A few weeks ago in section, we discussed Michael Walzer's
three arguments considering the morality of war. His claim was that there are a
set of rules regarding justice in going to war, justice in war, and justice after
war. Justice in going to war, or Jus ad
bellum, outlines specific necessary reasons that must exist before a country
decides to start a war. He argues the country must have just cause, right
intentions, proper authority and public declaration of war and a probability of
success. He also says war must be the last resort and must be a proportional
response. Although the stipulations to enter war are clearly defined, what
constitutes a "war" and when is it ok to go against this set of
rules?
 |
| Israelis get down as a rocket from Gaza was intercepted before it could land source: yahoo.com |
These questions regarding the morality of war have recently
arisen in the conflict occurring between Israel and Palestinians living in the
Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip is a much smaller offset of Israel and the
conditions aren't terrific, as Israel does not allow resources to be brought in
for fear of weapon smuggling. Nonetheless, government in Gaza has been firing
rockets into Israel on a consistent basis, with a recent escalation. This is
facilitated by the governing organization Hamas, which is also considered to be
a terrorist organization. While these rockets aren't of the strongest
technology and usually do not cause much damage, Israel has been enduring these
attacks and decided to hit back hard. Immediately following the attack, Israel
became under fire and labeled as unfairly killing innocent civilians of Gaza,
although it was a provoked attack.
Is Israel justified in its attack? Does a single bomb
dropping or offensive attack mean War? Do the same rules apply? After
withstanding years of rockets flying into Israel from the Gaza strip, mainly
sent by the terrorist organization Hamas, Israel chose to retaliate with harsh
air strikes that were responsible for some civilians dead. Does this mean war
has begun and is subject to the rules of justice in war? Every situation is
different, and sometimes war begins without planning in advance or going through the
stipulations of jus ad bellum, but is necessary nonetheless, as is the case in Israel today.
 |
| Explosion in Gaza by Israeli rocket source: cnn.com |
To some, Israel's attack may not seem proportional, which is
one of the stipulations for jus ad bellum. After being hit with some rockets,
Israel bombarded Gaza with an airstrike and many fear a pending ground
invasion. This is where I disagree with jus ad bellum. The attacks from Israel
may not be proportional to the attacks to Israel, but are necessary. If wars
did begin in proportional terms, they would seemingly never end. Israel has
every right to fully attack Hamas to protect itself, even if Hamas has yet to
majorly hurt Israel with its rockets. Additionally, Walzer's argument of Jus ad
bellum does not take different circumstances into account. Israel is the only
democratic nation in the Middle East, and the ruling party of Gaza, Hamas, is a
known terrorist group. Israel should not have to justify beginning a war with a
terrorist organization that outwardly calls for Israel's destruction.
You bring about an interesting argument of Waltzer's Jus ad Bellum. I specifically like your argument that Waltzer does not consider all circumstances in Jus ad Bellum. If leaders of countries always only considered responding to attacks proportionally, they would never be able to protect their country and thus would continue to receive attacks.
ReplyDeleteWhile very controversial, an example of this could be seen in the 9/11 attacks. Going to war was not proportional to the attacks on 9/11, however, it was necessary to strike down terrorist efforts and defer others from attempting similar attacks.
Alex, I really liked your post, and I agree with almost everything you said. I, like the person who commented above me, really like your argument of why Walzer doesn't include everything that he should with regards to Jus ad Bellum. I think that Walzer gives us a great outline for when we should go to war, how we should conduct ourselves in war, and how we should conduct ourselves after war, but not all theories come without exceptions. I completely agree that Israel was justified in their actions. The biggest difference in this case is the fact that, like you mentioned, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they are voluntarily sending rockets at Israel. Does it make sense that because Hamas has fired exactly 100 rockets, that Israel should only be able to fire exactly 100 rockets back? Especially in a situation where Hamas is initiating the violence and publicly admits to wanting the destruction of Israel, I don't think it's fair to limit what Israel does in order to protect themselves. The only question that I have is that at the end of the first paragraph, you asked the question, "What constitutes a 'war'?". I would've liked to hear what you think constitutes a war. In my opinion, I don't think we have to wait until one country declares war on another country. I think that a real war happens when two different nations, groups of people, or groups of nations, are both trying to cause the other harm. I think war and the declaration of war are two separate things. Do you agree? Or do you have a different view about the definition of war?
ReplyDelete