In the current war in the Levant, partisans often justify the illegal and immoral actions of their chosen side by arguing that some historical precedent justifies or excuses their actions. This is morally indefensible.
History, regardless of its horror, is never a justification for war crimes.
When tactics such as civilian hostage taking, or bombing residential neighborhoods are discussed, the argument often turns to which side is “in the right.” The question of who started it, or why is irrelevant when we are discussing war crimes.
Let us assume, arguendo, that a war could exist in which one side was completely in the right, morally speaking.
Even if one of the combatants is completely justified in making war, it is still possible for the side in the right to commit war crimes in the prosecution of that war, and for those crimes to be morally culpable.
If your side, which is, let's remember, justified in making war, engages in illegal acts such as targeting non-combatants, punishing civilians, torture, ethnic cleansing, or other tactics violating the laws of war, these are still crimes by any reasonable definition. Being in the right doesn't justify illegal behavior.
Let us take World War II for an example. Both sides were not equally culpable in the start of the war, and the ambitions of both sides were not equally moral. Hitler was a monster. Tojo began the war in the Pacific. I will gladly take the Allies' side of any argument that proposes that both sides were equally to blame for the initiation of World War II.
That said, when the Allies committed crimes in the prosecution of that war, the crimes they committed were morally and legally culpable. The fact that Germany started an unjust war does not justify the Chenogne Massacre, in which 80 German prisoners were assembled in a field and shot with machine guns. None of the perpetrators were ever punished.
General George S. Patton confirmed in his diary that the Americans "...also murdered 50 odd German med I hope we can conceal this.” George S. Patton Papers: Diaries, 1910–1945; Original; 1944, Oct. 3 – 1945, Feb. 5
Would you really try to justify the mass rapes perpetrated by American armed forces after the battle of Okinawa by referencing Pearl Harbor?
“Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started 'hunting for women' in broad daylight, and those women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.” Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II, Routledge, 2003, p.111.
You are not forced to justify everything the side you're on does, if and only if, you are ready to bring the criminals on your own side to Justice. If you attempt to rationalize the bad actors on your side, simply because they are, in your view, on the right side, you make your side complicit in cruelty and lawlessness.
The fact that you didn't start the war is irrelevant. The fact that your cause is just is no justification for actions that are morally abhorrent.
What this means in the current case is that the fact that regardless of your views on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Hamas' actions in initiating the conflict, which involved attacks on unarmed civilians and hostage taking are morally repugnant, and the decision by Israel's armed forces to punish and target civilian populations are war crimes. Both these assertions can be, and are true, and people of good will are more than justified in condemning, and calling for Justice to address all of these crimes, regardless of whom you might think is “in the right.”
9 Comments
7 more comments...No posts
Australia has recently taken a number of former special forces personnel to task for their participation in war crimes committed in Afghanistan. Initially, the Australian military hierarchy pushed back against the enquiry and the prosecution of the culprits but the evidence spoke for itself.
I am not sure other countries adhere to the same standards about international prosecution of war criminals. including being a signatory to the ICC (International Criminal Court).
I know that Russia, Sudan and the US signed on and then later withdrew from the agreement, while China, India, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Pakistan, Somalia and others never signed the Rome Statute, as it is called.
It seems to me that countries who refuse to submit to international law should be subject to diplomatic sanction until they are compliant.
Excellent discussion of the issues, you have an uncanny economy of writing and a razor sharp logic. You’ve not only made your point that history is not an excuse for war crimes, you’ve reminded us that we have a moral obligation to examine the full and true history and learn from it by not repeating it.