducted to protect life, secure borders, respond to a grave evil inflicted on a people or prevent future evils. Its aim should not be a purely selfish one such as capturing resources or enslaving a foreign population.

Similarly there are five characteristics or questions to answer when discussing the prosecution of a war and whether that prosecution remains just. These are:

1. Distinction. The conduct of the just war distinguishes between combatants and civilians, between legitimate and illegitimate targets, and attempts to protect civilian life as much as is feasible for a successful prosecution of the war. The just force does not deliberately target civilians solely to cause terror or achieve some kind of victory, but aims first and foremost at enemy combatants. Even with those, the just force recognises the difference between a combatant who has surrendered and one who has not.
2. Proportionality. The just war is a response to injustice, but may not inflict measures which are excessively unjust themselves. This does not mean that the number of casualties must match and that any discrepancy proves injustice. It simply means that savagely brutal reprisals that serve no legitimate military purpose are indicators of an unjust war. Civilian casualties caused by a legitimate military aim, where civilian casualties are not the aim, are a consequence of the war but not a thing which renders the war unjust. Proportionality cannot be judged properly without reference to the aims as well as the consequences of any military engagement.
3. Military necessity. There must be some actual rational gain anticipated from the action undertaken, a clear military objective that speeds the resolution of the conflict. This limits random and sadistic actions and can be viewed as a moral good if it leads to a swifter resolution and therefore fewer casualties than would occur otherwise.
4. Fair treatment of prisoners of war. In other words, the distinction already applied between active and captured combatants must recognise when those prisoners are at the mercy of the capturing force, and the capturing force has a moral duty to act in a civilised and restrained manner towards those prisoners. Their helplessness should not be used to abuse, torture or kill them, and their basic needs should be met even as their freedoms are necessarily restricted. Punishments must follow a recognised legal process, as well as their general treatment being subject to some code of conduct (such as the Geneva Convention).
5. No means malum in se. That is, no method of war should be used that is itself recognised as an evil thing, regardless of statute. This includes terrorism, rape and torture (especially of the innocent and non-combatant). It also includes the use of weapons that have been judged as indiscriminately and unnecessarily cruel (poison gas attacks, for example, or biological weapons).

Now let us apply these criteria to both Hamas and Israel. Which side follows these features of a just war, and which does not?

1. Israel is a democracy with a duly elected government. Whether you support that government and its actions or not, it is an existing, recognised nation with the right to defend itself. It has a long and historic past, rendering claims of ‘settler’ and ‘colonialism’ as historically ignorant buffoonery. Even in its modern incarnation, its creation was recognised as morally legitimate by the duly constituted legal authorities of the period, including the United Nations. Hamas, by contrast, is recognised as a terrorist organisation. They won an election, but they murdered and purged opposition parties and they torture and kill Palestinians who oppose them. They have not conducted any elections for a long time, and any elections they did conduct would not be free and fair ones. Therefore Israel is a duly constituted authority, and Hamas is not.
2. Israel has aims that are limited and rational. It wishes to exist as an independent nation and protect its citizens from terrorism. If surrounding nations and the Palestinians abandoned support of terrorism and commission of terrorism, these aims could be achieved. They are difficult due to the attitude of the opponents of Israel, not due to the implausibility or irrationality of the aims themselves. Hamas, by contrast, aims at the complete destruction of a militarily superior opponent, and the eradication of the Jewish people entirely from the Middle East. Indeed, it has a genocidal charter making this aim its central aim. Hamas leaders have expressed the desire for the global eradication of Jews. This is not only obviously an evil aim it is also (thankfully) likely to be an unrealisable aim. Israel therefore has rational grounds to believe it can win, and Hamas does not.
3. Any familiarity with the history of the region shows that violence is the first resort of Hamas, and the last resort of Israel. From the formation of Israel onwards, virtually every war, conflict or stage of conflict has been initiated by Hamas and its allies or similar organisations, including surrounding Arab nations. Israel has historically accepted proposed diplomatic solutions. It has made efforts to meet Arab and Palestinian requirements (the non genocidal ones). It has removed Israeli families from disputed regions. It has attended peace conferences. It has agreed solutions which would provide for a functional Palestinian state, notably under a plan crafted in the Clinton era. It has withdrawn from areas like Gaza, despite its own security likely being enhanced by control of that area. Again and again terrorist activities have been the cause of renewed conflict, not initiatory Israeli actions. By contrast Hamas and similar Palestinian terrorist organisations have broken countless ceasefires. They continually fire rockets into Israel until Israel responds, and they murder Israeli civilians at every opportunity. They have refused to accept or prioritise diplomatic solutions for over 70 years, and have continued terrorist activities whilst negotiating. They have prioritised stockpiling weapons, building tunnels, and funding terrorism over their own people and economy, as well as over peace. Therefore Israel has made repeated diplomatic efforts, which Hamas and others continually reject by preferring terrorist methods to secure an unrealisable and genocidal ‘total victory’.
4. For a cause of war to be just, it must be real. If we claim that war is due to the suffering inflicted on our people, we cannot ourselves be responsible for that suffering. If we claim our war is in response to an injustice, it must be an injustice we can realistically blame on our opponent, or on those we attack. In other words, there must be some present guilty party, rather than an ancient grievance, for our claims to be relevant and rational. Continuing a war for 70 or more years against a settled reality is objectively insane. Blaming a modern government or populace for events decided by other people before any of the current people you are attacking were born is objectively insane. But this is what the Palestinian cause does. It is only slightly more rational, now, for Palestinians to still be fighting against the modern existence of Israel than it would be for the British to launch an attack to reclaim Calais, or for the British to attack the Danes today in response to the Viking crimes of the 8th and 9th centuries. There comes a point where the only sane response is the acceptance of a situation as it exists today. And your claims of suffering even today need to be real ones. If you massively exaggerate them, when you have caused them and when others can compare your claims to reality, you are the unjust party. This applies to ludicrous claims of Israeli genocide when the Palestinian population has been one of the fastest growing in the world, and to claims such as that the restrictions only needed because of Palestinian terrorism have created the ‘world’s largest prison’. If we can see traffic of goods and people into and out of this ‘prison’, and five star hotels within it, with only measures designed to prevent suicide bombing and weapons shipments limiting that region, we should dismiss those making these false claims. Therefore the Israelis, in responding to terrorism, have a just and rational cause, whereas Hamas and the Palestinians, in responding to ancient grievance or measures that only exist because of their actions, do not.
5. The Israelis distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between captured combatants (prisoners) and active combatants. The Israelis warn civilian populations before bombing areas, and aim solely at militarily justifiable targets. Hamas use suicide bombers and indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians. The Israelis have supplied medicine and treatment to wounded enemies and wounded civilians. Hamas does not. The Israelis have recognised rules of conduct and a legal system that will address atrocities and crimes. Hamas does not. Hamas executes, rapes and tortures helpless civilians. The Israelis try to limit civilian casualties. Hamas tries to maximise civilian casualties, both Israeli and Palestinian. Hamas use civilians as human shields, the Israelis do not. High Palestinian civilian casualties are the result of this Hamas human shield policy, and of Hamas terrorism requiring an Israeli military response. Therefore Israel obeys the just war rule of distinction, and Hamas as a terrorist organisation targeting civilians and using civilians as a human shield does not.
6. When we talk about proportionality, this is the most misapplied and distorted discussion of all. Proportionality does not mean the side with the higher civilian casualties is just, and the side with the fewer is unjust. It means a side should not seek something like the mass extinction of the enemy, or reprisals that feature mass executions of the innocent. It is defined in international law, and allows for civilian casualties if these are not the intent of a military action. Morally, we can ask ourselves too what exactly should be considered proportionate to genocidal aims combined with terrorist atrocities of the appalling savagery we saw in the October 7th attacks. What is a proportionate response to deliberately burning civilian infants alive, or cutting off a woman’s breast as you are gang raping her? A true moral judgement recognises that a severe response to such events as these is MORE moral than no response. Since Israel still takes efforts to limit civilian casualties, the response to such atrocity is entirely justified. We can also ask if gang raping innocent women and children to death is a proportionate response to a false feeling that the creation of a modern state several generations ago harms you. Israeli actions have been restrained and therefore proportionate, whilst Hamas ones were unrestrained savagery and therefore disproportionate.
7. There was no military necessity to October 7th. It gained no rational military objective. This is true of all terrorism. It was purely for sadism and terror. Whereas eliminating a Hamas capacity to repeat such actions is a clear and rational military aim. Therefore Israel can point to clear military aims, and Hamas can only point to inchoate genocidal hatred as the motivator of its actions.
8. It should be obvious to everyone that Israel takes combatant prisoners, whereas Hamas takes civilian hostages. The treatment of hostages by Hamas breaks all moral standards of a just war. There is no evidence of such mass mistreatment of even enemy combatants by Israel. Victims of Hamas hostage taking have spoken about witnessing the rape and execution of other civilian captives. These claims cannot be accurately made against Israeli forces. As previously mentioned, Israel provides modern medical treatment of the wounded. Hamas offered a vet performing surgery without anaesthetic on a wounded civilian hostage, and that was a rare case of its better actions. Israel treats prisoners fairly, Hamas does not.
9. The discussion of the means of war is as distorted as the discussion of proportionality. It is not true that Israel targets civilians. It is not true that Israel slaughters civilians. It is not true that Israel takes no measures to reduce civilian casualties. It is not true that Israel is committing genocide. It is not true that targeted military bombing strikes against terrorist sites are examples of indiscriminate killing. Anyone investigating the matter can find countless examples of Israeli forces refusing attack opportunities when civilian presence is detected prior to the attack. All this contrasts with a terrorist organisation that seeks to avoid engagement with military forces and solely concentrate on attacking civilian targets in the most brutal manner imaginable. October 7th did not target any military installation. It targeted families and festival goers. Hamas use methods which are themselves by definition evil, including mass rape and torture. Anyone believing that Israel does the same is a fantasist. Therefore Israel is just in its war, and Hamas is objectively evil by any sane moral criteria.

Daniel Jupp is the author of A Gift for Treason: The Cultural Marxist Assault on Western Civilisation, which was published in 2019. He has had previous articles published by Spiked, The Spectator and Politicalite, and is a married father of two from Essex. Daniel’s SubStack is available here.