Discussions of the ethics of states using violence to gain their ends go back to Ancient Egypt. There are contributions from the “Eastern” religions” but Western conclusions are largely based on the works of St Ambrose (339 – 397) and St Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) (ie not the Archbishop of Canterbury Augustine).
In summary, their conclusions are that for a state to go to war (and to limit the violence in conducting the war)
1. 1. The war should be undertaken by a lawful authority . . .
2. 2. . . .in vindication of an undoubted right that has been infringed.
3. 3. Be a last resort.
4. 4. The good to be achieved should outweigh the evil the war wold involve. .
5. 5. . . . with a reasonable hope of a victory for justice.
6. 6. Be waged with a right intention (this one from Thomas Aquinas, d1274)
7. 7. . . .using methods that are legitimate (de Vitoria, 1483 – 1546)
8. 8. Retaliation should be proportionate to the offence.
In considering the present war in the Middle East there is plenty of scope for argument in several of the above. (Are Hamas and Hezbollah ”lawful authorities? Is the prolongation of the war really for Netanyahu to remain in power and avoid criminal prosecution? - to name but some.)
The outstanding “non-compliance” with Just War theory is to me the lack of proportionality. It is unconscionable that 42 000 people in Gaza, plus 2 000 and rising in Lebanon should be slaughtered as a response to the killing of just over 1 000 on October 7th last year.
Similarly, in the coverage of the anniversary in the last few days such media as have tried to be even handed (eg the BBC) have tended to give equal time to each side: two Israeli families and two Palestinian families. To be proportionate, for every Israeli family’s tragedy we need to hear about the tragedies of 40+ Palestinian families.
As Ian Dunt points out in his newsletter, (Striking 13) we are told the stories of Israeli families because we know their names, have the family photographs and videos, and can hear of their thwarted ambitions. We don’t have the same access to Palestinian stories, not least because the Israeli government does not allow access to Gaza for reporters. But also because there are two many of them.
Post script.
Today's Guardian devotes the front- page headline and then four more complete pages to the agonies of the Israelis, and we wait until until page nine for just one to the agonies of Gaza. No wonder we are now hearing the phrase: "Brown lives don't matter."
themthem: they have become just a number.
You've missed several important facts. Among them:
ReplyDelete1. more than half of those 42,000 kiled in Gaza were active Hamas soldiers, and therefore entirely legitimate targets.
2. they weren't killed 'in response to' the slaughter and rape of over a thousand Israeli citizens; they were killed in order to prevent the slaughter and rape of even more more Israeli citizens, as Hamas was quite clear that those thousand were only a warm-up act and it intended to return over and over again until the job was finished, by which it means, every Israeli has been killed or driven into the sea and the state of Israel no longer exists.
Given that it seems quite plan that killing the members of the armed militia which has shown it is willing and able to kill, rape and abduct your citizens, is in fact not just completely proportionate and legitimate, but in fact is a moral duty for the state of Israel, as the first duty of every state is to protect its citizens.
Also worth remembering are that the 'agonies of Gaza' are entirely the fault of Hamas. Israel withdrew from Gaza, gave it massive amounts of aid and help in development, and allowed it self-governance; and Hamas repaid this by sending wave after wave of suicide bombers into Israel, reaching the rate of two a week. It's only after that that Israel closed the borders of Gaza, and only to prevent the killing of Israeli civilians by suicide bombers.
ReplyDeleteHad Hamas not decided to attack Israel, its entirely possible that by now Gaza would be a flourishing economy with a high standard of living. But they did, and now the people of Gaza are paying the terrible price for Hamas's bloodthirsty vow that they will not rest until Israel is destroyed.
Your look at this from a very blinkered point of view. I suppose you might argue that I do too, but I claim to be closer to the acknowledged facts. You state without qualification that "more than half of those 42,000 kiled (sic) in Gaza were active Hamas soldiers." Well, I haven't counted them and neither have you, but I find this highly unlikely. It is generally accepted that the majority of those killed were women and children. OK I know, women can be soldiers and some under 18 Hamas killers could be classified as "children," but it's hardly like that that there were more than 20 000 of them. And yes, I suppose you might argue that we can't believe the figures provided by Hamas. That enables you, like Donald Trump, to choose the facts that fit you arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt is generally accepted that the majority of those killed were women and children
DeleteIt is not 'generally accepted' at all. That is simply a lie told by Hamas, and the figures provided to back it up don't pass even the most basic statistical scrutiny.
See: https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/
As the poet Alexander Pope so superbly expressed it:
ReplyDelete" 'Tis with our judgement as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own."
As the poet Alexander Pope so superbly expressed it:
Delete" 'Tis with our judgement as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own."
Except it’s not really like that at all, is it? Because as the article I linked to points out, with proof, the Hamas figures are clearly and obviously a lie.
‘Choosing’ to believe them is like ‘choosing’ to believe that the moon landings were faked. It’s not a situation where ‘you have your opinion and I have mine’; it’s one where we know the facts and that fact is that Hamas are liars (as well as murderers and rapists).
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the topic of civilian casualties in Gaza. While I understand that the recent article you referenced dismisses the casualty figures reported by the Gazan Ministry of Health as unreliable, I believe that doing so oversimplifies a complex and tragic situation. Here’s why.
DeleteFirst, the casualties reported by the Gazan Ministry of Health — which you argue are inflated — are based on the immediate aftermath of horrendous events, where real lives are lost, regardless of the source of the data. Each statistic represents a human being—someone's child, mother, father, or friend. Underestimating civilian casualties serves to diminish the impact of the tragedy and the urgent need for a resolution to this conflict.
Furthermore, while the article claims that only 42% of the hospital-registered deaths in early 2024 were women and children, this still reflects an alarming reality. Given that women and children constitute 75% of the population in Gaza, the high percentage of reported casualties among them should be viewed as indicative of a serious humanitarian crisis, not merely a statistical anomaly. This statistic is telling of the circumstances civilians are facing in conflict zones and cannot be dismissed.
An important aspect that must be considered is the cause behind these figures. The systematic blockade of Gaza has created an environment where civilians are trapped and the health infrastructure is crumbling. This blockade restricts not only the movement of goods but also access to crucial medical supplies and humanitarian assistance. It's important to recognize that these conditions contribute to making civilians vulnerable during such escalations. Denying or dismissing the role of systematic oppression in generating these catastrophic casualties misses a vital point of humanitarian inquiry.
Moreover, let's address the idea that the Ministry of Health’s data is simply propaganda. One must consider the broader context in which these reports are generated. In warfare, claiming a civilian casualty rate is politically charged and often serves to highlight suffering rather than endorse a narrative. To undermine casualty figures simply because they originate from a Hamas-controlled area is to ignore the lived experience of those individuals impacted by the violence.
Your argument suggests that relying on media sources rather than hospital reports somehow discredits the numbers. However, the unfortunate reality of warfare is that many casualties will go unreported due to the chaos and destruction present on the ground. It is disingenuous to discount these lives just because they might not have been documented via traditional channels. This dismissal perpetuates a cycle of neglect towards civilian suffering.
Furthermore, framing the conversation around who is responsible for civilian deaths in a way that disproportionately criticizes Hamas while absolving accountability from military actions misses the core contention of the conflict: the urgent need for peace and protection of civilian lives. Both parties share responsibility for the humanitarian repercussions, and our focus should be on preserving lives and advocating for a ceasefire that prioritizes the safety of all civilians.
In conclusion, while scrutiny of casualty figures is essential, it must be done within a compassionate framework that recognizes the profound loss experienced by individuals and families. Casualties in conflict are not abstract numbers; they reflect real suffering. We need to engage with the facts honestly, acknowledge the humanitarian crisis at hand, and strive towards constructive dialogue that emphasizes resolutions over perpetuating conflict. Only then can we find paths toward peace and accountability that respect the dignity of all involved.
First off thank you for not even trying to argue that the Hamas casualty figures are accurate. At least that's honest.
DeleteIndeed we cannot lose sight of the context. The context is that the horror is unfolding in Gaza purely and only because Hamas are a bunch of murderous thugs who want (with the help of Iran) to wipe the state of Israel off the map. We absolutely must not lose sight of that fact.
Furthermore, while the article claims that only 42% of the hospital-registered deaths in early 2024 were women and children, this still reflects an alarming reality. Given that women and children constitute 75% of the population in Gaza, the high percentage of reported casualties among them should be viewed as indicative of a serious humanitarian crisis, not merely a statistical anomaly.
Given that women and children constitute 75% of the population of Gaza, the fact that they are only 42% of casualties shows how amazingly well-targeted Israel's attacks are, and what huge credit Israel deserves for going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, often severely hampering their own strategic and tactical aims to do so.
Of course they cannot eliminate civilian casualties entirely. That is impossible to do in war. To eliminate civilian casualties is is necessary for the war to stop; and therefore we have to again remember that this war started because of Hamas, and it continues because of Hamas. Hamas could stop the war tomorrow by releasing the remaining hostages and laying down their arms. But they won't, because they care more about destroying the state of Israel then that do about saving the lives of their own people in Gaza. Thus the war continues and more innocents die — their blood on Hamas's hands.
The systematic blockade of Gaza has created an environment where civilians are trapped and the health infrastructure is crumbling. This blockade restricts not only the movement of goods but also access to crucial medical supplies and humanitarian assistance. It's important to recognize that these conditions contribute to making civilians vulnerable during such escalations.
It's also important to recognise that the sole reason for these conditions existing is that when there was no blockade of Gaza, Hamas and its predecessor organisations abused the open border to send suicide bombers into Israeli cities, at a rate of two a week at the highest point. Israel didn't decide to blockade Gaza out of cruelty; it did it out of pure self-preservation. Israel has no other choice; there was no other way to end the terror and slaughter of the second intifada.
To undermine casualty figures simply because they originate from a Hamas-controlled area is to ignore the lived experience of those individuals impacted by the violence.
No one is undermining casualty figures simply because they originate from a Hamas-controlled area. The figures are being undermined because they are blatantly false, as you tacitly accept by not even trying to argue that they are true. Because you can't.
Your argument suggests that relying on media sources rather than hospital reports somehow discredits the numbers.
DeleteNo, the fact that the numbers are obviously blatant lies — as explained by the article to which I linked — is what discredits the numbers.
Furthermore, framing the conversation around who is responsible for civilian deaths in a way that disproportionately criticizes Hamas while absolving accountability from military actions misses the core contention of the conflict: the urgent need for peace and protection of civilian lives. Both parties share responsibility for the humanitarian repercussions, and our focus should be on preserving lives and advocating for a ceasefire that prioritizes the safety of all civilians.
Our focus should absolutely be on advocating for a ceasefire that prioritises the safety of all civilians. It is in Hamas's power to obtain such a ceasefire right now by releasing the hostages and giving up their arms so they can no longer threaten atrocities against Israeli citizens. Hamas won't do that, so it is absolutely right to point out that the continuation of hostilities — and the bloodshed that results — is absolutely the responsibility of Hamas, as the Israeli state is only acting out of self-defence and the defence of its citizens.
We need to engage with the facts honestly, acknowledge the humanitarian crisis at hand, and strive towards constructive dialogue that emphasizes resolutions over perpetuating conflict. Only then can we find paths toward peace and accountability that respect the dignity of all involved.
Hamas — a bunch of murderous thugs who killed over a thousand people in October last year, who kidnapped and raped more, who put babies in ovens — need to either surrender or be destroyed, in order to remove the threat to the state of Israel and its citizens. Then and only then — once Israel and its citizens are no longer under threat of being blown up, shot, raped, and kidnapped — can there be a path towards peace and accountability.
To Anonymous 1. Please read this, which seems to me to be balanced. How does it affect your view of the situation?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thearticle.com/palestinians-the-texture-of-injustice
How does it affect your view of the situation?
DeleteUm, it doesn’t? To affect my view of the situation it would, obviously, have to present new information that I had not previously considered; it doesn’t. It also fails to mention much context; for example, it mentions the checkpoints and movement restrictions applied to Gaza but fails to mention that the reason those restrictions exist is to prevent the suicide bombings of the second intifada from killing Israeli citizens.
Further to Anonymous . I have skimmed thought the article you mention. I haven't the times or skills to analyse it thoroughly, but it does have the air of "smokes and mirrors." I suspect that the 70% figure may be an over-estimate but the article admits that some 42% of the casualties are women and children, which is an unconscionable number of innocent people. Your article is from an Israeli source, which is therefore prone to bias. The more independent "BBC Fact Check" verifies that some 10 000 of the 40 000 dead are Hamas "fighters," which leaves another 30 000+ to be accounted for, and the World Health Organisation, which must surely be wholly independent, find the figures put out by the Hamas Health Authority are "trustworthy." So I suspect Alexander Pope is correct. In his era of "fake news", that is more dangerous than ever.
ReplyDeleteI have skimmed thought the article you mention. I haven't the times or skills to analyse it thoroughly, but it does have the air of "smokes and mirrors."
DeleteSo what you are saying is that either you aren't smart enough to understand it, or you are smart enough to understand it but you are worried that if you did understand it then it would disprove the fiction that you want to believe, and you would rather go on believing the lies.
I suspect that the 70% figure may be an over-estimate but the article admits that some 42% of the casualties are women and children, which is an unconscionable number of innocent people.
What on Earth do you think is the usual ratio of civilian to combatant casualties in a war zone? It varies, of course, but in modern wars it can be as many as 9 to one, so 90% civilian casualties; but the lowest, normally, is about 60% civilian casualties.
If Israel really man managed to keep civilian casualties to 42% of the total, that is a truly astounding and massively praiseworthy achievement, and a credit to the precision with which Israel wages war — often, as I pointed out above, to its own tactical and strategic detriment. For example, if you announce which areas you will be bombing in advance, as Israel does, and give civilians a change to evacuate those areas, as Israel does, then of course you give enemy combatants the same chance to get out and to get their materiel and supplies out. From a purely tactical point of view you would be better off attacking by surprise and accepting a higher rate of civilian casualties. But Israel makes the tactically less effective choice, in order to reduce civilian casualties.
Your article is from an Israeli source, which is therefore prone to bias.
It doesn't matter what the source is — that's the genetic fallacy. It only matters whether or not it is correct. Don't criticise the source, criticise the argument — if you can.
The more independent "BBC Fact Check" verifies that some 10 000 of the 40 000 dead are Hamas "fighters," which leaves another 30 000+ to be accounted for,
And what is the BBC's argument for that being the case? If they just claim it with no evidence or argument then you can't trust them, whoever they are. but if they have a good argument and evidence then they must be correct, whoever they are.
Just like in order to make the best judgements orchestras audition people 'blind', so they can't see the player but can only hear the playing, you should judge arguments 'blind', paying no attention to their source but only to how good the argument is or isn't.
and the World Health Organisation, which must surely be wholly independent,
The World Health Organisation is clearly not independent. This is merely an appeal to authority, which is not a good argument, and it's not even a good authority. Again: what matters is not the source of the argument, but the argument. So what is the argument?
find the figures put out by the Hamas Health Authority are "trustworthy."
Where is their argument for why that is the case?
So I suspect Alexander Pope is correct. In his era of "fake news", that is more dangerous than ever.
In the era of 'fake news' surely you would agree that is it all the more important that we use our critical thinking skills to judge arguments on their merits, evaluate critically everything we hear, and do not believe anything simply on the basis of its source.
Sadly few of us have the time or the skills to do the meticulous investigations you suggest on each and every issue. In this modern age we simply have to rely on the sources, and the more "neutral" they are seen to be , the better. Did you check everything in the original article, or did you just accept everything it said as gospel?
ReplyDeleteSadly few of us have the time or the skills to do the meticulous investigations you suggest on each and every issue. In this modern age we simply have to rely on the sources, and the more "neutral" they are seen to be , the better.
DeleteSo basically the BBC could tell you any old rubbish and you’d believe it? At least you admit your gullibility.
Did you check everything in the original article, or did you just accept everything it said as gospel?
I checked out its arguments, yes, and they make mathematical sense.