Whose Life?

Ross has a great article about the uses and limitations of Just War thinking. But this part jumped out:

But for the [Just War] framework to have the desired restraining effect on statesmen and warmakers, it has to marry practicality to idealism, and strike enough of a balance between the two to make it seem applicable to real-world crises. And if it's important not to stretch the theory to justify any goal or end you seek, it's also important not to narrow it to the point where it seems so unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of war that policymakers will feel comfortable ignoring it . . . . If you find yourself saying that a modern state cannot take the fight to a terrorist regime if doing so unavoidably involves civilian casualties, you're advancing a theory of jus in bello that no state can accept - and ultimately, I suspect, you're giving ammunition to the side of the debate that wants to do away with moral restraint in the struggle against terrorism entirely.

Yep, he's talking about me. It's not that I am eager to shrug off moral restraint; rather, it is that I decline to be bound by restraints that do not likewise bind our adversaries. As Ross himself points out, jus in bello may be tedious, but reciprocity is clarifying. In warfare, I will abide a "framework of restraint" if I believe my enemies are also restrained; if not, then not.

Meanwhile, Freddie offers the obvious:

There is a basic calculus at work in your posts on this subject, Joe [Carter], that I find remarkably in vogue in this debate: that the life of a Palestinian is simply worth less than the life of an Israeli. You won’t admit to it, of course, but it is an assumption that undergirds your argument at every turn.

I don't know who Joe Carter is, but this party is already well attended. It should come as no surprise that Israel regards Israeli lives as worth more than Palestinian ones. On the contrary, the very purpose of the Israeli government, or any government for that matter, is to preferentially promote the security of its own citizens.

But the thing is, Hamas also regards Israeli lives as worth more, but from the equation's other side. Hamas chooses to expend disproportionate Palestinian blood to spill Jewish blood, and not just in the sense that they-should-have-seen-this-coming; no, Hamas rejoices specifically in the opportunity to close with the IDF in urban warfare on its home ground; and there is every indication that Hamas sees the consequent suffering of its people as primarily a source of a propaganda. All this, so they can kill a few Jews.

As I've written, I would recommend to Joe Carter that he stay out of other people's messes; however, if both parties to the conflict regard Israelis as worth more than Palestinians, then I don't see a problem with taking the point to be well-stipulated.