A distinction is commonly made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello: roughly translated as the justice of war and the justice within war. A state's decision to go to war with another is justified if there have been acts of aggression against it. Having justice on one's side, however, does not mean anything goes. There are strict rules of war: no targeting of civilians; and no use of violence beyond what is required, among other things. So, it's possible to be in accordance with jus ad bellum and not jus in bello, and vice-versa. For example, we would be right in defending our state against aggression but wrong in dropping a nuclear bomb in our aggressor's civilian-filled capital as an extended response.
Whether or not Israel's war with Palestine is justified will not be decided easily - jus ad bellum is complex in this case. A much easier task is asserting their violation of jus in bello. In a recent raid of Nablus in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers took to using young Palestinians as human shields. Nothing could be a more obvious violation of the rules of war.
B'Tselem: Human Shields
No comments:
Post a Comment