Justifying Israel’s Actions in Gaza

There have been several “Gaza wars”. The war that began with Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 looks likely to be the last. Many Gazans, men, women and children, have been killed; many have suffered life-changing injuries, including amputations and severe malnutrition; many have lost family members, in some cases all their family members; buildings of all kinds have been reduced to rubble; food, water, electricity, fuel, medical supplies have been cut off. Many Jewish Israelis support driving Palestinians completely out of Gaza (here, here) , and almost half support killing all the people of Gaza (here); just over half oppose aid entering Gaza (here); only 16% of Jewish Israelis support a two-state solution (see also here). South Africa has accused Israel of Genocide, which Israel denies: here, here. In many countries sympathy with Israel has dwindled (here, here, here, here, here), but many people feel that blaming Israel is unfair, an expression of antisemitism. Some governments have attempted to impose the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

See B’Tselem’s criticism of Israel’s actions here (early on, in Dec.2023).

Supporters of Israel have offered various justifications for what Israel has done in Gaza (and in the West Bank), including the following.

(1) Jews have a right of self-determination, i.e. a right to a state of their own, which is Israel. See here.

(2) Israel, like every state, has a right of self-defence. See here.

(3) Israel is a “vibrant democracy”, the only democracy in the Middle East (see here), in a “tough neighbourhood”. It deserves “Western” support. Supporting Israel is in the national interest of the USA and other Western states. See here.

(4) There are no innocents in Gaza, no “uninvolved”, “no bystanders”. (See reports of remarks of President Herzog: here, here, here, here. He complains of a “blood libel”, an expression defenders of Israel often use.) No Gazan gave warning of the October 7 attacks, none has ever revealed the location of a hostage, they have submitted to rule by Hamas. Even the children are future terrorists. See here. here, here, here.

 (5) To the contrary, there are civilians (who may be innocent) in Gaza and the Israeli forces are notably careful of their lives: Israeli intelligence is exceptionally reliable, strikes are precise and aimed only at military targets, soldiers risk their own lives to an exceptional extent to protect the lives of Arab civilians. Thus Israeli military action is in accordance with the “just war” theory. Civilian casualties are “collateral damage”, which the just war theory permits. Israel’s army is in fact the most moral army in the world (here, here, here), and Israel is the most moral country in the world, “a light unto the nations”. (Similar themes:  “Purity of arms”, “Shooting and crying”.)

(6) Palestinian terrorists use Palestinian civilians as human shields: if the shields are destroyed by action against the terrorists, that is the fault of the terrorists. See here, here, here.

(7) There are religious justifications: The whole of Palestine (and more) was given by God to the Jews; Arabs took it, now they are being expelled by the rightful owners – most should be expelled, maybe all. See here, here.

(8) The Arabs (at least the terrorists) are “Amalek”: God commanded that Amalek be destroyed, Deuteronomy 25:17–19, 1 Samuel 15:3. (Is Amalek only Hamas, or all Gazans?) See here, here, here, here, here.

(9) “Dispensationalist” Christians (usually miscalled “Evangelicals”) believe that God will curse those who fail to support Israel, citing (inter alia) Genesis 12:3, Galatians 3:8. E.g. “Do you want Columbia University to be cursed by God?”  See also here, here.

Some comments on the points above

1. Self-determination: An ethnic group (nation) is not a “self”, but a group. The 19th-20th century idea that each ethnic group should have its own state, and that every state should belong to one ethnic group (the "nation state"), has been a cause of much conflict and much injustice: it should be repudiated. Its opposite is multiculturalism, the idea that it is normal for a state to include a multiplicity of ethnic and other groups, and that no group should claim priority over others. (“Self-determination” is sometimes watered down to mean that if there is an ethnic group within a state, that group should have certain rights or have certain institutions: that is not necessarily incompatible with multiculturalism, though the language is misleading.)

See Wikipedia articles here and here; Ernst Renan, "What is a nation?" (1882), J.S. Mill, "Of Nationality". See my papers here and here.

2. Self-defence: Again, a state is not a self. A state’s right to self-defence means the duty (and consequent rights) that state functionaries have to protect citizens and other residents (including people living in occupied territories) from attack, from within or from without, by other states, groups or individuals. Israel’s attack on the people of Gaza and the West Bank goes beyond anything justified by that duty. Israel in fact has a duty to protect non-combatant Palestinians from attack. 

3. A vibrant democracy: Currently in the area of the former League of Nations mandated Palestine, now wholly under Israel’s control, there are approximately equal populations of Jews and Arabs, about 6m of each. (The Palestinian diaspora are another 6m.) Arabs who are citizens of Israel are about one fifth of the population of Israel; their Knesset representatives do not get ministries in Government. The rule of Jewish Israelis over all the people living in the the former League of Nations mandated Palestine is not democracy. See here,  here, here.

4. No innocents: Even if it is true that all the inhabitants of Gaza support Hamas and the October 7 attacks (likely they don’t), there are different degrees of support, different degrees of responsibility: they do not all deserve the death penalty. Most people these days do not support the death penalty at all, though killing combatants may be necessary to stop them from killing; most Gazans are not combatants.

5. Collateral damage: The traditional “just war” theory accepts civilian deaths as collateral damage (“collateral” meaning not a means to the end, but a side-effect), subject to requirements of proportionality and necessity. It seems, however, that much of the killing in Gaza is directly intended, not collateral, also unnecessary (even counterproductive, in the long run) and disproportionate. (See also here, from Nov. 2023.)  The damage to buildings seems directly intended (i.e. not collateral) to make it impossible for Gazans to return to their homes or to find adequate shelter, here.

6. Human shields: Human shields are human; it is not right to destroy them as if they had no right to live. When criminals take hostages, police go to great lengths to avoid harming them. On Israel’s “human shields” justification see  here, here, here.

7. “Given by God”: Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, adherents of other religions, do not believe that God gave Palestine to the Jews forever. People of no religion do not believe that God gave any territory to anyone.

8. “Amalek”: The Bible contains passages that seem to approve massacre. For example, when Jericho fell “They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). King Saul was ordered to destroy the Amalekites: “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” 1 Samuel 15:3; God took the kingdom from Saul because he spared a single human being and some sheep and cattle, 1 Samuel 15:26. Many Israelis take these biblical precedents as justification for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The Bible contains much that non-believers can value, but not incitements to massacre. Passages inciting massacre should be repudiated.

9. God will curse those who fail to support Israel: The passages “evangelicals” quote do not prove their point: (1) Genesis 12, does not contain the word “Israel” or any equivalent.  Galatians 3:8 is part of an argument to show that only Jesus is the “seed” of Abram to which the promise of Genesis 12 was made, and therefore not the kingdom of Israel. (2) The 20^th century state that called itself “Israel” is not Biblical Israel (a point made this very bad-tempered exchange between Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz, here, at 49:16), any more than a son Spanish parents call “Jesús” is the Saviour. (3) It seems unlikely that God wants everyone to back Israel no matter what it does.

Return to Palestine and Israel