Just wars are measured against the gravity of the evil fought...

Responding to other critics (who make generally the same points I did) of his recent column asserting that Israel's retaliatory strikes against Hizballah in Lebanon are unjust, Professor Bainbridge simplifies his argument:

Once you concede that a just war must be waged justly, I win.

Nope. As a tautology, the statement is true enough. A just war must be waged justly. The question is then what does it mean to wage a war justly. Here, the good professor omits analysis under the relevant fourth criteria of the just war doctrine, which states:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

In other words, the collateral evils (damage to the civilian infrastructure and civilians) must be measured against the gravity of the evil to be eliminated. Tactics themselves are neither just nor unjust; their justice depends on the evil being fought. Professor Bainbridge has not provided this analysis.

If you define the evil being fought as merely the killing of a few Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of others, than the Israeli response may be disproportionate. But define the evil to be eliminated as the broader attacks by Hizballah on Israeli civilians just in the past week, and the conclusion is not so clear. Define the evil as all the terrorist attacks against Israel in the past two decades, and the conclusion becomes quite clear in the opposite direction.