Victoria Sanderson
16 April, 2025
It’s to be said war is horrible no matter what goes on in it, but can the actions within it be considered just? As the world becomes more and more advanced, society has developed a reliance on technology to function. Cyber Warfare has become one of the most crucial aspects of warfare in the modern day. There are many subsections of cyber warfare, such as, hybrid warfare which integrates both kinetic (physical force) and non-kinetic strategies, including cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. The article “Digital Battlegrounds: Evolving Hybrid Kinetic Warfare” goes into detail on the cyber operations undertaken during the initial stages of the Israel-Hamas war, such as Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks and manipulation of emergency alert systems. It displays the power that these cyberattacks have caused significant disruptions in national security operations, public services, and emergency response systems, exacerbating chaos and distress among civilian populations.
A central ethical question arises: can cyber warfare actions be considered part of a just war, or are they inherently unjust even within the broader context of warfare? Through the lens of Utilitarian philosophical views, which assess the morality of actions based on the conditional consequences they produce, this analysis will argue that cyberwarfare actions could have been justified in war only if they minimize harm to civilians and contribute to a greater balance of good over suffering. This paper will review if these tactics of cyberwarfare follow the views of Utilitarianism. However, attacks that intentionally spread misinformation or directly harm civilian infrastructure without military necessity would be deemed unjust even within an otherwise just war.
Going forward on the acts of Cyber Warfare, Michael Boylan, in “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?”, introduces key principles for evaluating the morality of cyberwarfare through the lens of Just War Theory. He first discusses the Discrimination Principle, which asserts that cyberattacks must target only combatants and military objectives. This principle can be especially relevant in the terms of cyberwarfare, where attacks on digital infrastructure can have unintended effects on civilians. For example, a DDoS attack that disrupts a government website may also hinder access to critical public services. The second point that Boylan introduces is the Proportionality Principle, which states that the harm inflicted by an attack must be balanced against the anticipated military advantage. Cyber Operations should not cause excessive or unnecessary damage, particularly to civilian infrastructure like healthcare systems, water supplies, or communication networks. The final point that Boylan brings up is the Necessity Principle, which argues that a cyberattack should only be used when conventional military methods are unavailable or insufficient. This principle demands that cyberattacks be a last resort, used only when their targeted and strategic nature can achieve objectives that are not feasible through traditional means. Boylan’s reading does an overall fitful job pointing out cyber warfare challenges of applying traditional Just War principles to digital conflicts, urging careful consideration of the ethical implications of cyber operations.
When applying Boylan’s framework to the cyberattacks during the Israel-Hamas conflict, it becomes clear that several of his pointed-out principles were violated, particularly Discrimination and Proportionality. The cyberattacks, which include the DDoS strikes on Israel’s power grid and disruption of the Red Color missile alert system, primarily targeted civilian infrastructure. While the attackers may have aimed to disrupt Israel’s defense efforts, these attacks instead impacted their civilians far worse with its overall effects. The Discrimination Principle mandates that military operations must avoid directly harming civilians, but the cyberattacks blurred this line by affecting systems that serve both military and non-military functions. The Proportionality Principle is also broken here, because the benefits of disrupting Israeli communications and power systems were minimal in comparison to the broad and severe consequences. For instance, by disabling missile alerts and communication systems, the attackers exacerbated panic and confusion, leading to delays in emergency response and heightened civilian casualties. Even if the attackers gained some military advantage, the excessive harm to non-combatants and critical infrastructure would render the operation disproportionate in Boylan’s terms.
From a Utilitarian perspective, which judges actions based on their outcomes and aims to maximize overall well-being, the cyberattacks in the conflict also fall short. Utilitarianism views follow the main point that the consequences of an action must maximize the well-being of the greatest number of people. To say this, the cyberattacks in the Israel-Hamas conflict resulted in widespread harm, from disrupting essential services like electricity and healthcare to causing psychological distress among civilians. The attack caused immediate consequences, such as delays in emergency responses and civilian casualties, outweighing any strategic advantage the attackers might have gained. Additionally, the potential long-term effects of these attacks, including the risk of lingering malware or data manipulation in critical systems, present an ongoing threat to civilian safety and stability. A Utilitarian analysis would argue that the harm caused by the attacks, particularly the civilian suffering and long-term insecurity—vastly outweighed any fleeting military benefit. Even if these cyberattacks were intended to disrupt military capabilities, the broader societal costs, including fear, loss of public trust, and the degradation of essential services, would render these actions ethically indefensible under Utilitarian principles.
Another author that helps with understanding the needs of cyberwarfare is Mariarosiaria Taddeo. Her work “An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare”, expands on how a broad ethical framework is needed to evaluate cyberwarfare. She is able to draw from traditional just war theory and adapts it to the digital realm of our new modern-day stance. She states that for a cyber operation to be morally just, it must adhere to similar principles of discrimination, proportionality, and necessity, but she also introduces the importance of accountability in the digital domain. Taddeo continues to contend that in the context of cyberwarfare, accountability means that any state or non-state actor carrying out cyber operations must ensure that the operation is traceable, that responsibility is clear, and that the operation aligns with ethical norms and laws of warfare. This accountability is critical in preventing cyberattacks that, while seemingly military in nature, can have a domino effect on civilian populations and even their global infrastructure. The Discrimination Principle, which requires attacks to target only military objectives and avoid harming civilians, which can also be seen as essential following cyber operations. The Proportionality Principle, which limits the scale of harm inflicted, ensures that cyberattacks do not exceed the military benefit gained. Lastly, Taddeo emphasizes Necessity, suggesting that cyber operations should be a last resort when conventional means of warfare are insufficient.
Applying Taddeo’s framework to the Israel-Hamas cyberattacks highlights several ethical failures, particularly concerning Accountability and Proportionality. The several attacks they did were on critical infrastructure that was used on communications networks for its citizens, and it was not only disruptive but also severely impacted their life. These attackers acted without clear accountability, although pro-Hamas hacktivist groups such as Anonymous Sudan claimed responsibility, the attribution of these attacks to specific states or groups remained unclear, which undermines the moral and legal justifications for their actions. From Taddeo’s perspective, this lack of accountability exacerbates the moral problem, as the attackers failed to ensure transparency and accountability in their operations, which is a fundamental principle in the ethics of cyberwarfare. Proportionality is also a main point that also comes into question, as the attackers’ actions caused severe disruptions to public services and civilian lives, which seems to outweigh any potential military benefit. The psychological toll on civilians, delays in medical care, and the confusion that followed the disruption of emergency systems indicate that the scale of harm far exceeded the anticipated military advantages.
Utilizing Utilitarianism based on Taddeo’s points, the cyber attacks in the Israel-Hamas conflict present a clear argument against their justification. The immediate and severe consequences that were done with such a large amount of widespread fear went against the Utilitarian view. The disruption of healthcare and emergency systems alone led to delays in medical treatments and fatalities. If this was truly a just act, none of this would have left such a long-standing impact on corruption infrastructure. These lasting repercussions threaten ongoing civilian well-being even after the conflict ceases. While the attackers may have hoped to gain a temporary military advantage, not even the accountability of winning a small amount can compare to the damage done in both short and long term. Bringing both philosophical works together provides even more reason why this was not just an act, as it may not cause true physical damage in the beginning, but it helped no majority like Utilitarians would have wanted.
In this analysis, the argument was to show that the cyberwarfare actions in the Israel-Hamas conflict fail to meet the ethical standards required for a just war, according to Michael Boylan’s and Mariarosaria Taddeo’s frameworks, as well as Utilitarianism. Boylan’s Just War principles of Discrimination, Proportionality, and Necessity were all violated by the cyberattacks, which targeted civilian infrastructure such as healthcare and communication systems, causing disproportionate harm with little strategic gain. Taddeo’s added point of Accountability further highlighted the ethical failures of these operations, as the attacks lacked clear responsibility and transparency. The Proportionality principle, in particular, was breached as the scale of civilian harm exceeded any potential military advantage. To say from a Utilitarian perspective, the attacks clearly caused more harm than good, with widespread disruptions, panic, and long-term risks from malware. These consequences led to significant suffering for civilians, contradicting Utilitarianism’s goal of maximizing overall well-being. Despite any perceived military necessity these actions cannot be justified ethically. The attacks failed to protect civilians and disproportionately harmed innocent people. This case shows that there is a great importance in adapting a more traditional ethical framework to modern warfare, as even in cyberwarfare many different things can harm the people even if it may not be physical at first.
