On Friday 27 September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly. It was an opportunity for GROW to question the notion of the “just war” so popular in current world governance, particularly in the Israeli Prime Minister’s rhetoric against Hamas.
“Bibi’s” “just war”: “Israel wants peace” against “the forces of terror”
The “just war” has been theorised in ancient times by Cicero, and still today enjoys considerable momentum. According to Brian Orend, professor at the University of Waterloo, a list of criteria has emerged from all these approaches to help us understand what makes war ethical.
Above all, a war must respect two conditions (Jus in bellum): micro-proportionality (for example, you cannot retaliate with a nuclear weapon if the enemy’s attack is weaker) and the immunity of non-combatants (prohibition on targeting civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, etc.). These two conditions echo international humanitarian law, which governs the practices and means used during armed conflicts.
In his speech on 27 September, Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) emphasised his respect for the principle of proportionality: “If you hit us, we will hit you”, “Israel was forced to defend itself”. By using this strong vocabulary, the Israeli Prime Minister is putting the Zionist state in the position of victim and presenting its attacks as acts of self-defence.
Additionally to these two criteria, there are six further conditions (Jus ad bellum): the just cause, legitimate authority (recognised and supported by the population), good intention, last resort (is it necessary to exploit diplomatic channels, mediation, negotiation, etc., prior to armed action), reasonable chances of success (the leader must not resort to a suicide mission by his State), and macro-proportionality (the States involved must be of similar power).
Violence at the service of Peace?
Aware of these eight criteria, questions persist: Is war really a sine qua non for Peace? Can the death of thousands, if not millions of people, really be considered just? Although reason is just, is action in itself just?
Once again, the notion of “just war” seems to be a concept whose core lies in the belligerents’ perception of their enemy. In his speech at the UN General Assembly, the Israeli Prime Minister said: “thousands of Hamas-backed terrorists […] have committed unimaginable atrocities, brutally murdering 1,500 people, raping and mutilating women, cutting off men’s heads and burning babies”. How can we fail to see this war as just when we see our enemy as “savage murderers who only wish to destroy us”? This Manichean perception of the Israeli leader feeds a sense of self-defence and the messianic mission of the State of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu went so far as to illustrate his point by displaying a simplistic map of his perception of the Middle East: “the blessing” versus “the curse”.
United Nations, Israel, General debate, 79th session, United Nations, General Assembly, Published on 27 September 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrjutbEpcs
In this way, the concept of a “just war” is a philosophical and ethical notion that provides a framework for analysing foreign interventions, and which is still used today by bellicose leaders whose aim is to bolster a fragile and questionable legitimacy.
