Israel - Hezbollah is it just?
The topic that comes to mind most frequently as of late is the Israeli - Hezbollah confrontation.
First off, the abduction of the Israeli soldiers was wrong. Their is no valid way to justify this action. This was evil pure and simple.
It is the Israeli response that concerns me the most. Not so much their right to defend its citizenry but rather the excessive use of force and lack of regard for the civilian population.
As a Christian, I have a duty to think through these concerns. Luckily greater minds than I have given us the matrix for which to base our thinking.
Just War Theory first proposed 1600 years ago in an attempt to answer the questions of when it is permissible to wage war (justum bellum) and how the war should be fought (jus ad bellum).
The first question posed by Just War Theory (justum bellum), "is the war just" or do the Israelis have the right to strike back? I believe Israel has the right to protect its citizenry. The kidnappings qualify as a violation against the people the Israeli government is sworn to protect. Thus the cause is Just.
The second question of government sovereignty is a no brainer, Its is the duty of the Israeli government to protect its people.
The third question, that of intentions is more on the difficult side. The intent must be considered good, for example good intentions would include; assisting the innocent and righting a wrong. In this case both are indeed the case. However bad intentions include ; hatred of the enemy and revenge. I don't find this point nearly as clear as the first two points.
The Fourth question of whether or not all attempts at diplomacy had been exhausted is also somewhat dicey. Given the nature of the Middle Eastern situation the answer is probably yes.
Question Five, is their a reasonable chance at success? Not to be relativistic but, what was the original intent? To rescue the soldiers and establish a situation where peace can prevail are valid reasons to go to war. The chances for a successful conclusion?
Last question to ponder on the going to war issue; will this peace be an improvement. Over typical, day to day hostilities any peace is preferable.
Next we move on to how the war is to be fought (jus ad bellum). Its here my real concerns surface.
Point one - innocent people and non-combatants must not be harmed. Obviously in any war their is going to be some loss of life to the civilian population. The burden is on Israel to prevent this loss to the fullest extent possible. Have they done this?
Point two- only appropriate force must be used. This is the one point that can destroy meeting all of the above criteria. An excessive use of force can nullify the Justice of the cause. This is where my major concerns lie. Is the Israeli response rightly applied?
I don't think I have answered very many questions tonight.
Thanks for listening.
Read Entire Article
First off, the abduction of the Israeli soldiers was wrong. Their is no valid way to justify this action. This was evil pure and simple.
It is the Israeli response that concerns me the most. Not so much their right to defend its citizenry but rather the excessive use of force and lack of regard for the civilian population.
As a Christian, I have a duty to think through these concerns. Luckily greater minds than I have given us the matrix for which to base our thinking.
Just War Theory first proposed 1600 years ago in an attempt to answer the questions of when it is permissible to wage war (justum bellum) and how the war should be fought (jus ad bellum).
The first question posed by Just War Theory (justum bellum), "is the war just" or do the Israelis have the right to strike back? I believe Israel has the right to protect its citizenry. The kidnappings qualify as a violation against the people the Israeli government is sworn to protect. Thus the cause is Just.
The second question of government sovereignty is a no brainer, Its is the duty of the Israeli government to protect its people.
The third question, that of intentions is more on the difficult side. The intent must be considered good, for example good intentions would include; assisting the innocent and righting a wrong. In this case both are indeed the case. However bad intentions include ; hatred of the enemy and revenge. I don't find this point nearly as clear as the first two points.
The Fourth question of whether or not all attempts at diplomacy had been exhausted is also somewhat dicey. Given the nature of the Middle Eastern situation the answer is probably yes.
Question Five, is their a reasonable chance at success? Not to be relativistic but, what was the original intent? To rescue the soldiers and establish a situation where peace can prevail are valid reasons to go to war. The chances for a successful conclusion?
Last question to ponder on the going to war issue; will this peace be an improvement. Over typical, day to day hostilities any peace is preferable.
Next we move on to how the war is to be fought (jus ad bellum). Its here my real concerns surface.
Point one - innocent people and non-combatants must not be harmed. Obviously in any war their is going to be some loss of life to the civilian population. The burden is on Israel to prevent this loss to the fullest extent possible. Have they done this?
Point two- only appropriate force must be used. This is the one point that can destroy meeting all of the above criteria. An excessive use of force can nullify the Justice of the cause. This is where my major concerns lie. Is the Israeli response rightly applied?
I don't think I have answered very many questions tonight.
Thanks for listening.
Read Entire Article
posted by Clyde | 9:20 AM
|0 comments
