A mezuzah, the scroll with verses from the Torah that is placed on the right jamb at the entrance of Jewish homes, marks the apartment of philosopher Michael Walzer (New York, 88 years old) in a Manhattan building. Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Princeton, in his book Just and unjust wars (1977) updated Augustinian theory on the legitimacy of armed conflicts from a secular and leftist perspective. As a Jew, he aligns himself with Israel’s response to Hamas but not without criticism, especially of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. From the imperative of responding to terrorism to the difficulty of waging asymmetric wars to Israel’s own vulnerability, Walzer addresses the moral dilemmas surrounding the conflict.
Ask. What kind of war is this, a just or unjust one?
Answer. Well, the war against terrorism is always fair. I started writing [el libro] in the seventies against the terrorism of the IRA in Ireland, the FLN in Algeria, and the PLO in Palestine. The deliberate killing of innocent civilians for some kind of political purpose is always unjust, so responses to such terrorism are justified. Another thing is the quality of the response [armada]…
Q. Is Israel’s response being proportional, as the rules of war require? Or rather unlimited?
R. An asymmetric war is a war between a high-tech military and a low-tech insurgency. The insurgents hide behind or within the civilian population. From what I know about Hamas, they fire rockets from schoolyards and hospital parking lots and residential neighborhoods. This means they deliberately expose their own civilians, because the more civilians they die, the more likely they are to win the war. To win it politically, I say, even if the military cost is very high. That was the problem with the Americans in Vietnam, that they failed, they didn’t solve the problem.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
Q. Doesn’t the number of casualties matter if they justify the story?
R. I give you the example of Afghanistan. An American colonel said in 2010: ‘the more civilians we kill, the more certain it is that we will lose the war.’ So that’s the dilemma of asymmetric warfare and the Israelis. How do you respond to a barrage of rockets fired into your territory from a school playground? That raises how to respond. How careful are you in your response? If it’s a schoolyard, do you respond at night? That’s all you can be, careful. And I think the Israelis have been very careful sometimes and probably not other times.
Q. He wrote his book in the seventies. How much have wars changed since then?
R. Well, if you look at the Middle East wars, they were in ’48 [tras la fundación de Israel] and in ’67 [guerra de los Seis Días]. And in ’73 [guerra de Yom Kippur]. They were all quite conventional, technical wars, between armies. But since ’82 [Líbano], the wars have involved organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas, which do not have a State behind them or a conventional army. And they fight in the way I just described. I believe that the political problems for Israel have multiplied with asymmetric warfare.
There is no justification for a siege, so it was wrong for Israel to cut off electricity, water and food supplies to Gaza
Q. Another rule of war is not to attack civilians. Two million people in Gaza are potential targets and are under siege.
R. That is one of the reasons for Biden’s trip [a Israel]. Yes, that is very important. To begin with, there is no justification for a siege. So it is not right that Israel has cut off electricity, water, food supplies to Gaza… Because it is the people who suffer. And that is politically wonderful for Hamas. So I think we have to open the border crossings [la entrevista se realizó antes de que empezara el envío de ayuda]. Obviously, we must prevent military supplies from entering and ensure that only food and medicine enter. Egypt also does not want a flood of Palestinians entering the Sinai, because it sees Hamas as the Palestinian version of the Muslim Brotherhood. It should be remembered that the blockade of Gaza was a joint Israeli and Egyptian operation.
Q. In addition to an asymmetric war between a State and a militia, is it also a regional war?
R. There are elements of war proxy [regional]. Hamas and Hezbollah are trained by Iran, but I think they have their own policy and their own objectives. They can obviously serve Iran’s purposes, but I think the crucial decisions are local. Because both groups have a very strong motivation: since its founding charter, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. And that goal precedes any Iranian involvement.
Israel is, on the one hand, very strong, and on the other, extremely vulnerable
Q. And the States of the region?
R. The Sunni Arab states may like Israel to crush Hamas, but in any case they are not going to help.
Q. Do you think there is a real risk of the conflict spreading?
R. Yes, but I think there are good reasons why [los países vecinos] they might not want to come in [en la guerra]. Lebanon is extremely fragile, Hezbollah is another matter… Many people talk about Israel as if it were a powerful military power, the most advanced in the Middle East. And yet, if Hezbollah were to take action, with rockets from the north, and Hamas rockets from the south, more than half of Israel would become uninhabitable. It is important for people to realize that Israel is, on the one hand, very strong and, on the other hand, extremely vulnerable. Even if Israel had atomic weapons, what use would they be? That is why the position of the left, which is mine, defends the two-state solution, the hope of a withdrawal from the West Bank…
The war against the Nazis vaccinated me against pacifism. It was the quintessential just war.
Q. Have the protests against the government’s judicial reform weakened Israel or do they show the strength of its civil society?
R. There is a terrible, right-wing, ultra-nationalist and religious fanatic government. And there is a secular liberal uprising against that Government, which was wonderful. All my friends were in the streets with their children and grandchildren. And they told me wonderful stories about the solidarity of the protesters week after week. But the atrocity of the Hamas attack has created, at least temporarily, I don’t know if it is internal cohesion, but it is solidarity. I’m sure there are Israelis who hope there won’t be a ground invasion, and that the military will find some other way that doesn’t involve 100,000 troops. But the country is prepared for a total war. Hamas not only carried out these atrocities on October 7, but filmed them and showed them everywhere. Everyone in Israel has seen these horrible images. It is very hard. Many of my friends urge moderation, and I hope for moderation on the part of the authorities. But is very difficult.
Q. Does Israel have the enemy at home? I am referring to groups like Naturei Karta, which rejects the existence of the State and is anti-Zionist…
R. Israel is a plural society. Naturei Karta is a very small group, but the ultra-Orthodox have surely also been anti-Zionist, convinced that there should be no state until the arrival of the Messiah. But I fear that the ultra-Orthodox in the current Government are now more Zionist than anyone else, because they seem to have joined the ultra-nationalists. At first, Zionism was a secular socialist movement.
There is an obscene response from the extreme left supporting the atrocities of Hamas, considering them the result of Palestinian oppression. It’s making a lot of noise on US campuses
Q. The tension is replicated in the United States. Groups of progressive Jews have taken over the Capitol in defense of peace.
R. There has been an obscene response on the far left even supporting the atrocities of Hamas. A small group, but very loud on American campuses. And this is a very old position on the left that oppressed people can do whatever they want; It didn’t even start with Israel. There are no moral limits, they say, we cannot judge what they do because it is a product of their oppression. All this began with the Algerian war. In fact, one of my first articles was titled The obligations of the oppressed, arguing that even oppressed people have moral obligations or limits on what they can do. So it’s very annoying to read the same old thing. The same type of justifications that were made for the Algerian terrorist who bombed a cafe, or the IRA terrorists who killed civilians. I have opposed that type of left my entire life. And then there are people who simply say that the violence must end, that an immediate ceasefire must be declared, but that is very difficult to say to Israelis after the Hamas mass atrocity. I only hope that the punishment is directed at the perpetrators, at the terrorists.
Q. Looking ahead, do you think the two-state solution is still possible?
R. It is increasingly difficult to imagine a two-state solution, and yet it must be fought for. I am involved in groups that advocate for a modification of that idea, for a federation or confederation. They are perhaps more realistic proposals than those of the two States. I am sure that to the king [Abdalá] of Jordan would not make him happy, but a confederation of Israel, Palestine and Jordan, cooperating on ecological and other issues, including security issues, would be a wonderful solution.
Q. As an American, what do you think of the US veto of a UN resolution for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza?
R. Humanitarian pauses, as the text of the resolution said? I don’t know if it would make sense. Surely opening borders to humanitarian aid makes sense? Before Hamas has been defeated? I think the Israelis think it’s too early. And apparently, the US Administration agrees with them, which is why it voted against. The scope of Washington’s commitment is truly extraordinary. Biden’s same speech [en defensa de Israel]more Zionist than any Israeli, was extraordinary.
Q. If you had to write your book now, would you choose the same title?
R. Yes Yes. Look, I grew up during World War II, I was 10 years old, and that immunized me against pacifism, because the war against the Nazis was the quintessential just war. Our task in times of war is to make judgments, and I believe that this is the correct vocabulary, although initially it is a Catholic vocabulary. My book is a kind of secular version, of course, but I think, yes, it would be good enough for St. Augustine (laughs).
Q. Is a just war compatible with pacifism?
R. No. I respect people who for religious reasons say ‘I can’t kill’, but in the face of Hamas atrocities or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I firmly believe that the right thing to do is to hit back. In the face of aggression, in the face of brutality, yes, there must be opposition.
Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Michael #Walzer #philosopher #confederation #Israel #Palestine #Jordan #wonderful #solution