Posted on July 20, 2006 - by Calvin L. Smith

The Israel-Lebanon Crisis: When is War Justified?

Currently, Evangelicals are theologically divided over Israel. Some Reformed Christians argue that God’s covenant with Israel has been dissolved, so that Israel has been replaced with the Church as God’s people (this is known as Replacement Theology). Meanwhile, others, mainly (but not exclusively) Dispensationalists, believe Israel retains a distinct and special place in both God’s heart and eternal plan. In recent years, this debate has moved beyond the theological realm to incorporate also the social and political realities in the Middle East. Within Evangelicalism in some quarters there has been a marked shift away from apoliticism (and also conservatism) towards greater involvement in social affairs, marked by a more vigorous stance on issues relating to social justice. The increasingly bitter Israeli-Palestinian situation has led some Christians to reappraise Israel in light of that conflict, which in turn has drawn support for the replacement position.

In recent years, Evangelical attacks on Israel’s perceived human rights abuses have become more sustained. (In fact, Evangelicalism is quickly becoming polarised over the issue, which in the long term will not do the movement any favours). It does not help that, at times, Israel at the very least gives the impression of causing unnecessary Palestinian suffering. (If you doubt this, consider the views of many Israelis, who are the fiercest critics of some of Israel’s policies). But though I plan to examine this issue some time in the near future, nonetheless today I want to put to one side this long-simmering issue and instead explore Israel’s role in the current Lebanon crisis. Given that replacementist Christians vocally denounce Israeli policies at every opportunity, it is clear the current crisis in Lebanon will also be singled out for that end, further bolstering their claim (they would argue) that Israel is immoral and cannot possibly be a nation that enjoys God’s favour. So today I would like to test the extent to which those sentiments are both rational and justified by examining briefly if the current war in Lebanon is justified.

To do this, I intend to measure Israel’s actions against the so-called Just War principle, which was developed over many centuries by Christian thinkers and theologians, particularly Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. These thinkers laid down a set of criteria which determine whether or not a war is justified. While not every Christian may necessarily agree with every one of the Just War criteria (it would indeed be interesting, for example, to examine how some Old Testament conflicts, particularly during the Conquest, measure up to them), nonetheless it does represent a widely accepted principle across Christendom. As such, it will be a useful model against which to compare and judge Israel’s current actions in Lebanon.

Firstly, then, a Just War must be waged by a legitimate authority such as a government. This helps ensure that a war cannot be started, for example, by individuals seeking to defend (or extend) their own interests, or by a business conglomerate for reasons of gain. The point here is to ensure that war is neither casual nor adventurist, initiated by privateers for their own gain or glory. War is a serious business that causes immense suffering and damage, and as such demands that any decision to execute it is made by a higher, responsible authority. Governments are (or should be) accountable to their electorate, as well as the international community at large, unlike private armies. Moreover, a collective decision to go to war ensures all the options have been considered, as well as giving wiser heads an opportunity to be heard. If a decision to go to war is made by a government, it is far less likely to be taken lightly.

So what of the current crisis in Lebanon? In fact, the Israeli decision to attack Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon was made collectively by a wide-ranging coalition government. Moreover, these leaders were united in their decision to take this action (even though, during the recent Israeli general election, these same leaders were bitter political opponents). Furthermore, this decision by a united Israeli government currently finds almost universal support among the Israeli population as a whole. Thus, Israel’s actions over the past week or so were not based on the decision of a single politician, military leader, or a special interest group. The decision to attack Hezbollah was made collectively by a legitimate authority, and while this alone does not necessarily justify a war, nonetheless it clearly satisfies this particular Just War principle.

On the other hand, consider Hezbollah, which initiated the current conflict. It is not a legitimate authority, neither does it represent a majority of Lebanese (in fact, it has a minority position within the current coalition government there), nor did it have government authority to attack Israel. Thus, here we see a classic example of a war declared by an entity that is not a legitimate authority, and which engaged in this action for its own ends, thus bringing the wrath of Israel upon the entire nation. Hezbollah’s actions demonstrate very clearly how war is best left to governments. Sadly, had the Lebanese government confronted and dealt with Hezbollah and disarmed its private army, as required by two U.N. resolutions, the current situation would likely not have arisen. Some claim the Lebanese government, which only recently has begun to come out from under Syrian domination for many years, was simply too weak to do so. If this is the case, then it is the international community to blame for passing the resolutions, but not then going on to help Lebanon implement them.

A Just War must also be based on a just cause. Here, Augustine highlights two examples that are relevant to the present crisis in Lebanon. Firstly, a government is entitled to defend itself from external attack. Be under no illusion here. Some ten days ago Hezbollah, without provocation, crossed an internationally-recognised border into Israel and started a skirmish that left eight Israeli soldiers dead, as well as kidnapping two more. Hezbollah has also fired rockets into Northern Israel, causing terror and destruction. Such actions simply cannot be ignored, and Hezbollah’s premeditated actions have even provoked exasperation from some parts of the Arab world. Despite some attempts at disinformation to do so, this issue simply cannot be dismissed as a minor incident. Rather, it was a very serious and flagrant violation of international law. One wonders how many other nations (including, incidentally, Syria and Iran, who likely gave their blessing to Hezbollah’s attack) would put up with what Israel has had to endure, whether from Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, or the many hundreds of `crude’ (as if this  somehow makes it acceptable) rockets fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians from Hamas-led Gaza. Israel has every right to defend itself from these external attacks, as recognised by the Just War principle.

Augustine also believed punishing people who have done wrong serves as a just cause for going to war. This is exactly what Israel is doing: punishing (with a view to eliminating, if possible) a terrorist organisation that has failed to disarm, despite two U.N. resolutions, and which seeks to wipe Israel off the map. The problem, of course, is that a largely weak international community is not particularly enthusiastic about enforcing the U.N. resolutions (probably because Hezbollah is not a threat on its own doorstep). Yet Israel lives with this threat daily, even after it has withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon, in a bid to give up land for peace. So, in light of international impotence, it has taken it upon itself to punish the wrongdoers. It is somewhat hypocritical of the international community to recognise Hezbollah as wrongdoers, for which they are condemned, but then to criticise Israel for dealing with the issue it has failed to address.

Also, a war can only be considered just if there is a probability of success. In other words, war cannot be waged if there is little or no hope of it achieving its aims, otherwise it causes untold suffering, misery and hardship for no good reason. So can Israel succeed in destroying, or at the very least neutering Hezbollah? They seem to think so, as does the U.S. and others. To date, it is estimated by various commentators that between 40% and 50% of Hezbollah’s infrastructure, materiel and capabilities have been (in that classic euphemism) `downgraded’. Israel has a clear aim here: to put Hezbollah out of action for good, or failing that, to destroy their capabilities to wage war for the next few years. As long as that aim is achievable, then war is justified. Once this aim looks unlikely to be fulfilled, then war is simply waged for the sake of it, a long drawn out process of attrition that ultimately brings untold suffering upon the civilian population.

A Just War must also be based on the principle of proportionality. Now, it is important that we understand exactly what is meant here. Many people confuse this with the need to employ equal force, that is, more-or-less the same amount of firepower and personnel as that employed by the enemy. Of course, in the theatre of war such an approach is complete nonsense! Wars are meant to be won, which means putting up superior firepower and army numbers to defeat one’s enemy, and in doing so end the war quickly. If such a misguided understanding of proportionality were always employed, no side would ever win a war! There is the issue of excessive force, which I will discuss shortly, but proportionality should be understood as something quite different, in fact a utilitarian argument that seeks to achieve a greater good. The force employed to wage a war against one’s enemy should be proportional to the greater good that can come from it. In other words, when force is employed beyond all proportion to what the war can achieve in the long term, then it has become disproportionate – the greater good falls by the wayside in the face of a greater evil.

At this moment in time, the Israeli response is not disproportionate. (Although this could change. Consider, for example, the Israeli war in Lebanon during 1982-2000). Right now, Israel is indeed using massive firepower to eliminate the threat of Hezbollah. Sadly, innocent civilians have died (I discuss the civilian issue shortly). But all in all, the overall aim is a greater good, namely, to destroy a terrorist organisation that could one day be used as a proxy army by Syria and Iran to attack Israel, which would have no choice but to retaliate far more viciously than at present, which in turn could lead to a massive conflagration that sucks in most of the Middle East. Removing the Hezbollah cancer now is the lesser evil than an all out Middle East war in the medium term that would kill, maim and displace millions.

A Just War must be a last resort. Other avenues ought to have been tried first. Lest anyone think this just happened, or even that events were simply caused by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, they are very much mistaken. This crisis has been brewing in the background for some years. Hezbollah’s actions have been the focus of international scrutiny, while the two U.N. resolutions have gone totally unheeded. Lebanon has not, as required by the U.N., disarmed Hezbollah and taken up its position on the Lebanon-Israel border. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has acted provocatively for years. The international community has wrung its hand nervously, and finally an unchecked and belligerent Hezbollah has attacked Israel. Israel, with nowhere else to go, has retaliated. This was the last resort. Not to do so would have smacked of weakness and would have strengthened the hand of those enemies that seek Israel’s complete annihilation. Israel’s robust response certainly appears to have caught Hezbollah, Iran and Syria off-guard, and hopefully their miscalculation will have taught them dearly to think things through a little more carefully in the future.

Finally, there are ways in which a war must be conducted to be deemed just. Prisoners of war must be treated with respect, while torture is prohibited. At this stage, the lack of a ground war means Israel has taken no prisoners. We do not know how Hamas and Hezbollah are treating the kidnapped soldiers. But the way in which a war is conducted also raises one other very important issue, namely, that it must be aimed at the perpetrators rather than innocent civilians. To date, some 300 Lebanese, mainly civilians, have perished in the Israeli air strikes, while some 30 Israelis have also been killed. So how do we judge Israel’s actions here?

First, it is important to differentiate between Hezbollah’s unashamed aim to kill and terrorise civilians. Their rockets are not aimed at military or strategic targets, they simply consider all Israelis as fair game (even Arab Israelis; yesterday a Hezbollah rocket attack aimed at Nazareth, where much of the population is Arab, killed two young boys, Arab brothers). Meanwhile, Israel is arguably firing upon strategic targets and Hezbollah positions. Tragically, as with all wars (including many this country has waged) innocent civilians nearby are always the first to suffer. In military doctrine terms, this is labelled `collateral damage’, a euphemistic term that completely disguises the very real suffering and emotional distress that will live with the families of the dead and wounded for the rest of their lives. Moreover, all militaries occasionally make spectacular blunders that result in the deaths of many innocent civilians (usually bad intelligence, or more sinisterly, gung-ho and undisciplined soldiers for whom war is little more than a game). We see this in every army in every war. It is disgraceful a reality of war, and Christians who should not ignore or dismiss it.

We should also recognise that Hezbollah has embedded itself within civilian areas, opening itself up to charges of cynicism in seeking to cause and exploit civilian suffering to further its own propaganda war, or else demonstrating unspeakable cowardice (not to say hypocrisy) by hiding among a population it claims to want to protect. Either way, it is a classic insurgency tactic that makes war very messy. Of course, though in the West we baulk at any civilian casualties, Hezbollah has no such qualms, considering any Israeli citizen a valid target. Thus, to date it has fired some 1500 rockets at Israeli cities, towns and villages.

Upon careful consideration, I do not believe at this stage Israel has used excessive force. Rather, several commentators on the news networks have said quite the opposite, that Israel is showing quite remarkable restraint, to date limiting its action to air strikes and occasional cross border skirmishes. However, air strikes alone simply cannot win a war. Their effectiveness is limited, and at some stage there may have to be a ground offensive if Israel is to achieve its military aims. Here is a real conundrum. By waging air strikes alone, Israel risks more and more civilian casualties without achieving her aim. In other words, the war can break the rule of proportionality, so that a greater good is not ultimately achieved, while the human cost spirals out of control. Conversely, a ground invasion of Lebanon risks killing civilians in far greater numbers, yet it also heightens the prospect of ending the war quickly, thus achieving a greater good. Once again, we see the utilitarian nature of the proportionality argument, which in many ways will help to determine how the world views this war.

We as Christians cannot simply ignore the killing of innocent civilians, whether accidental, incidental or through plain incompetence. I fully recognise that much Palestinian suffering has been caused by its own leaders, whether Fatah’s corruption and self-interest, or Hamas’ fanaticism. But if nothing else, Evangelical replacementists have forced us to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long and hard, challenging us not to allow our pro-Israeli theological bias to ignore (or dismiss) social injustice in the case of unnecessary Palestinian suffering. Yet these same replacementists should similarly be challenged not to allow their own theological and political biases to blind them to Israel’s highly justified right to defend herself.

According to the Just War criteria, for the moment at least Israel appears to satisfy most of these principles. Meanwhile, we watch anxiously to see what happens to the civilian population at large. War is an ugly, vile thing, and civilian casualties are unavoidable (I just hope we can be fair here, and not measure Israel against a different criteria than we do our own troops inflicting collateral damage during wars throughout the world). Once Israel begins to inflict massive civilian loses without any observable benefit, then she will lose the moral high ground.

As for Hezbollah, theirs is far from a Just War. They initiated a war without provocation, without the support of a legitimate authority. Together with their sponsors, Hezbollah seek to wipe Israel from the map. They indiscriminately attack civilians, including fellow Arabs. Meanwhile, they hide among the Lebanese civilian population, spouting lies and hatred against Jews and the West. My only hope is that the Christian critics of Israel are similarly vociferous in their criticism of Hezbollah, because if not, they leave themselves wide open to charges of injustice and hypocrisy, the very accusations they level at pro-Israel Chjristians.

© Calvin L. Smith 2006.

ADDENDUM

The day after uploading this post, I received a letter from the Israeli Embassy discussing the issue of Proportionality, which sheds light on their understanding of the concept. To access the letter, visit http://www.midbible.ac.uk/images/stories/proportionality_in_lebanon.pdf