Jus ad Bellum - Applied to Israel's Current Conflict

I would like to take a look at the current Israeli conflict and see if we can determine if it is a just war or not, based on the traditionally accepted criteria for a just war. I am interested in this topic in a general way because of my love of military history and in a specific way as a Christian seeking to understand the world in a Christ-like way. Another reason for this is that Israel has been widely criticized for breaking some of the rules for a just war by many important members of the international community, especially several European nations and the head of the UN.

The basic question is: Does Israel's current military activity versus the known terrorist group Hezbollah inside the state of Lebanon fit the criteria for a just war? I will list the most commonly accepted criteria, define the criteria, and discuss each as it relates to this conflict. I realize that this is not a theory (just war) that is universally accepted, but it is widely accepted. Any additions or objections to my analysis is welcome in the comments section, but please do be polite even if this is a heart-felt issue for you. Also, please do not think that I am a typical Israel-loving evangelical Christian. I do not believe that the current state of Israel is the same as the people who were once God's chosen people. The New Testament makes it quite clear that God's chosen people are those who have put faith in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

OK, with all that said, let's get started.

For a Just War there must be:
A. Just Cause - basically a just cause has been defined as using force to redress a grave public wrong (one that involves many people, not few) or in defense - examples of this would include being attacked by an enemy nation, having a foreign nation prevent enough food for the people of a nation, or any number of other possibilities.
Israel's current fighting began after an attack by Hezbollah on one of its military outposts on the border with Lebanon in which 3 soldiers were killed and 2 were captured. Hezbollah's stated aim in this act was to exchange these soldiers for several of their own prisioners in Israeli jails. Israel's initial military response was powerful but limited. Only after failing to find their lost soldiers did Israel beef up its military attack on Hezbollah.
At this point it seems like a fairly small event caused a huge one by Israel. However, a further historical account might aid things. Hezbollah was founded in 1985 by Shiite fighters seeking to create in Lebanon an Islamic state, much like Iran. They have had most of their support from Iran and Syria over the years. Their overall reason for existence is to destroy Israel, and they have committed numerous terrorist acts over the years. There is much more history of Hezbollah's terrorist activity, including being commonly thought to have been behind the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in 1983 which killed 241 marines.
Thus, taken all together it would seem that Israel's response is to redress a grave public wrong, which is the threatened destruction of their entire nation symbolized by the capture of two soldiers.

B. Comparative Justice - in order to begin hostilities, the injustice suffered by the just party must outwight any injustice suffered by the opposing party - this is important because it is rare that a conflict will occur in which one side bears absolutely all responsibility and the other side has done no wrong of any kind.
Here we will see that Lebanon has suffered some severe problems over the years at the hands of Israel. Lebanon is certainly not a wealthy state, and at least some of that can be attributed to several military defeats at the hands of Israel since the 1947 Israeli War of Independence. However, Israel has never attacked Lebanon in order to destroy it as a nation. In fact, Israel has only ever occupied Lebanese territory for the purpose of keeping Hezbollah at arms length from its own population centers. Which, of course, points out that Lebanon is not Israel's actual enemy here. Hezbollah is, and it would be hard to prove that Hezbollah has suffered more at the hands of Israel than vice versa. At any rate, I would conclude that Israel has suffered more injustice than Hezbollah, though I will concede that this is a debatable issue.

C. Legitimate Authority - Only a duly constituted public authority may wage war or use force - this is to prevent rogue groups from using force to get their way.
Obviously, this is an easy one. The authority to declare/wage war in Israel is in the hands of the Knesset (their version of parliament) and the prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

D. Right Intention - force can only be used in a just cause or to correct a wrong - force is never OK for simple material gain or for pumping up a nation's economy.
This too seems like an open-and-shut case, as Israel's stated aim in the current conflict is to disarm Hezbollah to a point where it no longer constitutes a threat to the people of Israel. This is directly proportional to the problem that brought about the fighting. Also, it is obvious that Israel does not stand to gain anything from this in terms of money or land or even international prestige.

E. Probability of Success - War may not be waged when there is no hope of success - this is important because it would prevent both futile bloodshed and the use of extreme measures (think nukes here) in order to win a conflict.
This seems simple, but I don't think it really is. At first glance, Israel's much vaunted military (pretty much accepted by all parties as the best in the Middle East and often thought of as one of the best in the world, pound for pound) would seem to be capable of this task without any problem. However, as the U.S. is learning in Iraq, Hezbollah will likely be a much tougher entity to absolutely defeat than is anticipated. The fighting will be confused and guerilla. The Hezbollah fighters are religious zealots not likely to give up at all, much less easily. Also, it is thought that both Iran and Syria may be aiding Hezbollah with money and arms. Even so, I feel committed to the idea that Israel is capable, in the end, of defeating Hezbollah to the extent that they have aimed. This is so because I am also committed to a similar idea about the U.S. military's chances in Iraq.

F. Proportionality - The overall destriction from the conflict must be outwighted by the good to be acheived by it - a nation may not kill ten thousand enemies in order to save the lives of ten of their own, for example.
Interestingly, this is the main issue that others critical of Israel have raised - that their attacks have been disproportional to the harm done to them. This might be warrented. Certainly, Israel has damaged the infrastructure of Lebanon to a great degree - knocking out roads, bridges, airports, and preventing easy resupply to the state. Also, there have been somewhat more deaths on the Lebanese side than the Israeli side. However, this may be a difficult thing to quantify, since it is difficult to say that any destruction visited upon Lebanon would be disproportionate to Hezbollah's aim to completely destroy Israel. Also, we may have a difficulty in holding Lebanon as an innocent party in this. Their government has allowed Hezbollah to flourish in southern Lebanon for many years, even after agreeing in 2000 to disarm them - it simply never even tried. In fact, Hezbollah has political members inside of the government of Lebanon, even on the prime minister's cabinet. Also, this issue seems mostly to relate to civilian deaths suffered in Lebanon because of fighting and Israeli bombing. However, this is an accepted part of a just war under the idea of double effect - which allows for the "legality" of accidental killing of civilians when the enemy has chosen to place his forces in a civilian area. Notice that Israel is bombing Hezbollah targets that have been purposely mixed in with civilians in Lebanon, while Hezbollah's rockets are targeting civilian areas in Israel without any military value at all (especially when you consider that Hezbollah is using non-guided rockets which can only be aimed at general regions while Israel is using mostly guided missiles to go after their targets; also, it should be remembered that the killing of civilians is to Hezbollah's advantage in PR and to Israel's disadvantage). Thus, I would end up saying that Israel's actions do conform to proportionality, even if they have some horrible, unintended repercussions.

G. Last Resort - War may only be resorted to after all viable, peaceful alternatives have been seriously attempted and exhausted.
Israel has attempted repeatedly to come to terms with its neighbors to form a lasting peace in the region. That can be shown by the fact that Israel has peace treaties currently in place with both Egypt and Jordan, once enemies. Also, only in the past year, Israel has been pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an attempt to allow the Palestinians a fair chance at developing themselves as a democratic state, even if that attempt has not worked out just yet. Even in Lebanon, Israel pulled out of the same land they are now fighting over with the promise from Lebanon that Hezbollah would be disarmed. In addition, the UN has been in southern Lebanon since 2000 in a supposed attempt to make sure Hezbollah was disarmed, but they have done nothing. Rather, some reports have it that Hezbollah has used areas near the UN forces as zones for firing off their rockets because they knew that Israel would be reluctant to attack them there. All of these attempts by Israel to appeal to other involved nations for help and the international community have failed. Thus, it would definitely seem that Israel has exhausted their alternatives to war.

After all of this, it seems to me that Israel is justified in their current conflict to use force to destroy Hezbollah's ability to conduct terrorist actions inside of Israel. I sincerely hope that this does not spread, as it seems likely to because of the support for Hezbollah of Iran and Syria and the general instability in the Middle East. I also, for my part, deeply regret any deaths that occur in this that were not warrented. However, I also wish to see any terrorist group such as Hezbollah brought to a point where it is no longer able to conduct such actions against others. This seems to be a pre-condition for any lasting peace.

A wonderful website for further study of the theory of just war is: www.justwartheory.com

Looking forward to any comments...