 |
| Truman had no idea that this signature would have such lasting impact. Source: US National Archives |
Dustin presented three traditions of war: realism,
pacifism, and Just War Theory. Realism is when one believes that morality has
no place in combat. Pacifism, of course, is one who argues against all war,
based on moral grounds. Just War Theory is somewhere in between the two; war is
sometimes justifiable, and when it is, we must do everything in our power to
make the battle as moral as possible. In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,
and more generally, I certainly back this theory over the first two. I detest
war and its consequences, but throughout the history of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, it has certainly been necessary. Sometimes.
 |
|
Israeli
Defense Forces propaganda announcing the death
of Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari
Source:
Israeli Defense Forces |
In case you missed it, Israel launched an offensive
against leading Hamas officials in Gaza Wednesday, called“Pillar of Defense.”
The Israeli government cited the cause as 100 Hamas rockets fired into southern
Israel in the preceding five days. Israel’s attack on November 14 killed Hamas
military commander Ahmed Jabari, the nation’s top target for many years. He was
accused of the death of hundreds of Israelis and assisting in the kidnapping of
the infamous Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. The fighting went on for days.
Fortunately, a cease-fire
was finally brokered last week. But massive destruction occurred before the
agreement was reached—lives were lost, homes were destroyed, and the relatively
peaceful status of the conflict was disrupted. This destruction resulted from
both sides committing acts of war. Yet, as Martin Fletcher points out, these
actions were moving them closer to a “wider war neither side wants.”
According to data from Gazan sources as reported in
Israel’s Haaretz
newspaper,“between 94 and 96 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed
between the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense and 6 P.M. Monday, at
least 58 of them civilians and at least 18 of them children.” Additionally,“An
estimated 585 [Gazan] buildings have been damaged in the explosions, including 46
that were totally demolished.” The astonishing numbers of this bout, as well as
the conflict overall, can be seen here.
The sheer number of lives lost and money spent on these wars is astounding.
Each government wishes the other side would just
disappear. But we all know that’s not going to happen. So what exactly is the
purpose of these acts of war? In this case, I honestly can’t morally justify
either side. This “war” is a never-ending cycle, and the endless bloodshed is
immoral when the prospect of peaceful negotiation has been neglected by both
parties. So, according to Just War Theory, I would argue that jus ad bellum (the
right of going to war) is currently being violated.
Jus in bello, or justice in war, has not been
upheld either. The entire Israeli operation was spurred by Hamas rockets, which
target innocent civilians in the south of Israel. Israel isn’t innocent either.
Only a handful of the Palestinians killed in the recent operation were members
of Hamas. The rest were, as Haaretz writes, “farmers, water sellers and the
girl next door."
Massive
destruction following Israeli offensive in Gaza in 2009
Source:
Al
Jazeera English
Finally, we’ll have to wait to see just how jus post bellum (justice after war) can
be assessed. I would argue that until Israel removes their blockade of Gaza and
Hamas stops firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel, neither side will be
fulfilling the “rights vindication” aspect of jus post bellum. Discrimination
will undoubtedly still exist on both sides, which is another violation. I would
be shocked if either side helped the other through compensation or with
rehabilitation.
The
bottom image displays a cartoonist's frustration with Israel's blockade on Gaza.
The top image shows the aftermath of a Hamas rocket on an Israeli store in
Ashdod.
Sources:
Carlos Latuff;
Israeli Defense
Forces
I hope that this recent cease-fire can bring about
lasting change in the conflict, but at this point, I have substantial doubts. I
do not, however, want to make this post completely depressing. I still believe
that one day, both sides can recognize the injustices they have committed and
resolve to work for peace. Here’s a video I made with Israelis, Palestinians,
and Americans who are all working for peace--all it takes is a shared
commitment to jus post bellum.
So,
do both sides violate Just War Theory? Why? Should we even use that theory to
think about war? What can both sides do to prevent violating jus post bellum?
Julie,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I really enjoyed reading your post. I am fascinated by the Just War Theory, and its application to real-life events and conflicts. The controversy surrounding war, and the possibility of even determining war as "just" is something that will be argued for for as long as wars continue to be fought. Especially with the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is increasingly difficult to apply the Just War Theory to wars, especially such conflicts that have lasted for as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To answer your question, I believe that the Just War Theory should be applied to as many wars as possible, but as with this conflict that has lasted so long, when does this Just War Theory lose significance or practicality? I believe a war is just as long as it accomplishes a certain objective for the greater good of the greater amount of people, and eliminates as much harm as possible. The reason this conflict is so difficult to judge is that both sides believe they are justified, and believe that the only way they can work their differences out is through violence. This is where the Just War Theory is violated: the intense reliance on violence as a means of attaining justice. I believe a war can be just and moral if it is kept in moderation, and violence is only used in war as a final means.
In order to prevent violating jus post bellum, I believe both sides should, as you proposed, "give peace a chance." I know this is much easier said than done, and given the two sides' history, will be much more difficult to put into action, I believe that in order for a war to be just, both sides must have the common objective of not destruction or revenge, but Peace. Also, I really enjoyed the video you made, and share your hope that jus post bellum will be attained some day in the future.
Rosemarie,
DeleteThanks for your thorough response! I actually did consider the difficulties presented by the indefinite nature of the conflict. Indeed, it loses practicality if we try to apply it directly in the case of jus post bellum, considering that the recent incident isn't going to be classified as a war. (And speaking of this, I'm wondering who/how it is decided on whether or not to classify something as a war...) In that sense, I suppose we could say that Just War Theory is completely irrelevant to the Conflict as a whole. However, I completely agree with your analysis on the violations of the theory.
In my mind, the theory presents a solid "moral baseline." Sure, the Conflict is certainly not a perfect example for the theory. But using it as this baseline allows us to specifically identify, as you have done, the injustices that have been committed by both sides in a war-like situation.
Thanks again for the feedback!