An opinion about measuring Israel by the Just-War Yardstick
Measuring Israel by the Just-War Yardstick: How International Criminal Court Rules Can Evaluate Israel’s Role in War Crimes
Just-war theory reinforces the human instinct to not only preserve human life but also lament its loss, and to try to find solutions. Israel’s conduct will be judged by other nations and peoples of the world. It will also help determine Israel’s place in history. Hopefully, that will lead the Israeli government to solutions other than war.
The most prominent moral framework that applies is “just war” theory, which has guided Western thought for centuries and forms the intellectual framework for international law on the use of force. Based on works by thinkers ranging from Roman philosophers to modern-day jurists, just-war theory offers a time-honored set of criteria to consider whether and how force should be used — though it is admittedly impossible for any analysis to be absolutely impartial.
While applying these standards to Israel is ultimately a theoretical exercise, a perception that it falls short could have major practical effects, potentially damaging Israel’s diplomatic standing and trade and the world economy while strengthening support for its enemies. If Israel is indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, Israeli soldiers will be arrested and tried in any of the nations that have universal jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, even though Israel does not recognize its jurisdiction.
The Israeli government is well-equipped to have legitimate authority. The government was democratically elected, even if Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition has sought to undermine the checks and balances provided by the Israeli judiciary.
Israeli War on Gaza: Implications for Security, Peace, and Security for the Future of the Intergenerational Dialogue Between Israel and the West
The criterion of net benefit, weighing the gain against the harm, would include the potential gain of removing Hamas from power or at least neutralizing its capacity to attack Israel in the short term. The war might also provide new opportunities for the Palestinian Authority or some other transitional administration to govern Gaza, and eventually free and fair elections. Israel might also be able to rescue the hostages held by Hamas. However, the enormous loss of Palestinian lives will most likely create intergenerational rage against Israel and catalyze recruitment for extremist groups. If Hamas is disarmed and lost control of Gaza, more groups are likely to spring up.
Further, there is a great risk of a wider war, with fire already being exchanged over Israel’s borders with Lebanon and Syria, and escalating violence in the West Bank. Israel could suffer harm to its foreign relations by suspending peace talks with Saudi Arabia and possibly withdrawing from the Abraham Accords which it recently signed with certain Arab states.
Israel has been vague on who might administer Gaza if and when Hamas is ousted, even as it comes under increasing international criticism for the humanitarian crisis and spiraling death toll from its airstrikes and subsequent ground invasion of the enclave. More than 11,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, according to Gazan health officials.
An Israeli attempt to separate Gaza from the West Bank was destined to fail according to a spokesman for Mr. Abbas. In an apparent response to Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks, Mr. Abu Rudeineh said in comments carried by Wafa, the official Palestinian Authority news agency, that “the consolidation of Israel’s occupation in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem would not bring security to anyone.”
More than 200 people were taken as hostages to the Gaza Strip by Hamas when it launched an attack on October 7. Israel aims to bring the hostages back to their homes and dismantle Hamas’s military strength in order to do so.
Asked about a potential hostage deal, Mr. Netanyahu told Meet the Press there “could be” one, but added, “The less I say about it, the more I’ve increased the chances that it materializes.” Talks have been had with a number of people, including the state of Tennessee.
As well as the lack of condemnation, Mr. Netanyahu pointed to the teaching of hatred of Israel to children and monetary payments to assailants convicted of attacks against Israelis — all common Israeli accusations against the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in parts of the occupied West Bank.
In his opinion, the October 7 massacre proved once and for all that Israel does not have security control. It comes back to hit us in the end, and that’s what the West Bank is called by its biblical names.
Establishing a Palestinian state in those areas is the only way of achieving stability, according to Mr. Abu Rudeineh.
The view in the Israeli government is that so long as Mr. Abbas has not directly condemned Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, any agreement to install his authority in Gaza as a replacement for the group would make Mr. Netanyahu look weak in the eyes of many Israelis, according to an Israeli government official who was not authorized to speak openly about internal discussions.
