“The Day After: Is Israel upholding the ethics of war in Gaza?”

The third episode of “Conversation Corner” a series of panel discussions, organized by Ono Academic College and the Jerusalem Post looking at the “day after” Israel’s war with Hamas, took place on March 17, 2024. It addressed the following questions:

  • Is Israel upholding the ethics of war in Gaza?
  • Has Israel met the basic requirements that allow the government to say that its actions are acts of justified self-defense?
  • According to international law, was Israel justified in retaliating against Hamas after the attacks of October 7?
  • Has Israel’s response been disproportionate?

These and other issues were the focus of a spirited, often fractious panel discussion held between Prof. Dana Pugach, Professor of Criminal Law and Victims’ Rights in Law at Ono Academic College; Prof. Gil Siegal, Director of the Center for Health Law and Bioethics at Ono Academic College; and philosopher Jeff McMahan, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University. Maayan Hoffman of the Jerusalem Post moderated the panel.

Prof. McMahan stated that while Israel has the right to take effective action against Hamas, whether the current war counts as effective action is another question.  Prof. Siegal outlined three sets of rules and norms to analyze the situation: legal, ethical, and basic intuition.  He emphasized that rational reflection is necessary to come up with an answer.

Prof. Siegal also criticized Hamas for complaining about excessive measures when Israel retaliates, considering their own use of horrific means to resist Israel.  He found it hypocritical and untenable for Hamas to have any complaint on retaliation.

Prof. McMahan mentioned that Hamas has reported 30,000 dead in Gaza, while the United Nations estimated that 73,000 civilians have been wounded.  He compared these figures to Israel’s casualties and highlighted the disparity.

Prof. Pugach pointed out two significant differences between Israel and Hamas.  First, Israel is a state that complies with international rules of war, while Hamas does not.  Second, Hamas is holding 134 civilians hostage, which changes the question of proportionality in Israel’s defensive measures.

Prof. Siegal defended Israel’s actions, stating that they did not perform a blanket bombardment of Gaza but instead targeted specific areas with precision.  He placed the responsibility for casualties on Hamas, who started the war, and those who voted Hamas into power.

The panel discussed the goal of eliminating Hamas and whether it could be achieved through the conflict.  Prof. McMahan argued that war would only exacerbate the problem and increase hatred towards Israel.  He believed that most Gazans were opposed to Hamas and supported a two-state solution.

Prof. Pugach disagreed, stating that many of the hostages who had been freed stated that Gazans had helped Hamas.  She questioned the innocence of most Gazans and their support for Hamas.

In their concluding remarks, Prof. Siegal expressed skepticism about the chances of peace, emphasizing the need for partners for peace.  Prof. Pugach expressed disillusionment with the world’s response to the events of October 7, feeling that international law did not provide the expected safety. Prof. McMahan recommended looking at how other conflicts were solved and placed the responsibility for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Israel.

In summary, the panel discussion focused on the ethics of war, self-defense, international law, and proportionality in Israel’s response to Hamas.  The participants had differing views on the effectiveness of Israel’s actions, the responsibility for casualties, and the prospects for peace.