In discussing the situation in Gaza, the primary vehicle for understanding the morality of the various actors has been the just war theory. The thought is that since militaries engage in wars, therefore the military is engaged in a war. The most common use for troops, when they are brought to action, is not war though. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 is not considered a war even though federal troops were used to suppress the action.
The launching of rockets by Hamas into Israel is considered an act of war by those wishing to assert a defensive war action is being taken by Israel. To add complexity to the situation, the governing authority in Gaza (Hamas) denies that they are sanctioning these actions; they have claimed that the rockets attacks have been done by individuals. Israel for her part has made the legitimate claim that regardless, Hamas (as governing authority) needs to bring these attacks to an end. Like gang violence along either of our borders that at times has involved more advanced weaponry, we give and take grievances with the respective governments, but we don’t consider them acts of war. The other part that is often considered an act of war is Hamas declaration that that they want to see the end of Israel. Certainly that is a warrant for action against Hamas and its members, but it was issued through the government in Gaza, so I don’t believe it should be treated as a State action.
I have attempted to stick to official positions of both sides for the reason that they’re less debatable in actuality, even if one believes the position is feigned. Getting back to our Whiskey Rebellion above, the military engaged in a policing action. This isn’t as familiar to us, because of our laws circumscribing military action against our own people. (This was one impedance to military involvement in Katrina.) In discussing a policing action, the end is order. With war actions, the end is removing a governing authority over either a portion of its territory or its entirety; in defensive actions, it is preserving the same from a governing authority attempting to assert itself. One will note that in both the U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the causes were the removal of the government. Israel’s official policy goal in this action is not to remove the Gaza government, but to kill terrorists residing in Gaza.
Without getting into a debate over prudence, morality places more of an emphasis on being right than due process, so martial justice isn’t intrinsically immoral. Given that we are dealing with one non-State actor, I think the most appropriate designation of the act is an act of martial justice. If we are to accept this categorical designation, then it is difficulty to see how the bombing of a terrorist’s house with his family inside fits the licit side of the equation. On the other hand, the deaths at the school were most likely licit given that the troops were under immediate mortar fire from the school and their ability to account for civilians was most significantly diminished, at least as Israel is presently claiming.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In