One of the most unfortunate (and oft-observed) aspects of the blogosphere is that, in discussing events that require actual expertise to understand, genuine insight tends to get drowned out by soapbox editorializing. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: whenever there’s a flare-up of hostilities, every blogger and his brother instantly becomes (in his own mind, at least) an expert on the conflict, pronouncing authoritatively on the complex history, culture, and politics of the region.
With that disclaimer in mind, here are some thoughts, mostly tangential to the main argument:
–“Proportionality” has not been given a precise definition in many of the debates about the rocket attacks originating from Gaza and the Israeli response. It can mean that the response is roughly equivalent to the initial attack, but this is neither particularly useful, nor is it the sense of “proportionality” usually employed by Just War theory. In JWT, proportionality usually means one of two things: 1) that the means are fitted to the ends; that is, that one uses only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve one’s (legitimate) goals or 2) that the evil–destruction, loss of life, etc.–that results from one’s actions must be less than the evil that those actions are aimed at avoiding. Interestingly, proportionality in the second sense implies that all loss of life (at least of innocents) counts equally in discerning proportionality. There is a golden rule aspect to the reasoning here: in weighing the evils likely to result from going to war versus not going to war, all loss of innocent life (whether “enemy” life or “our” life) has to be weighed equally. In this case, for examples, Hamas and the Israeli government would be required to treat any civilian deaths on the other side as equivalent to civilian deaths on their own side for the purposes of weighing evils. Deciding whether or not they are doing this is left as an exercise for the reader.
–I’m not a pacifist, but citing Jesus’ driving the money changers from the temple has to be the weakest justification for Christian non-pacifism ever devised. Does anyone not think there is a serious moral difference between running someone out of a temple (possibly by using a whip or a cord) without doing them any significant harm and, say, dropping cluster bombs on densely populated areas? Blog commenters the world over need to inter this dubious argument ASAP.
–Along with general historical ignorance, there’s not enough acknowledgment of the role the US has played, and continues to play, in this conflict. The fact that the US subsidizes the Israeli military means that we can’t simply sit back and say that it’s no business of ours to criticize how the Israelis conduct the defense of their country. Now, if we were to stop underwriting the occupation (and siege) I would be in favor of a genuinely neutral or “hands off” stance; but until that time comes, the US has both a genuine interest in the way the Israelis conduct themselves with respect to the Palestinians and a responsibility to try and make sure that they do so in ways that comport with principles of justice.
A Thinking Reed 
The other day, Alan Dershowitz defended the Israeli attacks by saying it was a response to Hamas’ endless rocket attacks which, according to him, since 2001, have killed a dozen people.
In the first week, the Israelis killed just under 400 people.
And at that point they had, by their own account, just begun to kill.
The purpose is sometimes alleged by defenders of the Israeli actions to be to stop Hamas terrorism against Israel, and not merely to punish Hamas for the attacks since 2001.
No means much short of genocide are proportionate to that end in sense (1).
That would be, and the current actions are, disproportionate in sense (2).
That would be my take on the matter.
BTW, some accounts of JWT allow for purely punitive attacks.
Those need to be proportionate in yet another sense to the deed punished.
And the current actions are disproportionate, in that sense, too.
Every one of these points, btw, could be made against the US response to the Al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11.
That makes both our government and the Israeli government guilty of widespread murder.
And it makes those who have defended our and their actions in the press, or urged them, or voted for the parties urging such things, complicit in their crimes against humanity.
Dershowitz, btw, as you probably remember, has urged us to regularize the use of torture with “torture warrants” issued by judges in due form, when needed, following an Israeli practice that I seem to recall reading the Israelis have themselves abandoned
Considering, among other things, the atrocious extent of Israeli overkill in these attacks, could a Just War case be made in defense of Hamas attempts to assassinate Israeli leaders?
Those Israeli leaders, after all, make no secret of doing their damnedest to kill off Hamas leaders, no matter how great the “collateral damage.”
Pingback: Israel and Palestine: Let Us Choose Words Wisely « Suburban Resistance
Proportionality and JWT only work if both sides use it to reduce the cost of life. However, as war itself proves, the cost of life is often the first thing to go out the window with reasoning right behind it.
When you’re fighting terrorists, who have proven time and time again to have no regard for the cost of life, proportionality is wonderful for them as they can then kill more and more enemies. Israel should keep the losses as low as possible but the cat has to chase some mice every now and then or else the house will get taken over.
Interesting discussion…you mention “Proportionality.” It’s worthwhile reading what the Catholic Church says about JWT, for it was the Church after all that developed it. The Church teaches that the following criteria must be met:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Just War Theory brings a lot of good questions into the discussion. I’m not sure its answers are all right, but its questions are great ones.
I wonder how good we are at creating balance sheets, however. Even if we were to value lives on both sides equally, does that mean counting bodies? Having done some recent reading in Virtue Ethics, I wonder if after the Enlightenment we don’t skew our use of Just War Theory in a pragmatic Ben Franklin sort of way. That we should value the lives even of our enemies is a step forward. Moral math might not be.
I don’t offer these questions for immediate application to the current conflict. I’m just glad I don’t have to make those decisions.
Re: virtue theory, I think that’s an excellent point. The premodern versions of just war tended to be more about how a prince acts virtuously in waging war. Our more modern approach to ethics as well as our (more or less) democratic polities could change things considerably.
Also, with regard to Gaius’s post above, punishment as a rationale for war has also largely fallen out of modern versions of JWT, which relates, I think, to the eclipse of a more virtue-centered approach.