In The Republic, Plato described a character who expressed the idea
that "justice" can be defined as helping one's neighbors and harming
one's enemies. Aristotle expressed a similar view in his Politics, in which he explained that taking slaves from a just war
was just in itself. Both of these great philosophers clearly believed that
there was such a thing as a "just war" and that violence was
justifiable at times; however, they also believed that a war could be unjust.
But who decides what counts as “just”? As the
saying goes, it is the winners who write the history books, and what one side
of a conflict sees as just, the other likely sees as the opposite.
Let’s take the current conflict in
Palestine/Israel as an example.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
In 1948, Zionist leaders created the state of Israel
on land given to the Jews following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine
into two separate areas—one for Muslims and one for Jews. The Muslim
Palestinians rejected this proposal.
From that time on, fighting has been nearly
continuous between Israel and Palestine, but both sides see the conflict in
very different lights. Each has been responsible for initiation of attacks. PBS offers
an excellent explanation of the conflict showing the points of view (or POV)
from both sides. This article explains why Palestinians rejected the UN
partition because of the demographic distribution of Jews and Muslims in
Palestine at the time. It also explains the Zionist perspective of many Jews in
the region, who have historically been in search of a homeland since the destruction
of the First Temple. This piece from PBS only covers up to 2001. The
Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014 is nicely covered in this article.
The catalyst of this conflict in the spring and summer of 2014 was the
kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens by Palestinians (possibly Hamas).
Israel responded with airstrikes on Gaza, which Palestine responded to by
shooting rockets back at Israel. However, Israel has superior military
technology, so while 2000
Palestinians were killed by the end of the conflict, fewer than 100 Israelis
died.
Who’s in the Right?
In Politics, Aristotle stated that “the art
of war is a natural art of acquisition…an art we ought to practice against wild
beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not
submit.” Similarly, in Plato’s The Republic, the character of
Polemarchus tells Socrates that the best way to help friends and hurt enemies
(or, by his own definition, to be just) is by making war and being an ally in
battle. The issue with both Aristotle’s and Polemarchus's positions here is that both
look at a war from only one side. In reality though, there are two sides (or
more) to every war, and both cannot be “right” or “just.”
Israelis see their position as being the correct,
defensible one; Palestinians maintain that they are in the right. If they can’t
both be right and both sides can’t be on the side of justice, then is any war
every truly just?
It is very good point that you combine Plato and Aristotle's argument! I think the way you interpret them is really modern and realistic. You argue them with modern problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTicky tack point: That isn't Plato's argument about justice (his would be what Socrates says) but instead one that he refutes.
ReplyDeleteJust War theory is something that we do not have the time to get into in this course but would you say that defending yourself from attacks is just? What about a war to stop an atrocity? Can you strike first if they other side is just about to strike and it is in your interests for the purposes of defense?
Sorry about that error; the argument did belong to Polemarchus, not Plato or Socrates!
ReplyDeleteI would say that a war to prevent/stop an atrocity would be justified, as it would hopefully save lives in the long-term. However, as for matters of defense, I am less certain of my position. I think that defending yourself from an attack while it is happening is justified. Striking first could cause an issue to escalate further than it would have otherwise, which complicates the issue. In general, I would say that a defensive attack is justified if it is of equal or less force/damage as the attack perpetrated against oneself, and if the defensive attack has a reasonable chance of reducing or preventing violence and death.
I find a similarity in this discussion over justifying war between sides with the debate over what could be considered holy in "Meno" by Plato. Like the determining factors of justice, holiness varies between people in that their opinions on what could suffice as such depends on a myriad of factors that usually vary. In the same way, justice can be argued for in the case of both sides, but the notion that both sides could be justified in the same way, and at the same time, is not entirely feasible.
ReplyDeleteI think the point you are making is very interesting but also very difficult to comprehend. I believe that we cannot justify war because we will always have two different sides of the conflict. Also, war itself mustn't be justified simply because it gives disastrous results.
ReplyDeleteIn our International Relations class, we were discussing that a war is usually a result from a security dilemma - when one side considers the actions of the other side as threatening (when in fact, the other side is doing it just for defensive aims) and hence, a war begins. I think that the question which you are raising is very difficult and can have many different interpretations.