One dramatic example of the use of military drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) recently grabbed headlines throughout the world.
Soon after the tragic and unjust killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya (including Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya), on the anniversary of 9/11, reports circulated that the deaths were a pre-planned and coordinated attack in retaliation for the killing earlier this year of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a top al-Qaida leader from Libya.
Yahya al-Libi was killed in North Waziristan on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, most likely by a U.S. drone attack with "hellfire missiles."
With drone technology rapidly becoming ubiquitous, many people ask: Is the use of drones for surveillance, identification and aerial attack in accordance with the Catholic moral tradition?
New technology does not change moral truth. The basic ethical norms are unchanged and unchangeable because they reflect how humans are to flourish individually and as a community of persons on our pilgrim path towards God and his Kingdom.
However, new technology does provide new challenges in applying these moral norms.
The use of drones in war falls under the same category as the use of manned aircraft. The moral presumption is that one should not employ deadly force.
But there are exceptions to this presumption if one is justly defending others. This is true domestically (police actions for example) or internationally (fighting in a just war). For a war to be just it must meet very stringent conditions: be fought for a just cause, as a last resort, with the right intention, declared by the competent authority, with a probability of success and be proportionate (in the sense that the goods to be protected and promoted are proportionate to the assumed damage the war will most likely cause).
These criteria are the jus ad bellum (justice of war) requirements.
But a just war must be fought justly, so there are also jus in bello (justice in war) criteria that must be followed. These include that each action be militarily necessary to achieve the just cause, be done for the right intention, be part of a lawfully ordered action, have a probability of success, inflict minimum loss of life or injury while demonstrating proportionality in the good achieved vs. the damage inflicted on the enemy, and properly discriminate between legitimate military targets and innocent non-military civilians.
If the "war on terror" is not a just war, then no action in it can be just. The only moral course would be to cease fighting. However, assuming the "war on terror" is a legitimate application of the jus ad bellum criteria (an assumption not without many difficulties given that, among other things, it is an unconventional, asymmetric war), does the use of drones meet the jus in bello requirements?
Before answering this question, the decision-making procedure for a drone strike should be examined.
Due to the excellent work of investigative journalists like Esquire’s Tom Junod, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Jonathan Masters and Jo Becker and Scott Shane of The New York Times, a fairly clear picture has emerged. "Targeted killings," as they are sometimes called, are authorized on al-Qaida operatives (and their supporters or allies like the Taliban) only after they have been placed on the unfortunately named "kill list."
This list is drawn up at the highest level of the American political and military chain of command. Names are added only with the direct approval of the commander in chief, the president of the United States.
President Barack Obama is frequently briefed on terrorist activity and reserves his right to have the final say in authorizing strikes. According to the Times, he personally authorizes all strikes in Yemen and Somalia and many in Pakistan.
All strikes must meet strict "rules of engagement" when it comes to identifying some high-value person of interest or group on the approved attack list. A strike may be a deployment of special forces in a "capture or kill" mission, a cruise missile launch or an aerial bombardment from manned or unmanned aircraft.
More often than not, the weapon of choice is a missile strike from a drone.
Drones have several military advantages. They offer little or no risk to the U.S. forces. They are less expensive and dangerous than maintaining manned aircraft on station. They can remain in the air for an incredibly long time, and they have proved both deadly and accurate.
The New America Foundation, a widely accepted non-partisan analyst, estimates there have been approximately 337 drone strikes in Pakistan alone from 2004 until Oct. 24, 2012 (about 285 of these occurred during Obama’s presidency) causing casualties of between 1,908 to 3,225 people. These strikes have killed 1,618-2,769 combatants, about 153-192 civilians and another 130-268 persons whose identities were unknown.
This means the collateral-damage estimates range from 7%-15%. Over time, this figure has decreased, as targeting methods, technology and technical skills of the remote pilots have all improved.
Compared to other methods of attack and other wars, these collateral-damage figures, though still tragic, are fewer.
These statistics make clear that U.S. military authorities are seriously attempting to minimize civilian casualties and make these attacks as "surgical" as possible. And we know from captured documents and other intelligence that these strikes have seriously hampered al-Qaida’s efforts to carry out terrorist activities and recruit and train new leadership.
Therefore, these strikes seem to be serving a real military purpose (just cause) in the ongoing battle to disrupt terror activity.
One might ask if these strikes are not tantamount to murder, since they intend to kill.
In fact, the intent is to sever the command, control and communication (CCC) ability of these terror groups by striking at their key leaders and command posts. Each terror leader is a walking CCC nerve center vital to the enemy’s ability to continue their threat to innocent human life. The intent of any attack in these cases is morally similar to a police attack on kidnappers in a hostage situation who refuse to surrender and continue to threaten others. There seems to be a right intention here.
This leaves four more problematic questions.
First, although we are not there yet, this increased reliance on remote technology does give one reason to pause and ask whether such mechanization threatens to make war (and everything else) even more inhumane. Does this increased reliance on technology create a new "arms race," where the chase is for ever-increasing electronic sophistication, with more and more automation? Is there a point where we humans might lose control of our own machines? Already, the use of automatic drones which would be programmed to search, identify and fire on targets without direct human intervention is being considered. This "brave new world" would be fraught with real ethical dilemmas.
Second, shouldn’t we pay more attention to the requirements of minimum force and make an attempt to capture these terror operatives rather than "shooting first and asking questions later"? After all, morality requires the use of deadly force as a last resort. And from an "intel" perspective, a captured operative can be extremely helpful, while a dead one cannot.
While this is true, and every reasonable effort should be made to capture rather than kill, the terrain, political situation, operative style and patterns of these terror leaders make capture a near impossibility. This being said, it would be in better keeping with the just-war tradition if more were done to try to capture these "high-value targets."
Third, what are the legal implications of such attacks, given that many take place in countries like Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, where the U.S. and her allies technically are not engaged in an ongoing war?
Here, to meet the criteria of lawful action, there must be at least the tacit approval of these governments. The only exception would be where the government is actively aiding and abetting the terror organization. Then the offending nation would be subject to attack, as Congress authorized in its resolution on the use of force against al-Qaida and other terror groups (passed first in September of 2001 and renewed as recently as this year).
This tacit approval is becoming a real issue, especially as the U.S. relationship with some of these nations is highly problematic.
Last, but certainly not least, there is the question of last resort. Doesn’t the use of drone technology lessen the natural barrier to authorizing the use of deadly force? Isn’t it much easier to give a "go" order to attack when none of your military personnel is being placed in harm’s way?
When a nation asks a soldier to risk life and limb, any decent commander will think long and hard before sending in the troops, knowing what is being risked. But if all that is at stake is some hardware that can be programmed to self-destruct, what is there to give a leader pause, except his or her well-formed conscience and empathy for one’s enemies?
If we look at history, neither of these characteristics has been in high supply among the emperors, kings, princes, prime ministers and presidents who have ruled their respective nations. Perhaps, in the end, this new technology will call for new types of leaders, not ruthless and cunning, ambitious and grasping, but ones who truly are empathetic and sacrificing, who are filled with compassion and "love of enemy" (see Matthew 5:44).
But where will these saints be found? As technology advances, mankind’s moral progress and even survival may depend on our answer to this question.
Msgr. Stuart Swetland, a 1981 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, holds the Archbishop Harry Flynn Chair of Christian Ethics
at Mount St. Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Md., and is the host of EWTN’s
Catholicism on Campus. He served six years as a line officer in the U.S. Navy.
Comments
Post a Comment
Wrong. If you capture terrorists rather than kill them, then you increase the possibility of such terrorist groups kidnapping
your civilians in those countries where it happened and beheading them if you don’t release the terrorists you have captured….and you won’t release them so the beheadings will happen.
Very difficult moral points were raised here. Killing terrorist leaders with such impersonal technological blows is the surest way to defeating them, or so it seems.
BB,
If terrorists are willing to kidnap and behead people for their captured brethren, what do you suppose they will do if their brethren are killed?
Your statistics are flawed because the administration counts any male between 15-50 that is killed as a combatant, whether or not they actually were.
I also think we need a discussion on the assassination of American citizens without any judicial oversight. Assassination means that the President is Judge, Jury, and Executioner; which is of course wrong. President Obama killed a 16 year old American citizen in Yemen. He was never charged with a crime, wasn’t on a battlefield, he was killed because the President thought he should be killed. That is the height of lawlessness.
Glenn Greenwald on Slate is an excellent source of information on our drone wars. I strongly suggest the author look into his multiple articles on the use of drones. I also thank the author for contributing to a discussion in the Church on the use of drones and Executive power, which is severely lacking today.
Msgr. Stuart Swetland, Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be trying to justify the use of this new method of killing people by the use of unmanned American made drones. You obviously buy into this American made “war on terror”, and eloquently repeat their deceitful phraseology like “collateral damage” and “surgical attacks”, and suspiciously equate it as a “just war”. You should be aware that in the past 3 days Israel has launched another “surgical attack” on the densely populated Gaza strip with American made drones that has produced the “collateral damage” of a pregnant woman with twins, an 11-month old boy and three infants. All of you that use the “just war” reasoning that kill people will have no one to answer but Our Creator.
“For a war to be just [it must have] ... a probability of success.”
Are you sure about that, as you have stated it?
An otherwise just war would be rendered unjust, if after meeting every other criteria needed for justice, the soldiers of that righteous cause were but “we few, we happy few”?
They should give up their righteous cause and lay down their arms and submit?
Felix,
Where is this obvious proof that Msgr. Swetland “buys into the war on terror”? If you are basing it on the usage of common terminology, that’s a weak assumption.
Felix,
Your argument is weak and nonsensical. Why do you turn a blind eye to the fact that over 500 Rockets were fired inot Jerusalem in Tel Aviv for the sole purpose of INTENTIONALLY killing innocent Jewish women and children in unprovoked attacks? It defies logic to equate the deliberate targeting of civilians through indiscriminately fired Rockets with the surgical strikes that Israel is conducting in response to those rockets? Why did you omit the number of Israel’s killed?
There is just one question - who is the more evil - CIA, Mossad or Al-Quaida? Any attack on another sovereign country is an act of terror. It cannot be denied - America and Britain are certainly not innocent of this, and it must be faced up to - they seem to attack sovereign countries far more than anyone else does.
Matt
Show us the money. We killed Bin Laden and at least 20 other leaders of Al Qaeda under Panetta….the latter by drone. Al Qaeda isn’t doing much back because after Al Qaeda in Iraq killed muslims, the money is flowing elsewhere.
There was little retaliation after Bin Laden but had we imprisoned him, that would have aroused the million moron march of out of work mideast felons.
Russ Berger, May I remind you the issue here is not Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine with the inhumane check points, the continued bulldozing of Palestinian homes and olive tree orchards for the building of illegal settlements, the building of the apartheid wall that snakes through Palestinian neighborhoods, the exclusion of Palestinians from using certain roads and highways, and the decimation of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land to name just a few. The issue here is what seems to be Msgr. Swetland’s justification of the “collateral damage” caused by “surgical attacks” and “just wars”. However, and only because you brought it up, would you kindly tell us about the disparity in weaponry between Israel and the Palestinians and given the disparity do you still see Israel’s “surgical strike” as a “just war” in such a densely populated area; and while you are at it also tell us how many “innocent Jewish women and children” the “500 Rockets” have killed or how much property damaged they have caused and compare that to the damage and the killing done by Israel and again tell us that you see Israel’s atrocities as “just war”.
Felix,
So if murderers have bad aim, they become victims? What if a street thug fires a 44 magnum at you and misses every time? Should a court reward him with a construction job? The UN created Israel in 1947 and has not done anything martial to protect her from people who do not accept the UN creation. In fact, UN oberservers watched for years rockets moving into southern Lebanon from Syria and then when they were fired at Israel, the UN once again avoided scrutiny of its effeminate perfomance. The Jews are Mary’s and Joseph’s and Christ’s people who returned to Israel because the Catholic Spanish deported them in 1492 and they later faced pogroms in the 1800’s from other Euro Christians….and then came Hitler. God ordered the Jews into those lands after the Canaanites sacrificed to Baal for 400 years….if you want to go by earliest legit inhabitants. If you want to go by longstanding rule, Arab muslims lost those lands to the Ottoman empire centuries ago in 1516 and then the British took over in the 20th century from the Turks.. We have a record of God wanting the Jews there in the Bible. We have no record of God wanting the Arab muslims there.
Felix,
Here in the Catholic Bible in the book of Wisdom is chapter 12:
” 3 For those ancient inhabitants of your holy land, whom you abhorred, 4 because they did works hateful to you by their sorceries, and wicked sacrifices, 5 and those merciless murderers of their own children, and eaters of men’s bowels, and devourers of blood from the midst of your consecration, 6 and those parents sacrificing with their own hands helpless souls, it was your will to destroy by the hands of our parents, 7 that the land which of all is most dear to you, might receive a worthy colony of the children of God.”
So explain to us how God has now switched to wanting people there most of whom deny the Trinity in the Koran…explicitly…and promise in the Koran that men in Paradise will have large eyed houri….young girls.
B.B., I was not going to respond to you because you don’t have the courtesy of using your full name, nevertheless, here we go. You also stray away from the issue here. The problem is that the murderers are the ones with the sophisticated weaponry that includes American made drones, Apache helicopters, F-16’s, etc. and with all that weaponry they can’t shoot straight and continue to indiscriminately kill innocent people that they conveniently call “collateral damage”. You should take a look at the map of the land given to Israel in 1947 and take a look at today’s map and honestly tell me that the Israel of today, not the God created biblical Israel that I am willing to die for, has not since then been usurping land from defenseless Palestinians. You should also be reminded that God sent His only begotten Son as a NEW and EVERLASTING COVENANT to give all that would listen, including the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the world a new chance at mending their ways. You are so wrong when you say “We have no record of God wanting the Arab muslims there.” The God of Abraham I know… the God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I know is not selective like you make it sound. Whether you agree with this or not He is the Creator of all mankind including “Arab muslims” like you demeaningly call them.
Felix,
Tell the folks why Israel captured more land than the 1947 map indicated land.. Tell the folks. You seem to have left out that detail.
And there is a large difference between killing civilians on purpose ( the 2011 targeting by Gazans of an Israeli school bus with a laser guided anti tank weapon) and killing civilians who are near your military target.
But tell the folks why Israel expanded and then tell them why Israel surrendered a lot of the war conquered land like the Sinai peninsula which is a lot of land through which now Iran delivers missiles. I suspect Israel regrets giving that back.
Acceptable losses is the key term Riveria. You will ALWAYS have casualties in war. According to the Church, you do not need to eliminate these losses, you need to REDUCE them to acceptable levels.
Why is it so many hispanics are out of touch with Church Teaching? They are big on popular devotions, but clueless when it comes to Catholic doctrine.
Msgr. Swetland,
Thank you for your article. Certainly these are difficult moral questions and no easy answer can be found. However, like one of the commentators above, I too came across an article published in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago about the way that statistics are collected from drone attacks. Unfortunately, I was not able to find it online, however. The author of the article stated that (as mentioned above) all males of “combatant age” are presumed to be terrorists and are counted as such in the tally. Would not this presumption render the act immoral? To use a classic moral scenario, if it is not morally permissible to fire one’s weapon into a bush when one is not morally certain what is in that bush, how could it be permissible to drop a bomb on a group of people whom we are not morally certain are actually terrorists? If the identity of each and every person in the blast radius is not known with moral certitude, how can it be permissible to drop the bomb? Is it not possible that there may be others on site who are not terrorists (e.g. hostages)? If it is not too much trouble, please do respond at your convenience.
CSonS…or Felix as the case may be,
The articles of that type involve criticism of Peter Bergen of CNN who had the drone civilian casualty count down to almost zero in the last few years. Both have logic….Bergen and his critics. Why would young men be with terrorists prominent enough to be on a hit list at all….in a house or in a car, Bergen would probably argue. Civilians have a responsibility to not expose themselves to drones by traveling with or being in a house with terrorists. If you wish them to have such license, it’s an absurd idea that will never have influence on any military force in the world. Nor do I think military people…CIA in particular…read arguments about Church just war ideas ever since John Paul II went very pacifist in late life alledging in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae that the OT death penalties were simply products of a
“unrefined culture” ( the Bible has God ordering them). When the last two Popes campaigned against the death penalty with John Paul calling it “cruel” despite God ordering it repeatedly in the OT and when they both Popes in public used the phrase “war solves nothing” ( easily googled), both men lost credibility for the Church on war issues.
B.B., your last comments sums up your hidden evil way of thinking and I personally thank you for letting us know precisely where you stand on the issues discussed on this thread. Your contempt for our Holy Fathers and for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus built himself to withstand all the evils of this world including people like yourself is such that resembles the Pharisees and the High Priests that Jesus had to face that knew nothing about forgiveness and love for their neighbors. It’s no wonder that you demean other humans the way you do when you say that the God of Abraham is selective and discriminates “We have no record of God wanting the Arab muslims there”. I am sure you know that Saint Paul had to use the wisdom given him by the Holy Spirit to talk Saint Peter and the other Jewish apostles into accepting the Gentiles and that it was not easy for them to give in on their Jewish traditions and open up and accept Christianity like God commanded. I tell you this to get you to see the Jews of today as the Pharisees that Jesus had to confront because that was precisely God giving humanity one more chance through this NEW COVENANT. It’s obvious that we still have a lot of work ahead of us for the Pharisees are still alive and kicking.
Felix,
So today’s Jews are pharisees because they want to protect their children from rockets that number over 700 now for this year? Vatican II disputes you:
” Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.” section 4 of Nostra Aetate/ Vatican II.
( One of the gifts He made arguably is that land as we read in the Catholic Bible:
Wisdom 12:verses 3-7. “For truly, the ancient inhabitants of your holy land,
4 whom you hated for deeds most odious—Works of witchcraft and impious sacrifices;
5 a cannibal feast of human flesh and of blood, from the midst of. . .—These merciless murderers of children,
6 and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers,
7 that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worthy colony of God’s children.”
God later exiled the Jews from that land because they sinned but brought them back. Christ notes the punishment of His generation as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD but He does not say anything more. The Jewish crowd stated, “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children” but not only was this NOT A PROPHECY. but it was the stating of what God forbade them to state in Ezekiel 18:1-4:
” The word of the LORD came to me: Son of man,
2 what is the meaning of this proverb you recite in the land of Israel:
“Parents eat sour grapes,a
but the children’s teeth are set on edge”?*
3 As I live—oracle of the Lord GOD: I swear that none of you will ever repeat this proverb in Israel.
4 For all life is mine: the life of the parent is like the life of the child, both are mine. Only the one who sins shall die!”
The Church will have to consider that if she says the gifts of God to the Jews are without repentance per the epistle….what is the relevance to the land and to those prophecies that speak of Christ returning the second time at the Mount of Olives ( Zechariah 14) not at Rome but in the Holy Land….and does that mean that the Holy Land cannot
possibly simply be normal and not Holy. This doesn’t mean that Jews should rule it….but it does seem to mean that they cannot be excluded from it since there are ingathering prophecies also and AFTER THE TIME OF THE GENTILES, THE JEWS WILL CONVERT which is the beginning of the Romans passage already quoted..Romans 11:
“4 I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise (in) your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in,
26
and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob;
27
and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
28
In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs.
29
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
So at the end of the time of the gentiles (us), the Jews will convert and inter alia Christ will return at Mt. Olivet where He ascended. He will be preceded by Elijah who will take part in this conversion of the Jews and it sounds like it will be there….where Christ is returning….in the Holy Land.
Felix,
So today’s Jews are pharisees because they want to protect their children from rockets that number over 700 now for this year? Vatican II disputes you:
” Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle….True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”
... section 4 of Nostra Aetate/ Vatican II.
The gifts God gave them and of which He does not repent could well include the Land ...not in the sense of ruling it but in the sense of not being excluded from it as Islamists want….since the Jews will convert after the time of the gentiles
( Romans 11:4&26;) and since Christ’s Second coming will be preceded by Elijah “restoring all things” and since Christ will return at Mt. Olivet not at Rome at least by a common sense reading of Zechariah 14:4-
” On that day God’s feet will stand* on the Mount of Olives, which is opposite Jerusalem to the east. The Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west by a very deep valley,b and half of the mountain will move to the north and half of it to the south.
5
You will flee by the valley between the mountains, for the valley between the mountains will reach to Azal. Thus you will flee as you fled because of the earthquake* in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.c Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all his holy ones with him.
B.B., Why is it so difficult for you and the Pharisees to understand compassion, humility, forgiveness, and love your neighbor, and obey God’s commandments? I tell you again… today’s Pharisees are no different than the ones God gave yet another opportunity when he sent His only begotten Son to offer them the way to salvation and they rejected him. There was nothing a poor Jew born in a manger could say or do to make them understand that He was God standing in front of them but whom they could not see because of the blindfold they wear. That same blindfold (power) they wear today that keeps them hating their neighbors and keeps them from seeing the goodness of our Lord. You obviously don’t get it either.
Felix,
Something makes you side with obvious villains who aim…actually ..aim at civilian populations. No one here is seeing you as truthful on these matters but rather as wounded. Good fortune to you.
The assumption that if the war was begun unjustly then the only just response is to stop fighting must be (ironically) justified. It is often impossible to go back to the status quo ante, however lamentable may be the decisions that led us to our current situation. As a concrete example, when we invaded Iraq a number of Iraqis believed our assurances that we would not abandon them and helped the US effort; we had an obligation to them. The same is true in every parallel situation: it is true today in Afghanistan and it was true in South Vietnam. Likewise, there was a great deal of injustice in the way the continent was taken from the American Indians, but it is neither just nor possible to expel all whites, blacks, and Asians from what is now the US.
B.B., I hope the following is of interest to you:
A Blog by Rabbi Brant Rosen http://rabbibrant.com/2012/11/16/outrage-in-gaza-redux/
Outrage in Gaza Redux
Posted: November 16, 2012 | Author: Rabbi Brant Rosen
Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09 represented an important turning point in my own relationship with Israel. I recall experiencing a new and previously unfamiliar feeling of anguish as Israel bombarded the people living in that tiny, besieged strip of land over and over, day after day after day. While I certainly felt a sense of tribal loyalty to the Israelis who withstood Qassam rocket fire from Gaza, I felt a newfound sense of concern and solidarity with Gazans who I believed were experiencing nothing short of oppression during this massive military onslaught.
And now it’s happening again. Only this time I don’t think the term “anguish” quite fits my mindset. Now it’s something much closer to rage.
It’s happening again. Once again 1.7 million people, mostly refugees, who have been living in what amounts to the world’s largest open air prison, are being subjected to a massive military assault at the hands of the world’s most militarized nation, using mostly US-made weapons. And our President is not only looking on – he is defending Israel’s onslaught by saying it has a right to “self-defense in light of the barrage of rocket attacks being launched from Gaza against Israeli civilians.”
Let’s be clear: this tragedy didn’t start with the Qassams. It didn’t start with the election of Hamas. And it didn’t start with the “instability” that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
No, this is just the latest chapter of a much longer saga that began in 1947-48, when scores of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their cities and villages in the coastal plain and lower Galilee and warehoused in a tiny strip of land on the edge of the Mediterranean. By all accounts, most were simply too overwhelmed to realize what was happening. Some tried to return to their homes and were killed on sight. Others resisted by staging raids in the newly declared state of Israel. Sometimes they succeeded, more often they did not. Either way, Israel decided early on that it would respond to each of these reprisals with a overwhelming military show of force. And those reprisals and that show of force have essentially been ongoing until this very day.
I realize, of course, there is plenty of political subtext to this latest go-around. I’ve read the timelines and have formed my own opinions on the latest “who started it?” debate. I’ve also read plenty of analyses by Israeli observers who believe that this was not a response to Qassam fire at all but was very much a “war of choice” waged by an Israeli administration looking to shore up political support in an election season.
I’ve also read a widely circulated article from Ha’aretz about Israel’s recent execution of Ahmed Jabari (the head of Hamas’ military wing). I learned that up until now, Jabari was “Israel’s subcontractor” for security in the Gaza Strip, that Israel has been literally funding Hamas through intermediaries in exchange for peace and quiet on their southern border, and that when Jabari failed to deliver of late, the decision came down to take him out. Another article, written by the Israeli who negotiated with Jabari for the release of Gilad Shalit, revealed that negotiations were still ongoing between Jabari and Israeli officials when Israel assassinated him with a drone strike.
Yes, the wonky side of me has been avidly reading all these analyses. And while I do believe they provide an important counterbalance to the mythic statements by Israel’s Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, the more I read the cynical political subtext for this war, the sicker I get. No, this isn’t about Qassams, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s about elections either. It’s really just the most recent chapter in a much longer litany of injustice – the latest attempt by Israel bring the Palestinians to their knees through the sheer force of their formidable military might.
Of all the analyses I’ve yet read, one of the very few that truly seemed to grasp this truth came from Yousef Munayyer, of The Jerusalem Fund/Palestine Center:
The problem Gaza presents for Israel is that it won’t go away—though Israel would love it if it would. It is a constant reminder of the depopulation of Palestine in 1948, the folly of the 1967 occupation, and the many massacres which have happened since them. It also places the Israelis in an uncomfortable position because it presents a problem (in the form of projectiles) which cannot be solved by force…
Israel has tried assassinating Palestinian leaders for decades but the resistance persists. Israel launched a devastating and brutal war on Gaza from 2008 to 2009 killing 1,400 people, mostly civilians, but the resistance persists.
Why, then, would Israel choose to revert to a failed strategy that will undoubtedly only escalate the situation? Because it is far easier for politicians to lie to voters, vilify their adversaries, and tell them ‘we will hit them hard’ than to come clean and say instead, ‘we’ve failed and there is no military solution to this problem.’
Like last time, I know many in the Jewish community will say it is unseemly of me to criticize Israel this way while Israelis live in fear of Qassam fire out of Gaza. I know there are those who believe that by writing these words, I’m turning my back on my own people in their time of need. But I know in my heart that my outrage at Israel’s actions goes hand in hand with compassion for Israelis – particularly those who know that their leaders’ devotion to the sword is leading them into the abyss.
Additionally, as I wrote under tragically similar circumstances in 2009:
I believe Israel’s response to Hamas’ missile attacks have been disproportionate and outrageous. I believe their actions only further endanger the security of Israelis while inflicting collective punishment and a severe humanitarian crisis upon Gazans. Indeed, just as I cannot understand what it must be like to be a citizen of Sderot, I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a Gazan citizen at the moment, living under constant air attack, with no running water or electricity and dwindling food, as hospitals fill up with wounded and corpses lie rotting in the streets because relief workers are unable to reach them.
When will we be ready to accept that this is not a “balanced” conflict or even a “war” by any reasonable definition – and that it never was? When will we face the painful truth that this is not a story about one side versus the other but about one side oppressing the other? Frankly, all the well-meaning liberal comments about “praying for peace on both sides” and leave me cold. Worse, I find them insidious because they simply serve to support the myth that this is a conflict between two equal parties. It is not. And peace will not come until we admit this – until we admit that there is an essential injustice at the heart of this tragedy and that try as it might, Israel will never be able to make it go away through the sheer force of its increasingly massive military might.
Beyond the rage, I’m heartened that this time around there is a growing community of conscience that is speaking out publicly and in no uncertain terms to protest Israel’s latest outrage in Gaza. I am so deeply grateful for my friends and colleagues at Jewish Voice for Peace, who is alone in the Jewish world in condemning this latest assault. I urge you to read JVP’s courageous statement, which I know gives voice to increasing numbers of Jews and non-Jews, young and old, religious and secular, who are coming together through the courage of their conscience.
At this point in my posts I would typically write “click here” to lend your voice to some kind of collective statement. I’m going resist that temptation and urge you instead to take to the streets.
I’ll see you there.
B.B., I hope the following is of interest to you: A Blog by Rabbi Brant Rosen - Outrage in Gaza Redux - Posted: November 16, 2012 | Author: Rabbi Brant Rosen - Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09 represented an important turning point in my own relationship with Israel. I recall experiencing a new and previously unfamiliar feeling of anguish as Israel bombarded the people living in that tiny, besieged strip of land over and over, day after day after day. While I certainly felt a sense of tribal loyalty to the Israelis who withstood Qassam rocket fire from Gaza, I felt a newfound sense of concern and solidarity with Gazans who I believed were experiencing nothing short of oppression during this massive military onslaught.
And now it’s happening again. Only this time I don’t think the term “anguish” quite fits my mindset. Now it’s something much closer to rage…. you can read the entire blog at rabbibrantdotcom or google his name
Felix:
I live in Berlin, which was destroyed by the Red Army and divided into two by occupying forces. It made life hell for the ordinary civilians here. And the Nazis deliberately made things worse in Berlin by refusing to allow civilians to leave before the Battle of Berlin. In war there are villains on both sides; suffering on both sides. It was horrible but the Nazis had to be stopped, because of what they were doing.
Sure it is horrendous what the Gazans are suffering. But there suffering is exacerbated by the use of Gaza as a base to attack civilians in Israel. If it wasn’t for terrorist groups in Palestine and their popular support, there would be no wall, blockades or bombings. The walling off of Palestinian territory, as horrible as it is, stopped 90% of suicide bombings.
You conveniently ignore and dehumanise as ‘Pharisees’ the side that is subject to repeated attacks by a groups, which deliberately places its forces near civilian centres to maximise collateral damage, deliberately targets civilians and explicitly aims at the destruction of Israel and creation of an Islamic state built on its ruins.
You sense of solidarity with the civilians of only one side, is nothing more than a covert racism. Please keep your rage and ‘tribal loyalties’ to yourself—it is inimical to anyone who want peace.
They are hardly preventing civilian casualties in Pakistan. A Stanford/NYU study revealed that the drone strikes there kill 49 innocent people for every 1 terrorist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
Francisco,
And CNN’s Peter Bergen says the rate of civilian casualities is down near zero. And others have criticized him. There does not seem to be any reliable sources. Think of the nature of the reporting problem. News agencies have few people on the ground and what are rhe chances of their being anywhere’s near a drone attack which are not forecasted by the cia. You are left with whether or not muslims at the site are telling the truth or are falsifying for their own agenda.
Felix,
I don’t read you henceforth. God be with you.
It would do a great justice to drone the 35 training camps right here in the US. The enemy is among us and the current president knows. He is not with Israel and he is not with Americans. Though he has substantial resources, media and liberals taking his side, he still picks and chooses which terrorists to kill and which terrorist to inflate. All of the terrorists hate the West and hate Israel. We have a very dangerous president and administration.
B.B., How do you defend yourself against a bully armed with American made nuclear bombs, Apache Helicopters, Drones, F-16’s, Tanks, and heavy Artillery weapons and with a daily cash fund of $8 million U.S. tax dollars? The people of Gaza are like sitting ducks in a blockaded prison waiting to be bombed by this bully. I wonder if Israel would be the bully they are if the Gazans had this kind of armament to defend themselves. No, I don’t expect your response to this; and with this I pray for the innocent victims of both sides of this most callous and coward behavior.
The problem is that we cannot differentiate between friend and foe. A prime example is where our troops have trained the locals to protect their own villagers and they have turned the guns on us the first chance they get. We need to get our heads out of the sand and deal with the reality of the situation.
Felix Rivera, the Just War is Doctrine of the Faith from thenMagisterium of the Catholic Church. Please read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
CCC:
QUOTE: ” 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.
At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. ” UNQUOTE.
Technology that will limit the loss of human life is to be supported.
Unfortunately the enemy sometimes lobs rockets from hospital grounds, school grounds, and other civilian areas, because they do not care.
Felix Rivera, Isreal has never used nuclear bombs - so please stop exaggerating.
It has the right to exist as a Nation and a People. (They are still God’s chosen people.)
They did not start the current war.
Unfortunately civilians in the Gaza strip are inundated with evil terrorists so those who are innocent suffer. These terrorists lob rockets from civilian sites like hospital grounds, school grounds, etc.
Monsignor,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on drone attacks. However, I believe your statistics and focus is a bit off the mark. I would ask you to reconsider the following points, and offer an opportunity for you to adjust based on these facts.
1. The NAF statistics have been proven false by many studies globally. The “militant” identification is flawed and misleading. Please look here: http://truth-out.org/news/item/10907-cover-up-of-civilian-drone-deaths-revealed-by-new-evidence
2. The Kill list is unconstitutional.
3. Doesn’t Congress have to approve Acts of War? Who is making these almost weekly decisions?
4. What would your view be if a bomb dropped on your neighbors home who was deemed a terrorist and part of the “nerve” and collaterally you lost family members?
5. How do you explain the NDAA in terms of Catholic teachings?
6. Do you understand why terrorist attack? The CIA terms blowback. Are drone attacks not asking for blowback?
I believe it is dangerous for Catholics to argue for drone attacks because clarifying Just War in a time of unconventional war is attempting to press reset on core principles and teachings. Taking anyone’s life through drone attack is a disgusting act of cowardice when innocents die as well.
Would be curious to your thoughts on the above.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.