Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Is 'just war' just?

Skies over Haifa, Israel

The Israeli military fires Iron Dome missiles to intercept dozens of rockets launched from Lebanon at the northern port city of Haifa on Oct. 8.

Mati Milstein/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As rockets are once again streaking across the skies of the Middle East and the cries of the bereaved echo through its ravaged streets, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words and teachings reverberate like a mournful prayer in my spirit. They stir within me a deep sociopolitical and theological question, "Is 'just war' just?”

In this ongoing conflict, as in all wars, nation-states are forced to confront the terrible paradox of the just war theory — that the pursuit of justice can sometimes demand the violence it seeks to vanquish.


Just war doctrine roots trace back to the writings of St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas. Augustine argued that war could be a purpose for the restoration of peace, while Aquinas' commentary is often interpreted as giving allowance to war. Though war was thought to be an inherent evil, there were certain conditions for its justification, including just cause (self-defense or the protection of innocents), last resort (all peaceful means exhausted), probability of success, proportionality (the ends justify the means) and right intention (the goal is peace, not conquest or domination).

However, even when these criteria are met, war inevitably brings about indiscriminate suffering, violating the fundamental principle of noncombatant immunity. Presently, Israel and Hamas are claiming cause. Israel argues its right to self-defense against indiscriminate rocket attacks, while Palestinians point to decades of occupation, blockade and creeping annexation.

The moral calculus of war becomes even more fraught when geopolitical alliances are factored in. The United States has long been Israel's staunchest backer, providing billions in military aid each year. This unwavering support, rooted in a complex mix of strategic interests, ideological alignment and domestic political pressures, significantly bolsters Israel's military might. Conversely, Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, funneling weapons and cash to bolster their military capabilities. Tehran views these relationships as a means to project power, challenge Israeli dominance and advance its regional agenda. These external influences further complicate the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive.

Such patron-client relationships further entrench the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive. Over the years, such relations have created a destructive cycle where escalation by one side is met with counter-escalation by the other, fueled by their respective backers; amidst this tangled web of alliances, the humanitarian cost mounts. Innocent civilians are often left to bear the burden of violence. Thus, leaving the international community struggling to navigate these competing interests hampers efforts to broker peaceable solutions. The longer military conflict persists, the greater the moral imperative to protect innocent lives and arrive at a point of just resolution.

Pursuing peace can be supported even at the height of cyclical violence when retribution continues. The efforts of good-faith actors or humanitarians demand more than a mere ceasefire. What is truly necessary is a commitment to address the underlying grievances, the longstanding grievances fueling historic conflict.

Despite its flaws, just war theory, for some, acts as a moral framework for judgment of their actions in the crucible of conflict. But it must be complemented by a tireless dedication to nonviolence and restorative justice championed by prophetic arbitrators like Dr. King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In reflection of devastation and unrest across the region, we are reminded that justice is not found in the rubble of war but in acknowledging the dignity and sacredness of all human life.

The query is whether war is a just act. It ought to serve as a mirror held up to the soul of humanity in assessing its most authentic reflection. Forcing nations and individuals alike to wrestle with our respective capacity for cruelty and compassion, our penchant for division and our yearning for unity. As allied forces and regional actors involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consider their next moves, pray all remember that true strength lies not in military might but in the courage to choose peace. All parties should prioritize the most vulnerable while seeking to enact justice. A justice that sincerely seeks peace — respecting and embracing all, regardless of their faith or nationality. Only time will tell.


Read More

For Trump, the State of the Union is delusional

U.S. President Donald Trump, with Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson looking on, delivers his State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy and amid a U.S.


(Getty Images)

For Trump, the State of the Union is delusional

State of the Union speeches haven’t mattered in a while. Even in their heyday, they were only bringing in 60-plus million viewers, and that’s been declining substantially for decades. They rarely result in a post-speech bump for any president, and according to Gallup polling data since 1978, the average change in a president’s approval rating has been less than one percentage point in either direction.

To be sure, this is good news for President Trump. He should hope and pray this State of the Union was lightly watched.

Keep ReadingShow less
The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury
A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

The spectacle of Operation Epic Fury

The U.S. and Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran, which rolled out under the name Operation Epic Fury, is a phrase that sounds more like a summer action film than a real‑world conflict in which people are dying. The operation involves massive strikes across Iran, with U.S. Central Command reporting that more than 1,700 targets have been hit in the first 72 hours. President Donald Trump described it as a “massive and ongoing operation” aimed at dismantling Iran’s military capabilities.

This framing matters. When leaders adopt language that emphasizes spectacle, they risk shifting public perception away from the gravity of war. The death of Iran’s supreme leader following the bombardment, for example, was a world‑altering event, yet it unfolded under a banner that evokes adrenaline rather than anguish.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Race and Species are Leveraged Against Each Other

Texas Rep. Al Green held a sign reading "Black People Aren't Apes," protesting a racist video Trump had previously shared on Truth Social. Green was escorted out of the House chamber just minutes into President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.

How Race and Species are Leveraged Against Each Other

This was nothing new.

Before President Donald Trump released a video on his Truth Social account earlier this month that depicted Michelle and Barack Obama as apes, many were already well aware of his compulsive use of AI-generated deepfake content to disparage the former president. Many were also well aware of his tendency to employ dehumanizing rhetoric to describe people of color.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

Getty Images, Fotosearch

Four Freedoms: What We Are Fighting For

The record of the Trump 2.0 administration is one of repeated usurpations and injuries to the body politic: fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy, without legal or ethical restraint, hostile to truth, and indifferent to human suffering. Our nation desperately needs a stout and engaging response from the party out-of-power. It’s necessary but not sufficient for Democrats to criticize Trump, rehearsing what they are against. If it is to generate renewed enthusiasm among voters, the Democratic Party must offer a compelling positive message, stating clearly what it stands for.

Fortunately, Democrats don’t need to reinvent this wheel. They can reach back to a fraught moment in our history when a president brought forward a timely and nationally unifying message, framed within a coherent, memorable, and inspiring set of ideas. In his address to Congress on Jan. 6, 1941 – a full 12 months before Pearl Harbor – Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed the international spread of fascism an “unprecedented” threat to U.S. security. He also identified dangers on the home front: powerful isolationist leanings and, in certain quarters, popular support for Nazi ideology. Calling for increased military preparation and war production (along with higher taxes), he reminded citizens “what the downfall of democratic nations [abroad] might mean to our own democracy.”

Keep ReadingShow less