Immigration, especially the illegal kind, is a hot topic in our current political situation in the U.S. and will likely grow into a key point of contention in this November's elections. As such, I thought it would be a good topic to explore from a Christian/Biblical perspective. In order to do this, I have done a short (which is to say "not exhaustive") word study of the English word "alien" in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. I also thought to study the word "foreigner" but found that it was not used often in a context other than a description of the spiritual state of believers in this world. So, I will display my findings on what can be said about treatment of aliens and what cannot be said first before attempting to frame a larger discussion of our current problem and what might be done about it.
First, there are several injunctions in the text about the treatment of aliens living among the Hebrew people. In Exodus 22:21 and 23:9, God tells the people to not mistreat or oppress aliens among them because they were once aliens among the Egyptians and were not well treated. In Leviticus 24:22, God requires the same laws to be used with both native-born Hebrews and aliens. I think we can imply that this also means that they were to be applied equally, as well. In Psalm 146:9, God is said to watch over the alien. In addition, we Christians are described as aliens in this world by Peter in I Peter 2:11.
Additionally, the Hebrew culture was not closed to outsiders. There are numerous examples of foreigners who found a place among the Hebrews and were eventually assimilated. Among them are: Ruth, Rahab, and several of David's mighty men, just to name a few. From this, we can see a readiness to accept foreigners, assuming that they were willing to enter into the Covenant.
From these observations about aliens, we can understand that God desires us to apply our laws as evenly as possible and not discriminate against an alien living in our nation. However, I would like to draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants that comes from the difference in political structures between a 1000 B.C. Hebrew people and our 21st century selves. In that time, the idea of the nation-state did not exist. In fact, much of the world was unclaimed wilderness through which any person could rightfully travel without fear of retribution from the owner, since there was none. Because of this, an alien living among the Hebrews would not ever have been thought of as illegal, as there was no border to have illegally crossed. However, today's world is much different. There is not one spot (other than Antarctica and who wants to live there!) that is not owned by some nation, and the borders between nations are clearly marked for all. In addition, we have all set up laws to govern the admission of people into countries, for all sorts of valid reasons. Therefore, I would like to say that the primary focus of the Biblical teachings on aliens are properly applied to legal immigrants and not illegal immigrants. This is not to say that we should mistreat illegal immigrants or oppress them, but they should be treated as people who do not belong precisely because of the manner of their arrival. I find the Biblical warrant for this in the many teachings calling for Christians to be lawful people, as well as the fact that our God is Himself a law-giver who expects laws to be obeyed. Illegal immigration may touch on many problems, such as economics, cultural/social issues, demographics, and the war on terror, but I think it is primarily a problem of crime. We have a law that details how a person can legally enter our country, and some people have chosen to enter the country in an unlawful way.
So, just what can be done about this problem? First, I think that we need to deal seriously with the influx across the border with Mexico. (I realize that the northern border with Canada is not particularly secure, either, but also understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come across the southern border, making of primary importance.) I would see an immediate military deployment to the border to last until police forces can be beefed up to deal with the problem. It is important for police to be the ultimate guardians of the border because, as I said above, this is a problem of crime and because military forces are not really trained for this sort of duty and will tend to excess by their nature as war-makers.
Second, I think a long, critical look must be taken at our mechanisms for legally entering the country. I have heard many people argue that the system is too slow and difficult and that this actually contributes to illegal immigration because it is much easier than the red tape. I tend to believe these arguments because of my understanding of normal government practice. Our government is not quick on much of anything and finds all sorts of ways to make simple things difficult. So, I think this system should be streamlined, though while still maintaining some checks to prevent certain types of people from entering the country, such as convicted criminals, known terrorists, etc. However, in keeping with the command from Leviticus 24, we must not discriminate in our immigration system on the basis of race, as has been the case in U.S. history.
Thirdly, even though it is a crime to enter the country illegally, we cannot realistically arrest and jail all of the millions of illegal immigrants now in the country. That would require more resources than could possibly be available. Alternately, we also do not have the wherewithal to eject all of those people from the country, both because we couldn't find and arrest them all and because many businesses, as has been claimed, would fail without their labor. So, a system must be put into place that makes these illegal immigrants into something else. I would not see an amnesty that conveys citizenship on all of them because it would only encourage more illegal immigrants, rewards criminality, and is basically unfair, especially to those who have pursued immigration legally. I would rather see a guestworker system put into place. This would allow illegal immigrants to obtain working papers for a limited time, such as two or three years, after which they would have to either apply for full citizenship in the normal way or leave to return to their nations of origin. This project would have a short sign-up period of maybe three months for illegal immigrants to register with the government after which they would be considered criminals to be deported immediately upon capture. In addition, severe penalties would have to be put into place for any company employing illegal immigrants who do not have working papers. I think this plan, while not perfect, would be advantageous for all - the immigrants would not immediately be deported but would have time to earn some money which would stand them in good stead in their homelands, the government would know where these people are and be able to tax them in order to make up for the medical and education expenses they are already incurring on our society, businesses would be required to treat all of their employees equally without their illegal status to hold over them, and our national security interests would be better served. I think it would ultimately help us to treat immigrants to our nation fairly and without oppression, as called for in the Bible, and to uphold lawful lives, also an interest of the Bible.
Well, those are my ideas, though most are not original to me. Tell me what you think.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
A Child of One's Own
In this post, I'd like to examine a question that seems to be increasingly asked in our society and answered in a way I disagree with. That question is: do we have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh?
At first glance, this seems like a no-brainier. Many people will assert that, of course, we do have such a right. I, however, reject that position because I believe it takes us into behaviors and pursuits that are directly opposed to a holy life.
As a clarification, I need to state that I do believe that people (here I am being general to all couples, when I would like to be specific to married couples only) do have an inherent right to attempt to procreate. The only reason I can think of for a couple being denied this right is that one or both of them are in prison. Otherwise, no one should ever be given the power to discriminate against any group in this way. I have heard of people suggesting this sort of action for various groups: those with birth defects or mental retardation as a form of eugenics, the poor to limit the number of children that the government must support, or in China where a form of this is used to curtail population growth problems, etc. This seems to me to be a particularly cruel mentality, which leads only to further mistreating of these groups.
The first reason I believe we do not have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh comes from the problems created by today's reproductive therapy industry, which is driven by this sort of thinking. Many of these therapies require the creation of numerous fertilized embryos to be implanted inside the womb of a mother (and this isn't even always the "real" mother, either). When doctors perform these procedures, they often use many embryos to increase the chances that one will successfully implant. Of course, we Christians who maintain that life begins at conception (even if that occurs in a Petri dish) hold that each of those fertilized embryos is a separate human being valued by God (I do realize that not all Christians will agree with this, but I hold them to be wrong on this issue). This causes problems with these procedures because, even a successful one involves the destruction of many of those embryos. In addition, it occasionally is too successful, resulting in a multiple pregnancy, which doctors often wish to reduce through selective abortion. Even more, in these sorts of procedures, it is cost effective to create many more fertilized embryos than will be needed, resulting in unwanted embryos, which are now being haggled over by certain groups wishing to use them for stem cell research. All of these evil results of reproductive technology are driven by the perceived right to a child of one's own, which is difficult for so many.
Now, to be fair, it could be argued that there is a way to use reproductive technology in a highly controlled and conservative way that is compatible with Christian views. While this is possible, it is simply not the case in practice. In addition, as it is the costs for such therapies are extreme. Further restrictions would enable only the super-rich to use these methods, creating an unattainable hope for nearly all couples suffering from infertility.
A second reason I am opposed to this idea, and I think the most disturbing, is that I believe it is often just one more symptom of the me-centered culture we live in. By this, I mean that many couples (and even some singles) are having children primarily for their own fulfillment. We can see this in celebrities having children as just one more of their entourage, as well as regular parents obsessing over every little detail of their children's lives, from baseball dads beating up coaches and refs to cheerleading moms plotting against their daughters' rivals. This is not to say that having children does not provide some fulfillment to parents. In fact, it does and should, but this is not the only or best reason for having children. The Bible describes children as a blessing and a gift from God, but also as a responsibility. While it is a two-way street, the relationship between children and parents seems to me to be primarily one that flows from parents to children when in its proper shape. Children do not exist to fulfill some need in parents.
I realize that my views here have far-reaching implications for such things as adoption and the problem of evil (why does a good God allow people to not be able to have children of their own in the normal way?). Those would be great topics for comments, as I now have some other things I must attend to.
At first glance, this seems like a no-brainier. Many people will assert that, of course, we do have such a right. I, however, reject that position because I believe it takes us into behaviors and pursuits that are directly opposed to a holy life.
As a clarification, I need to state that I do believe that people (here I am being general to all couples, when I would like to be specific to married couples only) do have an inherent right to attempt to procreate. The only reason I can think of for a couple being denied this right is that one or both of them are in prison. Otherwise, no one should ever be given the power to discriminate against any group in this way. I have heard of people suggesting this sort of action for various groups: those with birth defects or mental retardation as a form of eugenics, the poor to limit the number of children that the government must support, or in China where a form of this is used to curtail population growth problems, etc. This seems to me to be a particularly cruel mentality, which leads only to further mistreating of these groups.
The first reason I believe we do not have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh comes from the problems created by today's reproductive therapy industry, which is driven by this sort of thinking. Many of these therapies require the creation of numerous fertilized embryos to be implanted inside the womb of a mother (and this isn't even always the "real" mother, either). When doctors perform these procedures, they often use many embryos to increase the chances that one will successfully implant. Of course, we Christians who maintain that life begins at conception (even if that occurs in a Petri dish) hold that each of those fertilized embryos is a separate human being valued by God (I do realize that not all Christians will agree with this, but I hold them to be wrong on this issue). This causes problems with these procedures because, even a successful one involves the destruction of many of those embryos. In addition, it occasionally is too successful, resulting in a multiple pregnancy, which doctors often wish to reduce through selective abortion. Even more, in these sorts of procedures, it is cost effective to create many more fertilized embryos than will be needed, resulting in unwanted embryos, which are now being haggled over by certain groups wishing to use them for stem cell research. All of these evil results of reproductive technology are driven by the perceived right to a child of one's own, which is difficult for so many.
Now, to be fair, it could be argued that there is a way to use reproductive technology in a highly controlled and conservative way that is compatible with Christian views. While this is possible, it is simply not the case in practice. In addition, as it is the costs for such therapies are extreme. Further restrictions would enable only the super-rich to use these methods, creating an unattainable hope for nearly all couples suffering from infertility.
A second reason I am opposed to this idea, and I think the most disturbing, is that I believe it is often just one more symptom of the me-centered culture we live in. By this, I mean that many couples (and even some singles) are having children primarily for their own fulfillment. We can see this in celebrities having children as just one more of their entourage, as well as regular parents obsessing over every little detail of their children's lives, from baseball dads beating up coaches and refs to cheerleading moms plotting against their daughters' rivals. This is not to say that having children does not provide some fulfillment to parents. In fact, it does and should, but this is not the only or best reason for having children. The Bible describes children as a blessing and a gift from God, but also as a responsibility. While it is a two-way street, the relationship between children and parents seems to me to be primarily one that flows from parents to children when in its proper shape. Children do not exist to fulfill some need in parents.
I realize that my views here have far-reaching implications for such things as adoption and the problem of evil (why does a good God allow people to not be able to have children of their own in the normal way?). Those would be great topics for comments, as I now have some other things I must attend to.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)