Michael Walzer, the prominent political theorist and public intellectual, author of Just and Unjust Wars (first edition 1977), has written a reflection on the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas: Israel Must Defeat Hamas, But Also Must Do More to Limit Civilian Deaths (The New Republic, July 30, 2014 issue).
I found the piece thoughtful and confusing. At the end, I understood that Walzer generally supports Israel's write of self-defense and would like to see Hamas damaged. However, I did not understand what Israel would have to do that it was not already doing to satisfy Walzer.
Here is my summary of the article:
- Yes, Hamas deserves its trouble
- But Israel is responsible for Hamas' resistance
- Yes, Hamas and the present Israeli government are alike in some respects
- But one is worse than the other
- Yes, we should choose Israel
- But so many Palestinians have died or have been wounded!
- In asymmetric wars, the weaker party (Hamas) benefits from civilian losses
- But insurgents (Hamas) cannot make it impossible for the other side (Israel) to fight.
- Solution: We have the doctrine of double effect and the rule of proportionality
- But we cannot agree on the definition of proportionality
- Suggestion: An additional rule--Attackers must minimize civilian casualties by requiring their soldiers to take risks
- [But] we cannot quantify how much risk
- But some risk is necessary
- Yes, Israel is warning civilians
- But warnings are not enough
- Houses where people live are not legitimate targets
- Yes, it is difficult to judge 'who is there' (in a building, for example) from a distance [which puts Israel's army at a disadvantage]
- But [Hamas] is primarily responsible for putting civilians at risk
- We should do what we can to ensure that the death of civilians will not advance [Hamas'] cause
This piece does not help. How does one know when one is doing enough to limit civilian death? How does one know when an Israeli soldier is sufficiently exposing himself to risk? I cannot see Walzer, or anyone else, saying: I'd be satisfied if only 1,000, or 750, or 500 people had died. The most just of wars involve all kinds of suffering.
So Walzer establishes jus ad bellum, Israel's right to war, but cannot establish how one can act in such a way as to satisfy jus in bello (law of war) in this conflict. In theory, Israel's warfare is legitimate, but I don't know how Walzer views it in practice.
Another question: What, in Walzer's view, is it that we can do to ensure that the death of civilians will not advance Hamas' cause?
-- David M. Rosenberg