Just Cause or Just War? The Moral and Legal Dilemmas of the Use of Force in the Israel-Hamas Conflict

The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas has sparked a global debate on the legitimacy and morality of the use of force in the conflict. On one hand, Israel claims to be acting in self-defense against the surprise attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023, which killed 1,200 people and took about 240 hostages. On the other hand, Hamas argues that it is resisting the Israeli occupation and blockade of Gaza, which has caused severe humanitarian suffering and violations of human rights for the Palestinians. Both sides accuse each other of committing war crimes and violating international law.

To elucidate the complexities, consider the allegory of the lion and the mouse, where Israel assumes the role of the powerful lion and the mouse represents Hamas. The lion is a powerful and dominant animal, who rules over the forest and has many allies. The mouse is a small and weak creature, who lives in fear and oppression under the lion’s rule. One day, the mouse decides to bite the lion’s paw, hoping to free itself and its fellow mice from the lion’s tyranny. The lion is enraged by this attack, and decides to hunt down and kill the mouse and its friends. The lion unleashes its full force and fury, destroying the mouse’s home and injuring many innocent animals in the process. The mouse tries to fight back, but it is no match for the lion’s strength and weapons. The mouse appeals to the other animals in the forest, asking them to intervene and stop the lion’s aggression. Some animals sympathize with the mouse, and try to persuade the lion to show mercy and restraint. Others side with the lion, and justify its actions as self-defense and deterrence. The rest of the animals are indifferent or afraid, and do nothing to help the mouse or the lion. The war between the lion and the mouse continues, with no end in sight. Both sides suffer losses and damages, and both sides claim to have a just cause and a moral right to use force. But who is really right and who is really wrong? Is there a just cause for either side to resort to violence? Or is this a case of unjust war that should be condemned by the international community? These are the questions that this I will attempt to answer, by applying the moral and legal principles of the just war theory to the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is the dilemma that the story of the lion and the mouse presents.

To answer these questions without giving the historical understanding of what is a just cause or just war is akin to trying to solve a math problem without knowing the basic rules and operations of arithmetic. It is impossible to reach a valid and sound conclusion without having a clear and consistent framework to guide the analysis and evaluation of the arguments and evidence. Just like arithmetic, just war theory is a logical and rational system that can help us to solve problems and reach conclusions. However, unlike arithmetic, just war theory is not a universal and objective truth that can be easily verified and agreed upon given the fact that this is a doctrine of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The just war theory originated with Catholic moral theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, though it has had a variety of different forms over time.

Today, just war theory is divided into three categories, each with its own set of ethical principles:

1. Jus ad bellum: the justice of going to war. This category deals with the conditions under which a state or a group has a right to resort to war. Some of the criteria include having a just cause, a legitimate authority, a right intention, a reasonable chance of success, a proportionality of ends, and a last resort.
2. Jus in bello: the justice in war. This category deals with the conduct of war and the moral rules that should be followed by the parties involved in the war. Some of the criteria include discrimination, proportionality, necessity, humanity, and fair treatment of prisoners of war.
3. Jus post bellum: the justice after war. This category deals with the termination of war and the restoration of peace and justice. Some of the criteria include proportionality, discrimination, compensation, rehabilitation, reconciliation, and punishment.

Using these categories and criteria, we can try to analyze the arguments and evidence of both sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict and see if they meet the standards of just war theory. However, this is not an easy task, as there may be disagreements and ambiguities on how to apply and interpret the principles of just war theory in different contexts and situations. Moreover, just war theory is not the only ethical framework that can be used to evaluate the use of force in the conflict. There may be other perspectives and values that need to be considered as well, such as human rights, international law, humanitarian law, pacifism, realism, etc. Therefore, applying just war theory to the Israel-Hamas conflict may not yield a clear and definitive answer, but rather a range of possible and plausible answers, depending on how one understands and applies the principles and criteria of just war theory.

For example, one of the most important and controversial criteria of jus ad bellum is having a just cause. A just cause is a morally valid reason to go to war, such as self-defense, defense of others, prevention of aggression, protection of human rights, etc. However, different parties may have different interpretations and definitions of what constitutes a just cause, and they may use different sources and methods to justify their claims. For instance, Israel may argue that its just cause is to defend itself and its citizens from the rocket attacks and kidnappings by Hamas, and to deter future aggression and terrorism. Hamas may argue that its just cause is to resist the Israeli occupation and blockade of Gaza, and to liberate the Palestinian people from oppression and injustice. Both sides may appeal to various sources of authority, such as international law, religious texts, historical precedents, moral values, etc. to support their arguments. Therefore, determining who has a just cause in the conflict may not be a simple and straightforward task, but rather a complex and contentious one, that requires careful and critical examination of the arguments and evidence of both sides.

Another example of a challenging and disputed criterion of jus in bello is proportionality. Proportionality is the principle that the use of force in war should be proportional to the military objective and the expected harm, and that excessive and unnecessary violence should be avoided. However, measuring and comparing the proportionality of the use of force by both sides may not be an easy and objective process, but rather a difficult and subjective one, that involves various factors, such as the nature and scale of the violence, the intention and responsibility of the actors, the impact and consequences of the actions, the availability and feasibility of alternatives, etc. For instance, Israel may argue that its use of force is proportional to the threat and damage posed by Hamas, and that it takes precautions and measures to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. Hamas may argue that its use of force is proportional to the suffering and injustice inflicted by Israel, and that it has no other means and options to fight back and defend its rights. Both sides may use different data and methods to assess and evaluate the proportionality of their use of force, such as casualty figures, damage reports, military targets, legal standards, moral norms, etc. Therefore, judging who is proportional in the use of force in the conflict may not be a clear-cut and unanimous decision, but rather a nuanced and controversial one, that requires careful and critical analysis of the data and methods of both sides.

The issue of human shields further complicates the situation. The allegation that Hamas uses human shields to protect its military assets and personnel from Israeli attacks. This is a serious accusation that has been made by Israel and some of its allies, such as the United States and NATO. They claim that Hamas deliberately places its rockets, weapons, tunnels, and command centers in or near civilian areas, such as homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques. They also claim that Hamas prevents or discourages civilians from evacuating areas that Israel warns of impending strikes, and that Hamas fires rockets from densely populated areas, endangering its own people.

If these allegations are true, then Hamas would be violating the principle of distinction, which is one of the core rules of the law of war. This principle requires that parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects, and must direct their attacks only against the former The use of human shields is also prohibited by international humanitarian law, which is the branch of the law of war that deals with the protection of persons who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, such as civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded or sick soldiers The use of human shields is considered a war crime, which is a serious violation of the law of war that entails individual criminal responsibility

However, not everyone agrees that Hamas uses human shields in the way that Israel and its allies allege. Some human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have investigated the claims made by Israel in previous conflicts, such as the 2008–2009 Gaza War and the 2014 Gaza War, and found no evidence that Hamas intentionally used civilians to shield its military assets or personnel from Israeli attacks. They acknowledged that Hamas did launch rockets from near civilian locations, which they condemned as a violation of the principle of precaution, which requires that parties to a conflict must take all feasible measures to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects However, they argued that this did not constitute shielding under international law, which requires proof of intent to use civilians as a means of protection from attack.

They also pointed out that Israel’s accusations of Hamas using human shields did not absolve Israel of its own obligations under the law of war to respect the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. These principles require that Israel must not target civilians or civilian objects, must not cause excessive harm to civilians or civilian objects in relation to the military advantage anticipated, and must take all feasible measures to warn civilians of impending attacks and to spare them from the effects of hostilities. The human rights organizations have accused Israel of violating these principles by using disproportionate and indiscriminate force against Gaza, resulting in high civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure.

This has sparked a lot of controversy and debate over the issue of human shields in the Israel-Hamas conflict. It is not easy to establish the facts and the law in such a complex and sensitive situation, especially when there are conflicting sources of information and evidence. This is why it is important to be critical and cautious when reading or watching media reports on the conflict, and to check the credibility and reliability of the sources.  

These are just a few examples of how applying just war theory to the Israel-Hamas conflict may not result in a single and definitive answer, but rather a spectrum and diversity of answers, depending on how one understands and applies the principles and criteria of just war theory. This does not mean that just war theory is useless or irrelevant, but rather that it is a complex and dynamic framework that requires careful and critical thinking and dialogue. Just war theory can help us to ask the right questions and to explore the different perspectives and values of the parties involved in the conflict. However, just war theory cannot give us the final and absolute answer, but rather it can invite us to reflect and debate on our own position and opinion on the morality and legality of war.

The Israel-Hamas conflict is a complex and controversial case that poses many moral and legal dilemmas for the use of force. Applying the just war theory, which is a doctrine of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable, can help us to assess the arguments and evidence of both sides and to evaluate the legitimacy and morality of their actions. However, just war theory is not a simple and objective framework that can provide a clear and definitive answer, but rather a complex and subjective framework that can generate a range of possible and plausible answers, depending on how one understands and applies the principles and criteria of just war theory. Therefore, it is important to be critical and cautious when using just war theory to analyze the conflict, and to consider other perspectives and values that may be relevant as well, such as human rights, international law, humanitarian law, pacifism, realism, etc. Ultimately, the answer to the question of whether the use of force in the Israel-Hamas conflict is just or unjust may depend on one’s own ethical and legal judgment and evaluation of the situation.

By

Waboga David

(PGDLP Candidate)