Summary of the Wellington Abrahamic Council roundtable on “Can there be a just war?”
On Tuesday evening 23 June 2026, the Wellington Abrahamic Council of Jews, Christians, and Muslims held a closed roundtable discussion, with three each of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim discussants to explore the question “Can there be a just war?” The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule.
Framing and ground rules
The evening opened with a reminder of the Council’s shared values: assuming good faith, being curious, forgiving offence taken as unintentional, and reaching decisions by consensus. The convenor noted that holding such a conversation safely depended on years of trust-building, and that even within each faith tradition there were many points of view, not always congruent.
The Jewish perspectives
One speaker argued that Judaism lacks a formal just war theory, since for nearly two millennia (70 CE to 1948) the Jewish people lived without political sovereignty or standing armies. Drawing on rabbinic thought, they framed war as a “social aberration” and a deviation from the ideal. They cited the distinction between obligatory wars (self-defence) and discretionary wars (for power), warning of a “slippery slope” where a defensive war can morph into a war of choice. Using the Deuteronomy injunction against destroying fruit trees during a siege, they stressed that a righteous cause grants no “blank cheque,” and that combatants remain morally responsible for foreseeable harm. The conclusion: war can be just, but only as administered under the strictest moral limits.
A secular Jewish speaker rejected religion as a reliable guide, noting that scripture has been used to justify atrocities, but affirmed belief in just wars as codified in international law. They walked through the framework of when war is justified, how it must be conducted (distinguishing combatants from civilians, proportionality, treatment of prisoners), and emerging questions of justice after war. They highlighted the contribution of Jewish jurists to concepts like genocide and crimes against humanity, while arguing that much recent conduct in the Middle East cannot be justified under international humanitarian law. They also made the point that although the group of people in the room were open to this conversation, we could have had a different group of people from each of the three Abrahamic religions in the room that would have been very hostile to each other.
A third speaker, less focused on theology, reflected on the value of interfaith dialogue itself and expressed concern about rising antagonism towards the Jewish community in wider society, and the difficulty of extending the calm of such discussions into the broader public.
The Christian perspectives
One speaker reframed “just war theory” as “violence-reduction criteria” – not a moral validation of war but a set of rules to mitigate its impact. They contrasted punitive justice (what rule was broken, who is to blame, what punishment) with restorative justice (what happened, who was affected, what is needed to put things right), arguing that, theologically, justice is about restoring broken relationships and therefore no war can be truly “just.”
Another Christian speaker traced the evolving Catholic position, citing Pope Leo’s recent statement that just war theory is now “outdated,” and noting the moral as well as material damage of war. They argued, however, that the traditional criteria – especially “reasonable prospect of success”, “competent authority”, and “last resort” – still carry weight and should not be discarded, even as unilateralism and new warfare make a just war increasingly hard to envisage.
A further reflection invited a broader, eternal perspective: that the human yearning for peace and mercy reflects the divine image, and that those who never receive earthly justice might place hope in a just and merciful God, who enables us to forgive and bless even those who are repulsive to us.
The Muslim perspectives
Speakers emphasised that Islam treats peace as a core value and permits war only under strict conditions – self-defence and protection of the oppressed, never aggression. Strict rules forbid harming civilians, destroying crops, or mistreating prisoners. One speaker clarified that jihad is primarily an inner struggle against one’s instincts, not religious warfare.
A central contribution focused on the aftermath of war: the duty to pursue peace when the enemy inclines towards it, to act with justice and reconciliation even towards former enemies, and to embrace forgiveness over revenge. The conquest of Mecca without bloodshed as related in the Qu’ran was offered as the model. War is never an end in itself; the true test of faith begins when the weapons fall silent.
Recurring themes from the general discussion
Several threads united the traditions. There were strong resonances across all three faiths – protection of non-combatants, prohibition on destroying the environment, and peace as the ultimate aim. Many speakers questioned whether the very framing – “is this war just?” – already concedes too much, and that the more important question is how to construct peace, which must be built intentionally over time rather than treated as the mere interval between conflicts.
Participants noted two contemporary shifts that strain just war theory: the breakdown of international legal norms and multilateralism, and the rise of autonomous weaponry and AI, which raises unanswerable questions of moral accountability when machines, not people, make lethal decisions.
A former service member observed that just war is rarely discussed within the military itself, that such decisions rest at the highest political levels (citing historical examples of leaders developing misgivings about bombing campaigns), and that the framework is heavily Eurocentric. This prompted a suggestion to engage military chaplaincy in the conversation.
Where the group landed
There was appetite to continue with a follow-up session reframed around building “just peace” rather than just war, to consider producing a joint statement capturing the resonances, and to explore practical outreach, such as educational resources that surface a counter-tradition of peacemaking within national history. The evening closed with a reflection on refugees as the human cost of war, and a hope to work towards a day when refugees no longer exist.
