Once again we are reminded that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers there is “no war is more just than the war Israel has been waging in Gaza“… I do not wish to be picky, but this includes the second world war I presume? You know, the one in which the fascist Nazi regime prosecuted a holocaust against the Jewish people… Perhaps I am taking his hyperbole too literally, although I would argue not, seeing as this has been a mainstay of the Israeli defence of its actions since the 7th October 2023. No justification is provided for this argumentation of course, simply that Israel’s actions are just.
Very well, taking this at face value then… and assuming that Benjamin Netanyahu means just in the sense of ‘right’ and ‘fair’… it is possible to infer from this that the motivation behind the actions of Israel is that of ensuring justice. If indeed the intent of Israel is to bring justice, then according to my understanding, this would mean that Israel intends to bring guilty parties before a tribunal to be judged. Again, not wishing to be fatuous, it seems to me to be a bit of a leap to believe that Israel wants to arrest and drag criminals before a court when they have spent the past 13 months bombing the crap out of them… but hey ho, it takes all sorts I suppose.
Crediting Benjamin Netanyahu (again) with the benefit of the doubt on this, there still remains the thorny question of the recent arrest warrants given out to Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) last week. Both men may well disagree with the charges brought against them, however as individuals engaged in seeking to enforce ‘justice’ – it does seem a little odd that rather than present themselves to the court to defend against accusations which they believe to be erroneous… they choose instead to publicly decry the charges as ‘antisemitic‘. Surely if they actually DO believe strongly in justice, they should be only too willing to have this righteousness proved to the world once and for all?
Perhaps however, seeing as Israel are not an official signatory of the Statute of Rome, (the legal basis for the ICC) it is simply a question of not believing in THAT form of justice, and rather being willing only to adhere to Israeli justice? Well this argument would certainly (pun intended) stand-up in court… with the eensy-weesny exception that might be raised when considering Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent and ongoing attempts to delay and obstruct the ongoing corruption case against him in Israel at the moment. Most recently, Netanyahu was granted a further delay when his lawyers argued that he was ‘unprepared‘ to give evidence in his trial – a trial which opened in May of 2020 we should not forget.
So maybe Benjamin Netanyahu is looking at things from a religious perspective, rather than a legal one. I have a little trouble with this, since I believe that not all of the residents of Israel are religious (and indeed there is not only one religion) and so therefore applying religious justice to a situation could be argued to be inappropriate. In addition to which, the people to whom the justice is being applied (citizens of Gaza) tend to be Muslim and not Jewish – but is is a possibility, so we should perhaps consider it.
(Now I am not a Hebrew scholar, and have never read the Torah, so this bit is based on google research…)
The Jewish concept of justice seems to be quite clear (if imprecise): according to Leviticus “You shall do no injustice in your judgment. You shall not lift up (i.e. treat as superior) the person of the poor, nor shall you give [extra] importance to the person who is mighty. Rather judge your neighbours righteously”. This concept is relayed in the Talmud (the book of Judaism on which Jewish law is based) as intending that a rich person when being judged against a poor person should either dress down, or provide means that the poor person can dress up in court so as not to have any visible imbalance between the two parties. By extension (and this bit is not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud) there should be no imbalance of power either – i.e. between the weak and the strong.
Now I am clearly no Rabbi, however the concept of fairness and balance (between disputing parties) seems quite clear to me. I interpret this to suggest therefore that all sides of a dispute should be considered equal – and that this concept does not allow for say, an Israeli Defence Minister to label the citizens of Gaza as “human animals“.
The Talmud further extols (in the story of Rabbah) the need for justice to reflect the needs of the litigants, with justice reflecting the greater need of the lesser/ more needy party. In a dispute therefore between say, a state armed with tanks, fighter-jets and (possibly) nuclear weapons, and a state armed with rockets and AK47s the justice meted out should reflect this imbalance. In a response which seems to me to be contrary to this however, Israel has engaged in a retribution – sorry, search for justice – for the killing of some 1,200 people and the kidnapping of a further 250, with the razing to the ground of an entire territory resulting in the destruction of schools, universities, homes and hospitals; which includes the killing of some 43,000 people.
In conclusion then, unless there is another definition of justice kicking about… I don’t see how Netanyahu can possibly reason that the acts of violence being perpetrated against the people of Gaza is in any way justified. For that matter, I cannot see how anyone can consider these actions as just. If Netanyahu was really interested in justice, he would hand himself over to the courts for judgement – he isn’t and he won’t.
So please, let’s treat his statement with the contempt it deserves.