The Case For Israel: Just War Against Hamas

The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas has sparked a heated debate about the ethics and legality of Israel's military actions. Some argue that Israel's response was excessive and disproportionate, while others maintain that it was a necessary and justified response to Hamas's rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas

by Mark R. Amstutz

4.3 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	701 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	253 pages
Lending	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported

FREE

In this article, we will explore the case for Israel's just war against Hamas. We will begin by examining the principles of just war theory, and then we will apply these principles to the specific case of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Just War Theory

Just war theory is a body of ethical and legal principles that governs the use of military force. It was developed over centuries by theologians, philosophers, and legal scholars, and it has been used to justify and condemn wars throughout history.

The three central principles of just war theory are:

1. Jus ad bellum (justice of the war): This principle governs the decision to go to war. It asks whether the war is being fought for a just cause, whether it is a last resort, and whether the expected benefits of the war outweigh the expected costs.
2. Jus in bello (justice in war): This principle governs the conduct of war. It asks whether the war is being fought in a just manner, whether the means used to fight the war are proportionate to the ends sought, and whether the war is being fought with discrimination.
3. Jus post bellum (justice after war): This principle governs the aftermath of war. It asks whether the war has been fought to a just , whether the peace settlement is just, and whether the war has been followed by a just reconstruction process.

The Case For Israel's Just War Against Hamas

Now that we have examined the principles of just war theory, we can apply them to the specific case of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Jus ad bellum

The first question we must ask is whether Israel's war against Hamas was justified. To answer this question, we must consider the following factors:

• The just cause: Israel's war against Hamas was fought to defend its citizens from Hamas's rocket attacks. This is a just cause, as every state has the right to defend itself from attack.
• The last resort: Israel did not go to war against Hamas until after it had exhausted all other options, including diplomacy and sanctions. This suggests that war was a last resort.
• The proportionality: Israel's response to Hamas's rocket attacks was proportionate to the threat posed by Hamas. Hamas's rockets were indiscriminate and caused significant damage to Israeli civilians and infrastructure.

Based on these factors, we can conclude that Israel's war against Hamas was justified under the principles of just war theory.

Jus in bello

The next question we must ask is whether Israel fought its war against Hamas in a just manner. To answer this question, we must consider the following factors:

• The proportionality: Israel's use of force was proportionate to the threat posed by Hamas. Hamas's rockets were indiscriminate and caused significant damage to Israeli civilians and infrastructure. Israel's response was designed to minimize civilian casualties, and it did not target civilians indiscriminately.
• The discrimination: Israel made every effort to discriminate between combatants and civilians. It warned civilians of impending attacks, and it took steps to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas, on the other hand, deliberately targeted civilians with its rockets.

Based on these factors, we can conclude that Israel fought its war against Hamas in a just manner under the principles of just war theory.

Jus post bellum

The final question we must ask is whether Israel's war against Hamas was followed by a just peace settlement. To answer this question, we must consider the following factors:

• The just : Israel's war against Hamas ended with a ceasefire agreement that was negotiated by Egypt. The ceasefire agreement has held for several years, and it has brought a measure of peace and stability to the region.
• The just peace settlement: The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is a just peace settlement because it is fair to both sides. It provides for the security of Israel's citizens and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.
• The just reconstruction process: Israel has provided financial assistance to Gaza to help rebuild the infrastructure that was damaged during the war. Israel has also worked with international organizations to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.

Based on these factors, we can conclude that Israel's war against Hamas was followed by a just peace settlement under the principles of just war theory.

In this article, we have examined the case for Israel's just war against Hamas. We have found that Israel's war against Hamas was justified under the principles of just war theory, that it was fought in a just manner, and that it was followed by a just peace settlement.

The Israel-Hamas conflict is a complex and tragic one. However, it is important to remember that Israel has the right to defend itself from attack, and that its war against Hamas was a just war under the principles of international law.

Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas

by Mark R. Amstutz

4.3 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	701 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	253 pages
Lending	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported

FREE