Protesters hold signs during a demonstration against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government on 29 June in Tel Aviv, Israel. Anti-government protests have occurred weekly for months amid calls by many Israelis for Netanyahu to prioritise the return of hostages held in Gaza instead of the defeat of Hamas. Photo: Amir Levy/Getty Images 
A March 2024 report by the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, after five months of military operations, noted that Israel had destroyed Gaza.
At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had been killed, including more than 13,000 children. More than 12,000 were presumed dead and 71,000 injured, many with life-changing mutilations. Seventy percent of residential areas had been destroyed. Eighty percent of the population had been forcibly displaced. Thousands of families had lost loved ones or been wiped out.
Albanese noted that thousands had been detained and systematically subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The incalculable collective trauma will be experienced for generations to come.
By analysing the patterns of violence and Israel’s policies in its onslaught on Gaza, she concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide has been met. She said Israel’s executive and military leadership and soldiers had intentionally distorted jus in bello principles, which govern how parties behave in armed conflict, subverting their protective functions to legitimise violence against Palestinians.
Watching the continuing bombing of Gaza and the devastation of the buildings, hourly, on news channels is still horrific. Now, after more than eight months of bombing, Gaza has almost been completely obliterated and thousands have been killed – and there are still countries that won’t call for a ceasefire. The images of adults and young people running into damaged hospitals with young children covered in dust and blood don’t seem to disturb everyone.
It’s a pity that so few South African theologians have spoken out publicly. The late Father Albert Nolan of the Catholic Church would have got people theologising – questioning and helping young people to think more critically about real-world issues like this. He may have got children to imagine that they are playing a game with rules to follow. These rules would ensure that everyone had fun and stayed safe.
That’s a bit like the idea of the “just war theory,” which is a set of rules for countries when they want to go to war.
The just war theory says there are rules to decide whether a war is fair or not. For example, a country needs a good reason to start a fight. Maybe another country is attacking it or treating people badly.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Israel-Palestine War
Before starting a war, countries should make every effort to sort out their problems. They should start by talking and negotiating to solve their problem. The fight should also be fair. For example, if one country only wants a small thing, it’s not fair for the other country to use too much force.
In the traditional understanding of the just war theory, there are criteria used to assess whether a war is just. They include just cause, right intent, legitimate authority, overall benefit or likelihood of success, last resort, the proportional use of means and protecting noncombatants.
Gaza is a place where there’s been continuing fighting between Israel and Palestine over several years. Historians will tell you that this goes back to the Nakba, the destruction, dispossession and displacement of Palestinians. Many have said Israel has a right to defend itself, which is part of the just war theory. But others say Israel is using too much force, which goes against the idea of proportionality in the theory.
Nolan would argue that the just war theory helps us to think about whether the fighting in Gaza is fair or not.
A just war is an idea that resorting to the use of armed force (jus ad bellum) is justified under certain conditions, but the theory reminds us that the use of such force (jus in bello) should also be limited in certain ways.
Protesters demonstrate against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government i Tel Aviv on 29 June 2024. Anti-government protests have occurred weekly for months amid calls by many Israelis for Netanyahu to prioritise the return of hostages held in Gaza instead of the defeat of Hamas. (Photo: Amir Levy / Getty Images)
Ideally, for Israel to call its war “just”, it should meet all the criteria. The attack on 7 October 2023 can be seen as a legitimate cause to defend a country. Some people would argue that Israel had just cause and constitutes a legitimate authority. But Israel’s case is weaker concerning the other five criteria.
Throughout this war, Israeli officials have said that their cause is just, that military operations against Palestinians is a matter of self-defence and survival. They still claim that Israel has the “most moral army in the world” that goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. Many different Israeli spokespeople have explained the killings of innocents to be the result of Hamas using civilians as human shields.
Nolan would explain to young people that the just war theory is a Western concept that is rooted in classical Roman and biblical Hebraic culture and contains both religious and secular elements. The theory was developed during the Middle Ages as a by-product of church law and theology. The ideas originate from Roman law and the chivalric codes that governed battles.
Israel has argued that Hamas has violated these principles, but this does not mean that Israel does not have to live up to these moral standards.
The criterion of last resort is a key element in all just war considerations: that force should only be used when all other means have failed or would be ineffective. Israel has argued that it was reluctantly dragged into this war, but it has not looked seriously at using other means such as diplomacy.
Proportionality of means is another element that must be upheld during combat. Israel seems to have failed dismally, as the evidence seen daily shows civilian casualties and damage in Gaza have exceeded any military advantage it has gained. The street protests around the world have underlined that the response has not been proportionate.
A key principle of the just war theory promotes the preservation of human life and tries to avoid the loss of life. But this cannot be the case with so many innocent women and children being injured and killed.
Israel’s response to all this death has been disappointing. Yoav Gallant, the defence minister, said: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” A former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, said: “We’re fighting Nazis.”
Another important element of the theory requires that all parties find solutions to the conflict as quickly as possible. This war has dragged out for more than eight months and finding solutions does not seem to be happening.
The terrible situation in Gaza cannot be ignored and everyone must avoid being deceived. In reporting on the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt observed that the “German society of 80 million people had been shielded against reality and factuality by the same means, the same self-deception, lies and stupidity that had now become engrained in Eichmann’s mentality...
“But the practice of self-deception had become so common, almost a moral prerequisite for survival, that even now, 18 years after the collapse of the Nazi regime, when most of the specific content of its lies has been forgotten, it is sometimes difficult not to believe that mendacity has become an integral part of the German national character.” DM
Dr Mark Potterton writes in his personal capacity. He is director of the Three2Six Refugee Education Project.
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
