تمسک بی‌بنیاد به نظریه جنگ عادلانه؛ گسست عمیق در توجیهات حقوقی و اخلاقی ارتش رژیم صهیونیستی در مواجهه با گروه‌های مقاومت

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
In the contemporary international landscape, the ethical nature of warfare remains a pivotal concern for global leaders seeking to justify military actions to their constituencies and the wider world. Despite a structured framework of international laws—most notably the United Nations Charter, which delineates the conditions for peace and war among nations—moral justifications are frequently invoked to legitimize conflicts. Michael Walzer, a renowned moral philosopher, asserts that discussions about war invariably involve arguments grounded in the logic of a just war. Historical instances underscore this trend: during the Kosovo War (1998–1999), then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair described the conflict as "a moral war based on values, not territorial ambitions." Similarly, U.S. President George W. Bush framed the Iraq War as a "Moral War," seeking to morally justify military actions against Saddam Hussein's regime.
     This pattern extends to the Israeli leadership's rhetoric concerning military engagements with Palestinian groups. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as "the most moral army in the world," asserting that their operations against Hamas are justified acts of self-defense against terrorism. Former Defense Minister Ehud Barak and politician Avigdor Lieberman have echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the IDF's commitment to ethical principles even amidst allegations of disproportionate force and civilian casualties. Despite these assertions, reports from human rights organizations and international bodies suggest that certain military actions have resulted in significant civilian harm, raising questions about compliance with international humanitarian law.
     The discrepancy between the proclaimed moral stance and the reported outcomes of military operations necessitates a critical examination of the ethical and legal justifications employed. This research aims to scrutinize the Israeli leadership's invocation of Just War Theory in the context of their military actions against Palestinian resistance groups, assessing the validity of their claims within the frameworks of international law and moral philosophy.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
Despite numerous crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza, the Zionist regime repeatedly claims the title of "the most moral army in the world." This implies that all of the army's military operations have been solely for self-defense, consistently distinguishing between military personnel and civilians, and issuing necessary warnings to residents before attacking a residential area. This research, seeks to understand the logic of the regime's leaders in labeling their army as moral and ultimately aims to refute this claim.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The Israeli leadership's assertion of conducting moral warfare, grounded in Just War Theory, is unsubstantiated when evaluated against international legal frameworks and ethical standards. The hypothesis posits that the IDF's military operations against Palestinian resistance groups do not fulfill the criteria of just war as defined by international law and moral philosophy. Consequently, the repeated claims of moral justification serve more as a strategic rhetoric to legitimize actions that may constitute violations of international humanitarian law, rather than reflecting genuine adherence to ethical warfare principles.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This study employs a doctrinal and analytical research methodology to investigate the alignment between the Israeli leadership's justifications and established international legal and ethical standards. The doctrinal approach involves a comprehensive examination of international legal documents, including the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and rulings from the International Court of Justice, to delineate the legal parameters of just war and self-defense.
     The analytical framework is structured around Just War Theory, focusing on its key principles: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the right conduct in war). Criteria such as legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and last resort are scrutinized in relation to the IDF's military operations.
     Primary sources include official statements from Israeli political and military leaders, the IDF's Code of Ethics, and statistical data on military operations and their impacts from credible organizations like the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and UNICEF. Secondary sources consist of scholarly articles on international law, Just War Theory, and analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
     Data will be critically analyzed to assess whether the actions and policies of the Israeli military adhere to the principles of Just War Theory and international legal standards. The research will also explore the narratives constructed by Israeli leaders to justify military operations and how these narratives conflict with documented evidence of their conduct during conflicts.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The research critically examines the Israeli leadership's claims of conducting moral warfare within the frameworks of Just War Theory and international humanitarian law. The findings indicate a significant disparity between the professed ethical standards of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and their actions during military confrontations with Palestinian resistance groups.
     Violation of Just War Principles:
     Just Cause and Right Intention: While Israel frequently cites self-defense as the justification for military operations, the research questions the legitimacy of this claim. The principle of self-defense under international law requires an immediate and overwhelming necessity, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. However, the scale and frequency of Israeli military actions suggest a broader strategic objective beyond immediate self-defense, potentially aimed at territorial expansion and suppression of Palestinian self-determination.
     Proportionality: The principle of proportionality prohibits the use of force exceeding what is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives. The research highlights that Israeli military responses often result in disproportionately high Palestinian civilian casualties compared to Israeli losses. For instance, during specific military operations, reports indicate that for every Israeli casualty, there are significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths and injuries, many of whom are civilians, including women and children.
     Distinction between Combatants and Non-Combatants: International humanitarian law mandates that parties to a conflict distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. The IDF's operations in densely populated areas like Gaza have led to substantial civilian harm. Documented instances include airstrikes on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Despite claims of targeting militant positions, the high rate of civilian casualties suggests a failure to adhere to the principle of distinction.
     Last Resort: Just War Theory posits that force should be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. The ongoing blockade of Gaza, restrictions on movement, and lack of meaningful engagement in peace negotiations indicate that non-violent avenues are not being fully pursued. The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank further undermines efforts toward a peaceful resolution.
     Humanitarian Law Violations:
     Blockade of Gaza: The Israeli-imposed blockade severely restricts the flow of goods, including essential humanitarian supplies. This blockade has been characterized by the United Nations and other international bodies as a form of collective punishment, prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
     Targeting of Medical and Humanitarian Personnel: Reports from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières have documented attacks on medical facilities and personnel. Such actions violate the protections afforded to medical units and staff under international humanitarian law.
     Use of Disproportionate Force: The employment of advanced military technology and heavy weaponry in civilian areas raises concerns about the use of disproportionate force. Weapons with wide-area effects, when used in populated regions, increase the likelihood of civilian harm and infrastructure damage.
     Rhetoric vs. Reality:
     The Israeli leadership's consistent portrayal of the IDF as the "most moral army in the world" appears incongruent with documented actions on the ground. This rhetoric serves several functions:
     Justification of Actions: Framing military operations as moral and necessary for self-defense aims to legitimize actions in the eyes of the international community and domestic audiences.
     Delegitimization of Opponents: Equating Palestinian resistance groups with internationally recognized terrorist organizations like ISIS seeks to undermine their political legitimacy and justify harsh military responses.
     Deflection of Criticism: Emphasizing moral conduct helps deflect accusations of war crimes and human rights violations, shifting the narrative away from alleged misconduct.
     Implications for International Law:
     The research underscores the challenges in enforcing international humanitarian law when powerful states or entities engage in conduct that violates these norms. The lack of accountability mechanisms and the political dynamics within international bodies like the United Nations often hinder effective responses to such violations.
     Erosion of Legal Norms: Persistent violations without consequences can lead to the erosion of established legal norms, weakening the overall framework of international humanitarian law.
     Humanitarian Impact: The civilian population bears the brunt of the conflict, facing loss of life, injuries, psychological trauma, and destruction of essential infrastructure, leading to long-term societal impacts.
     Prospects for Peace: Continued military aggression and failure to address underlying issues, such as occupation and denial of rights, diminish the prospects for a sustainable and just peace.
     Broader Context:
     The research situates Israeli actions within a broader strategy that appears aimed at consolidating control over Palestinian territories. Policies such as settlement expansion, annexation plans, and legislative measures restricting Palestinian rights suggest objectives beyond immediate security concerns.
     Settlement Expansion: The continued growth of settlements in the West Bank violates international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies.
     Displacement of Palestinians: Military operations and restrictive policies contribute to the displacement of Palestinians, altering the demographic composition of contested areas.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The Israeli military confrontations since 1948 reflect a pattern of behavior that challenges the regime's self-professed adherence to moral warfare and democratic values. The post-2000 conflicts with Palestinian resistance groups, characterized by high civilian casualties and humanitarian crises, highlight significant deviations from international legal and ethical standards.
     Israel's dual identity as a Western-style democracy and a Jewish state creates inherent contradictions, particularly in its treatment of Palestinian populations. While espousing principles of freedom and equality, the regime's actions suggest a prioritization of territorial expansion and maintenance of a Jewish majority state over the rights and welfare of Palestinians.
     The claims of conducting moral military operations are undermined by:
     Systematic Violations of International Law: Evidence of disproportionate force, targeting of civilians, and obstruction of humanitarian aid contradicts the principles of Just War Theory and international humanitarian law.
     Expansionist Policies: Actions such as settlement building and refusal to return to internationally recognized borders indicate an agenda of territorial annexation rather than defense.
     Lack of Genuine Peace Efforts: The failure to engage in meaningful negotiations, lift blockades, or recognize Palestinian self-determination suggests that military actions are not aimed at achieving lasting peace.
     The research concludes that the Israeli leadership's invocation of moral justifications serves more as a rhetorical device to legitimize military operations and mitigate international criticism than as a reflection of actual adherence to ethical warfare principles. The disparity between rhetoric and reality highlights the need for the international community to critically assess such claims and hold actors accountable for violations of international law.
     Addressing these issues requires:
     International Accountability: Strengthening mechanisms to enforce international humanitarian law and hold violators accountable, regardless of political alliances or power dynamics.
     Support for Palestinian Rights: Recognizing and upholding the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, security, and a viable state.
     Promotion of Genuine Dialogue: Encouraging negotiations based on mutual recognition and respect for international legal norms, aiming for a just and sustainable resolution to the conflict.
     Ultimately, achieving peace and justice in the region necessitates a departure from narratives that obscure realities on the ground and a commitment to actions aligned with ethical and legal obligations. The international community plays a crucial role in facilitating this process by demanding accountability and supporting efforts toward reconciliation and respect for human rights.