The Israeli war on Gaza, which has spanned over one hundred days, has unveiled many unprecedented realities, at least for three distinct parties:
- First Party: The Military Conduct of Israel; this behavior led to a level surpassing all legal and ethical norms, even beyond basic human decency. This resulted in protest demonstrations across many Western countries, including Jewish groups declaring, “Not in our name.”
Meanwhile, South Africa initiated legal proceedings in the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
-
Second Party: The Heroic and Professional Performance of the Palestinian Resistance During the War; with modest, self-sustained resources compared to the modern American military arsenal utilized by the Israeli army and its broad application of artificial intelligence technologies during the war, the resistance etched into history rare acts of valor.
The term ‘war’ conventionally denotes conflict accompanied by combat actions and military tactics to achieve political or strategic goals. It may also refer to comprehensive strife in other areas such as economic, political, and cultural fields.
The following three aspects of this performance can be discerned:
- Professionalism: encompasses combat performance.
- Media Performance: in sync with combat efforts and documented through audio and visual means, then shared globally.
- Ethical Conduct: reflected in the treatment of prisoners, as evidenced by the testimonials from the Israelis upon their release. These testimonials embarrassed Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which later imposed censorship on their statements.
These three aspects collectively reinforce the struggle of the resistance movements against the Israeli army, boosting their capacity to vindicate their cause and cripple their adversary to the utmost. Thus, the Israeli distinction remains confined solely to its military capabilities (American-made) that have caused—and continue to cause—immense destruction and the loss of numerous civilians, especially women and children.
- Third Party: The Reactions and Behaviors of the People of Gaza During the War; the people of Gaza penned extraordinary pages of embodying religious and ethical virtues (such as patience, contentment, gratitude, accountability, courage, and sacrifice…). We witnessed practical examples of these virtues that we used to read about in the accounts of early Muslim generations, which we once believed were historical models not to be replicated.
These three aspects sparked a plethora of political and military analyses, exactly what news channels usually focus on. Nonetheless, the intellectual, ethical, and legal analyses remained largely outside the spotlight, almost entirely overlooked. Therefore, my previous articles about this ongoing war on Gaza particularly emphasized these angles, especially the analysis of the concepts utilized in warfare, as they contain perspectives of the actors involved—the three parties mentioned earlier: the Israeli army, the resistance movements, and the people of Gaza.
Understanding these concepts guides us to a deeper comprehension of the events and offers an explanatory vision that can illuminate parts of the scene not covered by political and military analyses. It is not feasible to isolate the political and military actions from the intellectual and value-based dimensions that influence the active parties in warfare, whether actively or reactively. This idea extends beyond the concept of the commonly discussed “military doctrine.”
I believe there are two primary concepts capable of presenting a cohesive explanation for the aforementioned three parties: (Israeli military behavior, the valiant performance of the resistance, and the virtues of the people of Gaza), which are the concepts of ‘war’ and ‘jihad’. These reflect divergent views of combat: its goals and methods, the governing moralities, how prisoners are treated, and the fate of the victims (ranging from heroism to martyrdom). In brief, these concepts revolve around the legitimacy of initiating war/jihad, the legality of actions during and after combat, and attitudes towards casualties suffered during these fights.
‘Jihad’ stems from the term ‘effort’ and embodies the notion of hardship, inherently carrying positive connotations foundational to the technical meanings of Jihad, which is a religious term. We can distinguish between two perspectives here:
- First: Looking at the ‘mujahid’ (the one pushed), the term ‘jihad’ holds four meanings: combatting the infidels, striving against oneself, resisting the devil, and opposing the corrupt. As Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852H) declared: “As for striving against oneself, it pertains to learning religious matters, then acting upon them, and then teaching them. As for resisting the devil, it involves deflecting the doubts he presents and the temptations he adorns. As for combatting the infidels, it is done with hand, wealth, tongue, and heart. As for opposing the corrupt, it’s with hand, then tongue, then heart.”
- Second: Looking at the means through which jihad is undertaken, we can distinguish between three meanings: jihad of the heart, tongue, and hand. Ibn al-Munasif (d. 620H) clarified that jihad of the heart refers to overcoming desires, combating the devil, abhorring what contradicts the Sharia, and internally rejecting all of it. Jihad of the tongue is realized through advocating for good and forbidding evil, chastising the proponents of falsity, and being harsh on them when necessary.
As for jihad by hand, it includes multiple facets, such as fighting infidels, enforcing judicial punishments, and similar corrective measures, as well as changing reprehensible practices where mere words are insufficient. Each of these has rules and conditions that must be observed with specific considerations for each type. However, when the term ‘jihad’ is used generically, it typically refers to the jurisprudential concept of fighting the enemy.
The aforementioned meanings illustrate the ethical richness of the term ‘jihad’; it hints at virtues of goodness, justice, and truth. Striving against the infidels is meant to bring goodness to people and prevent them from being hindered from their religion. Striving against oneself is disciplining oneself to perform virtuous deeds and abstain from iniquities in both words and deeds until it becomes second nature. Resisting the devil is about combatting fallacies (in thought and belief) and overcoming desires (in actions). Opposing the corrupt is about denouncing and changing misdeeds.
These meanings are encompassed by the phrase “in the way of Allah,” which is associated with the command to engage in jihad. Delving into the details of the rules of jihad, especially armed struggle, which includes fighting against infidels and changing evil practices, reveals its ethical dimensions, as it is contingent on an ultimate goal that influences the evaluation of means leading to that goal, and the balance between these means and their outcomes.
For instance, consider how commanding good and forbidding evil, chastising the advocates of falsehood and being firm with them when necessary are obligations for a responsible person under certain conditions. These include being knowledgeable about the methods of denunciation and the manner of standing up in such situations, ranging from gentle persuasion to sternness, as warranted by the evil in question and the circumstances encountered. Ibn al-Munasif also noted that if one despaired of their ability to change the evil, then it may not be obligatory to act, except voluntarily.
As for the concept of ‘war’, it technically refers to strife accompanied by combat actions and military tactics to achieve political or strategic goals. It may also be used to denote a comprehensive struggle in other arenas, such as economic, political, and cultural spheres. The linguistic root of the word ‘war’ is essentially ‘seizure’. The concept of war has evolved in light of two factors: first, the modern state and its operating logic, and second, military means and technologies.
In terms of the first factor (the modern state’s logic), war constitutes a means of affirming state sovereignty and international power. Typically, military force is employed in a dispute that cannot be resolved peacefully or when the state perceives its national interests as threatened. “National interests” is a broad term covering self-defense, stability maintenance, border and population protection, and the attainment of political and economic goals as determined by the ruling regime.
Considering the second factor (military technologies), wars have undergone two revolutions: the first was the industrial revolution and its applications in warfare, starting from the mid-19th century. The first half of the 20th century then saw the outbreak of two world wars, which, based on the principle of armament, defined global power balances.
The second revolution involved the invention of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, which introduced a novel factor in determining power balances. This technological advancement impacted the structure of “military revolutions” concerning the organization of armed forces and the nature of war, especially since the end of the Cold War that had dominated international relations for decades.
Perhaps the most significant consequence of this is the precedence gained by preemptive (or aggressive) wars over defensive ones, the emergence of the concept of “total war,” and how all these have influenced the formulation of two main issues: firstly, the legitimacy of war, determined by “national interests” and power balances, despite the so-called “international order.” Secondly, the conduct of war, which unfolds in the air and on land with devastating weaponry and artificial intelligence technologies, despite the existence of international humanitarian law because power balances govern war trajectories, not laws.
The practical implications of the distinction between the concepts of jihad and war can be felt in the ongoing war on Gaza, in the differences between the actions of the resistance movements and those of the Israeli army. This can be illustrated through four aspects:
- First: The legitimacy of combat initiation. While the Israeli war’s legitimacy was portrayed as “the right to self-defense,” I have previously clarified that this right does not hold for an occupier since they are the aggressor. Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the resistance is established and steadfast; it defends land, self, and honor.
- Second: Behavior during combat, where the most prominent example is the type of weapons used. Conventional weaponry aligns with precisely defined goals and operates traditionally, targeting combatants exclusively. On the other hand, advanced weapons and artificial intelligence technologies have refined the technical military performance of fighters but have also led to increased civilian casualties on the opposing side being waged war upon. This involves imposing sieges, starvation, deprivation of water, collective punishment, and targeting everyone, including women, children, residential buildings, and hospitals, despite such actions being criminalized in international law intended to impose at least minimal ethical constraints on warfare. Yet, the dictates of power balances and politicians’ and military leaders’ assessments of national interests are what control war developments because the goal is to achieve objectives in which victory and defeat are measured.
- Third: Treatment of prisoners, with the stark contrast in handling by Israelis and the treatment of relief organizations evident through televised footage and statements from those released.
- Fourth: The virtues displayed by the people of Gaza in facing the horrors of war, death, and loss stem from a profound belief in the concept of martyrdom, a sub-notion of jihad. Conversely, leaked images of Israeli soldiers, whether killed or injured, show terror, resentment, and psychological crises, as reported by Israeli sources’ statistics.
In conclusion, practicing jihad is framed within an ethical context – as mentioned earlier – which defines the legitimacy of starting combat and regulates the behavior of mujahideen during combat, including treatment of prisoners and civilians, particularly children and women.
Given that jihad is a religious and ethical concept, it has yielded the virtues inscribed by the mujahideen and victims of the Israeli war on the people of Gaza in heroic scenes. They sought eternal life through martyrdom and rejoiced in it. In contrast, the practice of war is constrained by state logic, its sovereignty, and national interests, which often exceed the values of truth and justice (as Israel was initially established on injustice and aggression).
War imposed the development of military technologies to minimize army casualties as much as possible and narrow the scope of ground combat. However, this has come at the expense of inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties on the opposite side and causing tremendous destruction of infrastructure. Such practices reinforce two notions: firstly, the military technological advancement embodies, in reality, a focus on worldly life, as evident in Israeli soldiers’ panic scenes. Secondly, motives for vengeance, spite, and a determination to achieve military and political objectives at any cost and without any restraints have led to immense destruction and numerous mass atrocities, and it is to God we entrust our affairs.
