Which Cause Is Right in the Israeli-Lebanese War?

“Never has there been a good war or a bad peace.” These words of Benjamin Franklin ring true whenever one reads news of war. For no matter how just the cause or right the intention, once we let slip the dogs of war, things get chaotic. It becomes difficult to decide who is in the right.

It is easy enough to state that Israel had cause to defend itself against attacks from Hezbollah. That group’s incursion into Israel to kidnap a soldier to employ in a prisoner exchange was the initial cause for the conflict tearing at the fabric of the uneasy peace Israel had with its neighboring nations. Public opinion, even in Lebanon, understood why Israel would fight back.

Once the counter offensive began things got muddled. As the 19th-century Prussian soldier Helmuth von Moltke wrote, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Predictably Israel’s plan of attack has evolved and devolved in the face of Hezbollah’s rocket attacks.

Israel is fighting back with a fierce air and ground campaign in need of a stopping point that Israel can hail as a victory. After all, much of the peace in the region came from the respect the Israeli army earned in 1967 when Israel fought and won a multi-front war in six days.

Now three times the number of days have rolled by with no clear end in sight. And each day the well armed, well trained Israeli Defense Force fails to curtail Hezbollah attacks is another small victory for the militant group turned political party. Israel needs a clear victory to not seem weak and Hezbollah needs to merely hang on against a force widely understood to be superior.

All of this in understandable at a military and political level, but what are the ethics of the fight? While it is a bit unfair to judge the largely Muslim-Jewish conflict by the standards of Christian Ethics, it does offer a window into our own tradition to consider someone else’s war.

Initially, Christianity was pacifistic. Following the non-violent Jesus who died on a Roman cross rather than fight back thousands of Christians were martyred without a struggle. Any violence, much less war was seen as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

Following the conversion of the Emperor Constantine and the recreation of the Roman Empire into the first Christian nation, Just War tradition arose. After all, the reasoning went; didn’t the Christian state have the duty to defend its citizens from the barbarian invaders?

Paul’s words to be subject to those in authority in Romans 13:1-7 were cited as seeming to give authority to governments to use the sword. Others noted Jesus using a Roman Centurion as an example of great faith, while not also criticizing his profession.

By the Middle Ages Just War tradition evolved to the point of saying that war had to be called for by a right authority for a just cause, with the right intention. Following this reasoning many would say that Israel’s leadership has the right authority to call for war in the just cause of defense of its citizens with the right intention named of pushing Hezbollah back far enough to prevent further rocket attacks.

From the Lebanese perspective, once Israel launched its ground offensive, that nation had similar cause to defend its citizens. Yes, Hezbollah may have started this particular attack, but in the tit for tat that has been the struggle for Mid-East peace, everyone has claimed its moves were defensive since the U.N. initiative in creating Israel in 1948. Each side always claims the other started it.

The Just War tradition also claims that war should be used only as a last resort when there is a reasonable probability for success, otherwise the loss of life caused by the war could not be justified. These two claims are more of a gray area in the current conflict as neither side initially tried diplomatic resolution, nor is either likely to completely eradicate the threat from the other.

Moving into the military action itself, Just War theory names proper limits on the use of force once fighting starts. Christian thinking has stated for centuries that the response should be proportionate to the attack and that non-combatants must have immunity. It is in this area of Just War tradition that both sides are in the wrong. Israel’s offensive has been out of proportion to the immediate cause—the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The disproportionate response has created the situation in which Israel now finds itself in need of a radical enough change in Hezbollah’s capability that victory can be claimed, lest Israel seem weak.

As for Hezbollah, the group has routinely fired rockets from residential areas to rouse an Israeli counter attack destined to produce civilian casualties. This technique has particularly been employed in Lebanese Christian villages to incite attacks against Christian homes in retaliation for earlier Christian-Muslim fighting within Lebanon. Thus Hezbollah has been killing two birds—one Christian, the other Jewish—with the one stone—a Ketyushah rocket. In doing so, Hezbollah has also created a higher body count among Lebanese citizens.

No matter what stopping place is found, both sides will attempt to claim a victory and both sides will begin the build up necessary to sustain another offensive.

If the Just War tradition seems antiquated, remember that it developed over centuries of experience with conflict. History shows the more disproportionate the response and the more non-combatants die, the more this conflict creates a new generation of people with cause to fight against their neighboring nation.

Each new offensive creates new grief which both enlarges Israel’s desire to attack and expands Hezbollah’s base of support among their fellow Lebanese. This shows why the tradition is more interested in preventing war than in setting its limits. For war is a self-perpetuating evil as grief gives rise to anger which results in retaliation. The end of one war gives birth to the cause for new wars.

Using the Mid-Eastern crisis as an example, we can see the wisdom in leaving war to a last resort used by a right authority with right intention in a just cause when there is a probability of success and further keeping non-combatants immune in a proportionate response. Yes, I know this is difficult—nearly impossible—when fighting those not bound to similar conduct. But Just War tradition shows a proven way to diminish the number of wars and to increase the prospects for peace after the fighting stops.

(The Rev. Frank Logue is pastor of King of Peace Episcopal Church in Kingsland.)

previous         Return to Religion Column page       next