Just-war theory and the Palestinian conflict
In 2005, the scholars Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin published an article, in SAIS Review, in which they argued against the prevailing view that soldiers ought to risk their lives in order to minimize civilian casualties -- particularly during urban firefights with terrorists who hide among civilians. The traditional view, they argued, is nothing less than "immoral."
That terrorists operate in areas full of civilians "is not a reason for jeopardizing the combatant's life in their pursuit," they wrote. Their view, they acknowledge, will lead to more civilian deaths (and fewer deaths among the pursuing army), but "the terrorists … bear the consequences" of their tactics.
The authors were writing four years ago, but the moral issues they spoke to came to the fore once again during the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza.
In the latest New York Review of Books, Avishai Margalit, professor emeritus of philosophy at the Hebrew University, and Michael Walzer, author of "Just and Unjust Wars," rebut Kasher and Yadlin's argument with a series of thought experiments. "This is the guideline we advocate," they argue. "Conduct your war in the presence of noncombatants on the other side with the same care as if your citizens were the noncombatants." That may not be one's gut instinct, but it is the only just conclusion, they say.
