Q&A: Intentional Harm to an Enemy’s Civilian Infrastructure
Intentional Harm to an Enemy’s Civilian Infrastructure
Question
Hello Rabbi,
According to the Geneva Convention, as I understand it, one must distinguish between the enemy’s civilian and military targets. But if the army is an agent of civilian society, why is it not right to also strike an enemy’s civilian infrastructure, such as power stations, sewage facilities, and so on? Especially given that this infrastructure serves, among other things, the enemy’s army, even if not exclusively.
Best regards,
Answer
This mixes together different planes. The moral question is one thing, and the legal-political question is another.
Morally, it is not desirable to strike civilian targets if doing so is not necessary for achieving the military objectives. And that is true even if there is some price to be paid for that restraint. If it is necessary and the price is too high, then yes, of course. But legally and politically there are constraints that it is proper and worthwhile to take into account regardless of morality. Of course, not at any price.
Discussion on Answer
You’re pointing to consequentialist reasons. I wrote that if it is necessary, one may strike them.
There is a kind of international agreement to leave civilians outside the circle, and that way they will not strike us either.
Beyond that, in many cases the government decides on war without backing from the civilians. Democracies hardly ever wage wars, except in self-defense. And a non-democratic ruler does not necessarily act on their authority and with their consent.
Regarding necessity, it is a combination of reasons that permits striking civilian infrastructure: both their responsibility for the war, and also the assistance the civilian infrastructure gives to the war effort, where only one of those reasons by itself would not be enough—for example, when the assistance to the war is not all that significant.
As for international agreements, there is also an international agreement not to start an unjustified war. So if one side thinks the other side is fighting an unjustified war, does that permit it to break all the rules of the agreement as well?
In principle, if we assume that a democratic ruler starts a war with the consent of all the citizens in a referendum, would it in such a case be proper to strike at least civilian infrastructure?
As for Hamas, do you think it acts by the authority and with the consent of the civilians?
And as for Nazi Germany, do you think they acted by the authority and with the consent of the civilians?
The agreements take into account that each side thinks it is right. Your argument empties them of content.
Hamas probably does. In Germany, in my estimation, it did not.
Why is it not proper to strike civilian targets if it is not militarily necessary? After all, harming civilians who sent the army causes them to think twice about sending the army to fight us. Also, the civilians are the ones who supply the army with things like food, clothing, ammunition, and so on, so harming them indirectly harms the army.