"Can Anything Good Come out of the Gaza Crisis?"

Since the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7th the world has been lining up and taking sides. Although very few non-Arab countries have supported Hamas, in large part the two sides have been for the state of Israel or for the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip region. This is to some degree to be expected since the establishment of a state of Israel was artificially placed on the land in 1948. Yet surely it is hard to find a clear ethical stance in terms of who to support, apart from the terrorist situation.

            I have found it helpful to step back and ask questions concerning the “ethics of terrorism” and “the just war theory.” The advent of modern terrorism created the need for a reinterpretation of Christian ethics. This is in part the reality that terrorism is itself an action taken on innocent civilians. In 2004 the U.S. government used this definition of terrorism: “It is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (Edward Long Jr., Facing Terrorism: Responding As Christians, p. 2) So, from the very beginning the attacks on civilians in Israel on October 7th were violent activities against civilians which should be subject to a violation of international law. A response by the government ruling the area where the over 1700 civilian deaths occurred was expected. In fact, under the usual criteria of “just war” it was “justifiable.” Still, as the response of Israel was undertaken several days after the terrorist attack, the counterattack has not been limited in view  and has definitely not exempted civilians from attack.  According to usual understandings of a just war, “A war is generally considered just if and only if it is waged for a just cause, is motivated by a just ‘intention, comes as the last resort, is pursued by a legitimate governmental authority, has limited ends in view, exempts noncombatants from attack carries a reasonable hope of success.” (Stanley Grenz and Jay Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethics). In point of fact in response the state of Israel has been aiming to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, a goal which carries an unreasonable hope of success. Most egregiously, the all-out attack of Israel on Gaza has not been limited to combatants, in part because Hamas has embedded themselves in civilian areas.

            To be sure this conflict is rooted in a history of highly traumatic relationships between Israel and the Palestinians. There are serious reasons for the development of terrorism leading to this terrorist act. These fundamental reasons need to be addressed, along with the societal cut-off between the two parties that has developed over the past 75 years. (“Israeli-Palestinian Relations” (Peter Titelman, Ed., Emotional Cutoff, 2003). But first, obviously, the conflict needs to be brought into a ceasefire.

            Certainly the concept of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”) has dominated the response of the state of Israel. This is not a thoughtful response to Hamas terrorism because terrorists are not limited to locale. A deeper, more thoughtful approach would be for international law and policing forces to work toward change in the area and to bring about an end to the just war abuses by both sides. "Any progress toward achieving a law enforcement model for the international community to ope with terrorism will come about only if strong initiatives are jointly taken by the world community." (Long, P. 112). The United States is part of that world community, and increasingly needs to take a lead in these efforts.If indeed anything good can come out of these last four months in the region it will be through peaceful means of gradually altering the deep divide of people living together (and apart) in that most important area of the Middle East.