We’ve become lazy in the West. I’m not referring to a lack of exercise or the obesity epidemic, though both are real. I’m talking about intellectual laziness, specifically as it pertains to topics such as civic responsibility, morality, and the function of government. We no longer learn and understand the importance of these topics so much as have ideological positions force-fed to us by journalists, politicians, and teachers who, having been ideologically captured themselves, are capable a of little more than repeating phrases they themselves don’t fully understand. The assault on free speech by supporters of “hate speech” laws is a perfect example as is the rise in popularity of socialism and “wealth taxes”, especially among the young. These demonstrate that whoever can get to the young first will likely indoctrinate them for years to come if not the rest of their lives. Aristotle is alleged to have said “give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man” but today it might more appropriately be updated for universities as “send us your child and we’ll send you back a Marxist.” Nowhere is the failure of the educations system and prevalence of lazy thinking more apparent than in the debate regarding the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and the ongoing “campus occupations.”
I’ll be honest with you, I feel nothing but disdain for the student protests, they seem little more than the selfish and childish actions of people filled with a sense of moral superiority and little, if any, knowledge of history much less an understanding of the complexities of life. They are members of the “lazy left,” indoctrinated into their beliefs about “decolonization,” “white supremacy,” and the evils of the West to such an extent that they shout antisemitic statements, not because they necessarily believe them, but because they are too lazy to find out what the words mean (“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not a call for all people to live together in peace. A simple Google search would show them this). Despite this, I am becoming uncomfortable with the extent and length of the ongoing war. My first inclinations is to do what I just criticized, lazily adopt the position of what “my side” thinks. Instead, I’ve begun asking myself difficult questions: Was the Israeli attack justified When should the attacks stop? Can the deaths of innocents be justified to ensure an enemy is defeated? And of course, “who really is in the right here?”
Just War Tradition
We are not the first people to wrestle with the morality of war. The concept of the “just war” has a history dating back to ancient Egypt and has long been debated in Western and Christian philosophy. As many great minds have debated the concept for millennia, it may be illuminating to explore their thoughts on the matter to see if we can apply their wisdom to what we are currently witnessing in the Middle East.
While the Western concepts of just war have their origins in Ancient Greece and Rome, the adoption of Christianity across Europe dictates that an examination of Christian theory is a more appropriate place to start and that begins with Saint Augustine (13 November 354 – 28 August 430). Augustine did not forbid war but privileged the concept of “right intention,” which demands that a “state must only fight out of necessity as well as limit death, destruction, and harm, with a true and lasting peace as the actual aim of such a war.” Thus, just war covers ad bellum (right to go to war), in bello (right conduct in war), and post bellum (justice after war).
"True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."
"We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
While many philosophers have expanded on Augustine’s work, Saint Thomas Acquinas (c. 1225 – 7 March 1274) provides society with the basis for determining the justification for war. Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip must be measured against three requirements:
War must be fought with the authority of “the sovereign.”
Sovereignty implies statehood which in the modern world means that authority conducting the war be internationally recognized as the government of the state. The issue of legitimacy is complicated in the current conflict. While many states do not recognize Israel, Palestine did as part of the Oslo Accords, and Israel is a member of the United Nations so by the majority of standards Israel is the legitimate government of the territory and state. The legitimacy of Palestine and Hamas is more complicated. As is the case with Israel, many nations recognize the State of Palestine, but this is complicated by the internal political divisions within the country which saw Hamas take control of the Gaza strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007. However, the justifications of Israel’s actions rest on its legitimacy not Hamas’.
There must be a just cause, “namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Hamas’ October 7th attacks on civilians and taking of hostages, justify Israel’s response.
There must be “rightful intention.” Wars must not be fought “for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."
Once again, the evidence points to Israel waging a just war. While the history of the region since Israel was founded is complicated, Israel was attacked on October 7th and Hamas has taken hostages and called for the state of Israel to be eradicated. There clearly can be no longstanding peace while the organization retains the ability to fight. Moreover, it is reasonable to argue that the Palestinian people themselves would benefit from the destruction of Hamas. Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields and from this we can surmise that the Palestinian people would be better off if Hamas ceased to exist. While there have been complaints of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinian civilians prior to the war, these do not rise to the level of the abuse that their own government is subjecting them to.
By AMK1211 - This file was derived from: BlankMap-World8.svg, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67827249
By Night w, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18142310
Not content with the three previous requirements, Aquinas raised the following qualifying conditions for a just war:
It must be the last resort.
Hamas’s continued call for the eradication of Israel points to this being a war of last resort.
It must have a probability of success.
Israel’s state aim is the eradication of Hamas. Is this possible? It depends. Certainly, putting a probability on it would be difficult, however, killing or capturing every last member of Hamas need not be the goal. The destruction of Hamas as a fighting force or the unconditional surrender of its leaders cannot be ruled out as a possibility.
It must be appropriately proportional.
“Proportionality” is a difficult and subjective concept. The principle of proportionality under the Geneva Convention “states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.” The question is of course, what qualifies as “excessive?” Given the vagueness of this definition, it is not possible to assess the current conflict against this requirement.
Non-combatants must be respected. Civilian casualties, while foreseeable, cannot be intended and measures must be taken to minimize them.
Minimizing civilian casualties is another difficult requirement to assess. Israel has warned civilians on many occasions (ex. here and here) to evacuate areas prior to attacks. However warning civilians away does not mean they will or can evacuate prior to an attack. The situation is made more difficult by Hamas’ strategy of using civilians as human shields requiring the Israeli Defense Force the chose between allowing Hamas to attack with impunity or killing civilians in order to destroy Hamas’ ability to fight.
Conclusion
While it is impossible to determine if the eventual peace will be just, it is clear that Israel attack was justified, at least based on a reading of Saints Augustine and Thomas Acquinas. Just or not, we should hope for a swift end to the conflict but how and when it will end remain open questions. Recent history tells us that, unless it expands to include other nations, it will likely end in one of three ways, Israel will achieve its aims, it will exhaust itself or otherwise lose the will to continue the fight, or peace will be enforced from the outside, either by the UN or by the United States. “When it should end” is easier to answer. Social Contract theory, while not the only theory of government, argues that citizens “surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.” One of those rights must be the right to life and as Hamas holds themselves up as the legitimate authority in Gaza, it is the responsibility of Hamas to protect its citizens which it can only do by surrendering immediately.
My family and I don’t see eye to eye on this conflict. Your analysis organizes the argument and puts it in a way that makes sense. I just wish I had come across it last week when we got together and butted heads about it-again! 🫤. I don’t support war, but there is a time for it, to right the wrongs. I believe that if Hamas is not rendered completely incapable of conducting another attack, then the war would be lost. It’s uncanny how evil works. Very sad.
In your alleged mind the whole shebang began on 10/7, never mind that Israel has been killing Palestinians to steal their land for 75 years.
Let’s look down our noses at college kids for the less than scholarly idealism and let’s steeple our fingers and make intelligent-sounding noises about Just War and try to pass off muddy thinking as nuance.