WARNING! It is to be noted that some of the sources used in this series, as well as direct quotations, display or describe in graphic detail acts of terror, rape, murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity. Extreme discretion and sensitivity are to be advised when reading such supporting material. The sources have been chosen to highlight and document the severity of these crimes and should be treated as such, as well as with the utmost sensitivity and dignity to the victims of such inhuman brutality.

This article is Part II of a series examining contemporary conflicts through the lens of the Catholic tradition of just war. Readers unfamiliar with the theological framework employed here are encouraged to consult Part I before proceeding.

Introduction

The geopolitics of the Israeli war against terrorism are materially and theologically distinct from other contemporary conflicts, save perhaps the US – Iran war (2026) and as such the current Catholic response must be strengthened and supported in order to have any fidelity to the teachings of Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the Magisterium of the Church. The attack on Israel by the fundamentalist Islamic terror group Hamas represents precisely the kind of aggression that the Catholic just war tradition was developed to address. This article will apply the four criteria of the Catechism, as well as the Thomistic prerequisites established in Part I, to the Israeli war on terror, in order to determine whether it constitutes a just war and how Catholics and Catholic organizations ought to respond.

Grave Suffering?

Has the ‘suffering inflicted by the aggressor […] be[en] lasting, grave and certain?’ [1]  Approximately 1,200 people were murdered, thousands wounded, and at least 240 hostages taken in the attack on 7 October 2023, by far the largest of all Palestinian terror attacks. [2] Mass, systemic, and particularly barbaric acts of rape occurred. [3] Babies were beheaded. [4] Or, to be put more poignantly and succinctly, in the words of the United States Secretary of State, Antony Blinken: ‘Babies slaughtered. Bodies desecrated. Young people burned alive. Women raped. Parents executed in front of their children, children in front of their parents.’ [5] The charter of Hamas, as well as that of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the elected political entities of the territories of Gaza and the West Bank respectively, and all underwritten by Iran, expressly call for the total destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people, which is a ‘crime against God and humanity.’ [6] As such, because the goal of these Palestinian terror groups is the complete annihilation of the Jewish people, the response of war is the duty of the state of Israel because the ‘suffering inflicted by the aggressor’ would be certain to continue unless this heinous evil is eradicated with prejudice. One cannot passively let evil triumph, as the Apostle Paul says, ‘He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.’ [7]

The acts of terror and the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas, as well as by ‘ordinary Palestinians,’ are at the very least supported by the majority of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, and can easily meet the criterion of ‘lasting’ and ‘grave.’ No civilized human being can justify such brutality, nor can one make excuses such as its being a ‘justified’ response to a supposed ‘occupation.’ These acts are evil, plain and simple. As the Church holds rape as ‘caus[ing] grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is an always and intrinsically evil act.’ [8] Murder as one of ‘the sins that cry to heaven.’ [9] And ‘kidnapping and hostage taking [as] bring[ing] on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures […] Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and peace.’ [10] Therefore, on the first count, the Israeli war on terror does seem to meet the requirements to be considered a just war, as Israel is responding to grave suffering in order to prevent it from ever happening again. No Catholic should, in moral conscience, deny Israel this duty, as we have a ‘moral obligation to intervene on behalf of those groups [Israel and Jews globally] whose survival is threatened or whose basic human rights are seriously violated.’ [11] Therefore, calls for a ceasefire by Catholics individually, or in groups such as Pax Christi, Caritas, CAFOD, and the Bishops’ Conference, if they do so with full knowledge of the teaching of the Church regarding this conflict, are holding to grave error.

Diplomacy Exhausted?

Have ‘all other peaceful means proven to be ineffective?’ [12] For a war cannot be just if it is founded on a solitary principle, as Aquinas states. A brief look into the history of the region is therefore warranted, as we must look to the past to see if diplomacy and non-violent methods of prevention have been undertaken. Hamas was founded in 1987 with the ‘relatively narrow mandate’ of carrying out terror attacks based upon fundamentalist Islam. [13] Hamas then ‘took’ over the Gaza Strip in 2007, under the guise of becoming a legitimate political organization; this, however, proved to be wishful thinking on the part of the international community. [14] Instead, they ‘prioritized building and maintaining their militant and terrorist capabilities,’ while other organizations, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, provided essential public services that one would expect a legitimate government to provide. [15] They used the money and resources poured into the country by corrupt non-governmental organizations and charities – specifically the aforementioned UNRWA, who seemingly knew that terrorist activities were ongoing unabatedly – to continue to launch waves of terror such as the two Intifadas from 1987–1993 and 2000–2005. [16]

Odds of Success?

The final two requirements, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, will be treated together, as they are one and the same when it comes to conflict in modernity, especially in asymmetrical warfare as found in Israel. Are there ‘well-founded prospects of success’ using arms that do ‘not produce evils greater than the evil to be eliminated?’ [17] The Israeli defense community, in close collaboration with the United States and Europe, boasts a technologically advanced military focused on defense, via ‘armored vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, air defense, and guided missiles.’ [18] In contrast, the combined Palestinian forces are ‘armed mostly with small arms and light weapons’ from countries such as Jordan, Russia, and Iran; as such, in terms of equipment, there is clear asymmetry. [19]

With an estimated expenditure of 4.5% of its GDP, making Israel the twelfth highest spender on defense globally, Israel has a notably larger budget for defense than the so-called ‘Palestinian Territories.’ [20] As such there is a clear asymmetry in budget for defense and military operations. Not to mention that the current estimate for personnel for the Israeli Defense Force is approximately 170,000 men and women, compared to around 28,000 for the so-called ‘Palestinian Territories.’ [21] Although that figure does not take into account the numerous civilians that joined in the attack, and therefore became legitimate military targets, forgoing all special protections awarded to civilians by becoming militants themselves; especially since in the Gaza Strip, lines are ‘blurred’ with joint membership of the Qassam Brigades and the regular security personnel. [22] Therefore, in terms of manpower, Israel is once again substantially better equipped, and it is therefore right to say that the conflict is asymmetric in all conceivable metrics.

However, none of this is to make a moral judgement on whether an asymmetric war can be just. Instead, it is to illustrate that Israel has been remarkably constrained in its use of arms. With the level of firepower that Israel possesses, including the F-35 fighter jet, it could conceivably bomb the Gaza Strip into rubble, indiscriminately targeting the civilians that remain. Yet Israel has not; it has instead sought to uphold professionalism, ‘goodness, truth, and justice.’ [23] What is particularly poignant is that, with such an asymmetry in Israel’s favor, victory – namely, the complete eradication of Hamas and all its cruel apparatus – is certain and imminent. Therefore, there are ‘well-founded prospects of success,’ and the methods that Israel is using, whilst not diminishing the tragedy of the loss of innocent life that is unavoidable in any conflict, are not ‘producing evils greater than the evil to be eliminated [the terrorist group Hamas].’ [24]

Conclusions

As this article has shown, in applying the Catholic tradition of just war to the Israeli war on terror, the criteria are clearly met. The suffering inflicted by Hamas was grave, lasting, and certain; the history of the region demonstrates the exhaustion of peaceful alternatives; and the existential threat posed by a terror organization committed by charter to genocide justifies military response. Aid must be given to those legitimately fleeing the conflict, and a humanitarian corridor must be kept open. However, as shown, the evils perpetrated by Hamas are so grave that war is the only means of securing peace, and therefore must be permitted by the international community and the Catholic Church to be waged. In light of this, donations to Pax Christi should be tempered until they recant their grievous error and antisemitism. [25] Other charities such as CAFOD and Caritas, also engaged in charity work that goes against the social teaching of Holy Mother Church on this matter, must likewise recant and reform. Finally, the Papacy must evaluate its current role in apparently stoking antisemitism by uncritically repeating the claims of Cardinal Pizzaballa.