McMahan on the War Against Hamas

Bibliographic Data

ID6414994
AuthorsDaniel Statman (0000-0002-3255-8039, University of Haifa, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume47
Issue1
Pages179-207
Publication date2025-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAnalyse & Kritik (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0171-5860 • E-ISSN: 2365-9858
PublisherDe Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/auk-2025-2002
OpenAlexW4410930847
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited23

According to Jeff McMahan, Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas’s aggression, but the Palestinians too had a right to fight against Israel to undo the injustice of its occupation of Palestinian territories. Thus, both sides had a just cause for war. However, both sides failed to satisfy other ad bellum conditions, with Hamas failing only the necessity condition and Israel failing both the necessity and proportionality conditions. McMahan concludes that Israel’s war against Hamas was unjust, unlike Ukraine’s war against Russia, which he views as ‘paradigmatically just.’ I reject his view, arguing that: (a) The strategic goals of Hamas are the annihilation of Israel, the murder of many of its civilians, and the expulsion of others – goals that are manifestly immoral – thus it had no just cause for war. (b) Even on McMahan’s premises, it is absurd to imply a symmetry in the unjustness of Israel and Hamas. (c) McMahan’s understanding of ad bellum necessity and proportionality is untenable. (d) Israel did, in fact, satisfy the necessity condition. (e) If Ukraine’s war is proportionate, as McMahan assumes, then all the more so is Israel’s war in Gaza

Business · Computer security · Political science · Computer Science · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence · Torture, Ethics, and Law · War, Ethics, and Justification

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access