McMahan on the War Against Hamas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)179-207
Number of pages29
JournalAnalyse und Kritik
Volume47
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2025

Keywords

  • Hamas
  • just war theory
  • proportionality
  • revisionism
  • Ukraine

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Philosophy

Cite this