JOHN RAWLS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A JUST WAR

 

Part I  Preface

In 1995, one year before his death, the renowned American philosopher John Rawls wrote an article titled “50 Years After Hiroshima." (Dissent Magazine). Rawls invited his readers to reflect on the question, “Was the bombing of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki really a great wrong, as many thought then, or is it perhaps justified after all?”

In August 1945, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima immediately killed 80,000 Japanese people.  Tens of thousands more died of radiation exposure.   Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000.  Most of those who died in these blasts were non-combatants and most of the non-combatants were children and women.

 In 2023, university students and many others are reflecting on and debating about a similar question.  “Is the bombing of Gaza City and other parts of the Gaza Strip orchestrated by the Israeli government really a great wrong, as some have recently said, or is it perhaps justified after all?”  

For many protesting students, there is no reflection to be made.  They know what is right and what is wrong. The debate is not quiet.  There have been hundreds if not thousands of reports of emotional university students loudly taking sides on the justice of the current Israeli-Hamas conflict, but without giving any explanation at all as to what the words “just war” means.  They have been barraged with photos and videos of death and destruction.   Emotions of retaliation and revenge take hold and moral judgements are made before the protesting students know anything more about the war than what the photos show. 

Rawls provides a template for rational reflection.  He answers the Hiroshima question (above) by setting out six moral principles that govern the conduct of war – jus in bello -- of democratic peoples. He assumes that the conduct of war by non-democratic dictatorial governments such as those in Japan and Germany were not guided by any principles that would qualify as ‘moral’.  Their end was “the domination and exploitation of subjected peoples, and in Germany’s case, their enslavement if not extermination.”  

Therefore, Rawls’ principles of just war will apply only to the conduct of the Israel government, not to the conduct of Hamas leaders.  The Hamas government of the people of the Gaza Strip, like the WW2 government of Japan and Germany is totalitarian. It is not a democracy of the people. The goal of Hamas’ leaders is not peace with Israel but the destruction of it through Jihad (Holy War).  There are no moral limits to jihadist acts of war so long as the acts achieve this goal.

Part II Facts about the Israel-Hamas War

A.    The war between Israel and Hamas started on October 7, 2023 when “scores of Hamas gunmen swept into Israeli towns and military bases near the border with Gaza, opening fire on people in their homes, on the streets, and at a music festival attackers fatally shot the elderly, women and young children, according to survivors; others were burned after attackers set their homes ablaze.” 

B.     Hamas has said the aim of the attack was “to free Palestinian prisoners, stop Israeli aggression on al-Aqsa Mosque, and to break the siege on Gaza.” (Washington Post)  Other supporters of Hamas said that the October 7 attack was a continuation of the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe) of Israel’s displacement of Palestinian Arabs (Al Jazeera).

C.     The vast majority of those killed in the Oct. 7 assault — around 70 percent — have been identified as civilians, not soldiers, by Israeli authorities. According to Israeli police, health officials have identified at least 846 civilians killed in the fighting.  Israel’s official estimate of the final death toll of the Oct. 7 attacks is about 1,400 people (including soldiers, police and foreign nationals). 

D.    Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks was almost immediate, starting with the bombing of sites in Gaza where Hamas fighters and their leaders might be hiding.  At this writing (27 November), the bombing has killed over 14,000 people in Gaza City and the Gaza strip.  Of the 14,000 killed, 69 percent or10,000 are women and children (Lauren Leatherby, New York Times).  

E.     Israel’s foreign minister Eli Cohen said, “We reject outright the UN General Assembly despicable call for a ceasefire. Israel intends to eliminate Hamas just as the world dealt with the Nazis and ISIS (Times of Israel).

Part III Six principles guiding a just war.

Rawls announces at the beginning of his article that the bombings of Japanese cities were “very great wrongs.” He sets out six principles that guided him to this conclusion. Here is a brief summary of each principle. 

1.      The aim of a just war waged by a decent democratic society is a just and lasting peace between peoples, especially with its present enemy. 

2.      A decent democratic society fights only against nondemocratic societies that caused the war and whose aims threaten the security and free institutions of democratic societies.

3.      A decent democratic society will defend itself only against those who are responsible for organizing and bringing on the war (the principle of responsibility).  Civilians are not responsible and thus will not be attacked.  Except the upper ranks of the officer class, soldiers are also not responsible for the war because they are conscripted. But “the grounds on which they may be attacked directly are not that they are responsible for the war but that a democratic people cannot defend itself in any other way.”

4.      A decent democratic society must respect the human rights of the members of the other side. Every human (by definition) has these rights, including enemy soldiers and civilians.  “In the case of human rights in war, civilians…can never be attacked directly except in times of extreme crisis.”  An extreme crisis exists only when the democratic society is on the verge of losing the war and will have “enormous and uncalculated moral and political evil” imposed on it by the enemy.

5.      Democratic peoples should foretell during war the kind of peace they aim for and the kind of relations they seek between nations.  This will show the public the nature of their aims and the kind of people they are.

6.      Practical means-end reasoning in judging the appropriateness of an action or policy for achieving the aim of war or for not causing more harm than good should always be framed within and strictly limited by the preceding principles (1-5).  War plans and strategies, and the conduct of battle must lie within their limits, except in times of extreme crisis.

Part IV Using Rawls' Principles when Asking Questions About the Justice of the Israel-Hamas War

a.   Does Israel aim to achieve a “just and lasting peace” with the Hamas government of Gaza?  (Principle 1).  If not the Hamas government, then with whom does Israel aim to achieve a just and lasting peace?

b.  Is the Hamas leadership threatening the security and free institutions of a democratic society? (P 2). 

c.   Is Israel’s bombing of Gaza consistent with the Principle of Responsibility, that is, is Israel defending itself only against those who are responsible for organizing and bringing on the war in a way that does not harm those who are not responsible for organizing and bringing on the war (P3)?

d.  Is Israel respecting the human rights of all the people of Gaza, including enemy soldiers and civilians?  Or is this a war of extreme crisis in which the human right to life can be ignored (P4)?

e. Has Israel announced or foretold the kind of peace they are aiming for and the kind of relations they seek between themselves and the enemy (Hamas) and/or the people in the Gaza Strip? (P5)

f. Is Israel using means-end reasoning in a way that is consistent with P1 - P5, assuming that defending themselves against Hamas is not an extreme crisis?.

Part V Conclusion and a final question:

John Rawls writes, “It is the task of the student of philosophy to look to the permanent conditions and the real interests of a just and good democratic society.” He finds it “hard to understand” why it was thought at the time by many that questioning the morality of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “an insult to the American troops who fought the war.” 

Rawls responds, “It can’t be that we think we waged the war without moral error!”  Just and decent civilized societies “depend absolutely on making significant moral and political distinctions in all situations,” including especially the atomic bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the two cities of Japan.

I leave students of philosophy with a final question. What do you think?  Is the Israel-Hamas War being conducted without moral error?  Are there significant moral and political distinctions on both sides that should be made in declaring whether this is or is not a just war? 

References:

Leatherby, Lauren. 25 November 2023. “Israel Gaza Death Toll.” New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-death-toll.html

Live Blog. Times of Israel. “Cohen Slams Despicable UN Resolution Urging Ceasefire.” 27 October 2023. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/fm-eli-cohen-slams-despicable-un-resolution-urging-ceasefire/

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard U.P.

Rawls, John.  Summer 1995.  “50 Years After Hiroshima.” Dissent Magazine https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/50-years-after-hiroshima-2/ 

Suleiman, Ali Haj. 12 November 2023. “For displaced Palestinians in Syria, Israel war evokes Nakba and solidarity.” Al Jazeera.  https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/12/for-displaced-palestinians-in-syria-israel-war-evokes-nakba-and-solidarity

Washington Post. October 17, 2023. “The Israel-Hamas War Reasons Explained.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/israel-hamas-war-reason-explained-gaza/