How Not to Think about the Israeli-Hamas Conflict
Former Faculty
By Micah Watson, Assistant Professor of Political Science & Director, Center for Religion and Politics
Sep 30, 2008 -
Aristotle located the virtues as laying between two extremes. C.S. Lewis, an Aristotelian when it came to ethics, wrote that the devil sends errors into the world in pairs. While not a virtue exactly, the correct position on the current intensification of Israel’s conflict with Hamas also lies between two errors.
The first error is largely found in some quarters in the United States and Israel and is that Israel can and must do “anything” to survive. “By any means necessary” is another phrase that evokes this realist view that normal moral concerns are fine for normal times, but extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. And it is a given that Israel has faced extreme circumstances since its inception in 1948.
For Christians, what is mistaken about this line of thinking is that it acts as if the moral norms are mere values we can pick and choose at our convenience. If morality is rooted in God’s character and His will for our lives, then to condone any action—no matter how immoral—because of extremity is in effect to state something like this:
“Yes, God has given us moral absolutes, but He didn’t really understand just how desperate things might get.”
Such thinking relies more on Machiavelli than Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.
But this is only one error and not the most prevalent. The other error is to treat the political entities of Israel and Hamas as if they are moral equivalents. We witness this error in calls for “both sides” to cease violence and engage in diplomacy, or in calls for Israel to restrain its military efforts because of an arbitrary standard of proportionality.
The mistake here is to treat the conflict as if it were a high stakes contest between two well-meaning contestants; who are we to pick a side as morally superior? Hamas represents a people, as does Israel. And Israel is much more powerful and efficient, so perhaps we should side with Hamas because they are the little guy.
This is the overwhelming sentiment found in newspapers and throughout the world (including, unfortunately, in Iraq).
A few thoughts in response. First, Israel and Hamas are not equivalent. Hamas’ charter calls explicitly for the destruction of Israel. It’s unclear why this rather basic fact of reality is so hard for many to grasp, but one cannot negotiate with someone who wants you dead. Like a game, or a conversation, or any other human interaction, negotiation requires some preliminary common ground, an agreed upon arena within which to take up differences. But if one of those differences is over whether a good faith goal of any conflict resolution is the complete destruction of one of the parties in conflict . . . well, that’s a problem.
Another way to think about the difference between a Hamas-led Gaza and Israel is to ask what sort of society each seeks to build. To bring this home, ask yourself whether you would rather spend a day as a Palestinian in Israel or an Orthodox Jew in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Second, the civilian/militant line in Gaza is blurred. A key to conducting a just war is distinguishing between civilians and militants and not targeting civilians directly. This doesn’t mean military commanders cannot take actions they know will result in civilian deaths. It means that they cannot intend to do so. There must be a military objective that they are pursuing and the test is this: would they perform the mission without killing civilians if they could? This is what’s called the doctrine of double effect.
The problem with honoring this moral restraint in Gaza in two-fold. First, Hamas is a democratically enacted government. It won with something like 70% of the vote. The Palestinian people knowingly empowered a terrorist organization. This doesn’t give Israel a blank check to go after civilian Palestinians, but it should cloud the easy condemnation that accompanies casualty announcements from Gaza. Second, Hamas purposefully puts military targets in civilian neighborhoods. Hamas knows the PR game very well and is willing to sacrifice civilians if it will result in better PR. It seems to be working.
Some will wring their hands and pronounce that this is a very complex issue with ancient historical roots all the while finding it very easy to condemn Israel’s actions. While it is true that a solution to the conflict will be complex and difficult, and the history is tangled, not everything about the conflict is gray. Imagine if you will how long the United States would put up with across-the-border militants firing rockets into El Paso or San Diego and you may gain a stronger appreciation for Israel’s “restraint”.