“If someone was sending rockets on my house where my daughters were sleeping at night, I would do everything to stop it, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” – President-elect Barack Obama
Now that Hamas’s long war against Israel is matched with a short war in Gaza, protests are erupting everywhere from the blogosphere and Arab capitals to the United Nations, and they began on the very first day. Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald Would a Proportionate Response Look Like? calls the Israeli retaliation to more than a year of rocket attacks a “massively disproportionate response.” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay “strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.” The Israeli counterattack is, indeed, disproportionate, but it could hardly be otherwise. “At last count,” J.G. Thayer wrote, “one Israeli and two Palestinians (sisters, ages 13 and 5) died from rocket attacks. So a proportionate response, one presumes, would have required Israel to kill a single Palestinian and two of its own citizens.”
There were, I suppose, other “proportionate” responses available aside from killing one Palestinian and two Israelis. The Israel Defense Forces might have launched thousands of air strikes against targets in Gaza to match the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at the cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. It’s unlikely, however, that this is what Israel’s critics have in mind.
So what do they have in mind? What would a legitimate and “proportionate” response actually look like? Surely they don’t believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.
The “disproportionate response” crowd doesn’t seem to mind that Israel struck back at Hamas per se. They aren’t saying Israel should only be allowed to negotiate with its enemies or that any use of force whatsoever is wrong. They’re clearly saying Israel should use less force, inflict less damage, or both.
One problem here is that it’s not at all clear how they think Israelis should go about doing it. The weapons used by each side can’t be the same. No one has ever said Israel ought to put its superior weapons systems in cold storage until Hamas can develop or purchase something similar. Presumably Israel is allowed to use its superior technology as long as the casualty count on each side is proportionate.
But how would that work in practice? A single Israeli air strike is going to kill at least as many people as Hamas can kill in twelve months. Does that mean Israel should be given a “license” of one air strike per year to use in the war? If IDF commanders want to take out a target where they expect five Hamas leaders or fighters to be killed, do they have to wait until five Israelis are killed first? If the Israelis endure rocket fire until one civilian is killed, do they get a “kill one Palestinian terrorist” coupon?
"Proportionate response" is bullshit. It's not moral, it's not practical, it's not anything except a waste of time and a means to escalate and prolong conflict. One must commit. Either to capitulation or to victory.
Proportionate response is a pretty face on the tit for tat cycle of violence and revenge. It is a euphemism that makes people feel better about unproductive violence. It is an eye for an eye. Disproportionate response is ALWAYS preferable. If you lack the courage of your convictions to know that what you defend is worthy of an overwhelming disproportionate response then you should indeed capitulate, there is no middle ground.
Any response that stops the rocket attacks is the appropriate response. Funny, the same people didn't say all that much when Russia cornholed Georgia did they? Once again our esteemed international intelligentsia offer another round of soft power responses to real threats.
I think the bigger question is, does anyone really give two shits what the UN mouthpiece of the week says? Or any of the usual suspects who pimp themselves to the MSM anytime Israel bothers to lift a finger to defend itself against constant terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank.
"What would a proportionate response look like?"
Wait till Barack Obama speaks not only with the power and authority of the Office of the President-Elect but with the power of the Presidency himself. That will give you your answer, practically speaking. That which he tells the Jews not to do will be illegitimate and disproportionate. That which he gives the Jews leave to do may be legitimate and proportionate, provided that the high expectations that the mainstream media have raised about Barack Obama's power to restore American legitimacy and sway the world are well-founded. But if he can't restore legitimacy and moral authority to America, he certainly can't do it for Israel either, and all actions associated with the occupation of parts of Palestine will have continue to have questionable legitimacy at best.
Same question to MT, that I asked previously. What is the solution for Hebron, and checkpoint after checkpoint after checkpoint, for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, for the sake of a few hundred Israeli settlers?
NOTE: This does not mean, of course, that Israel should not protect itself against Hamas missiles - of course they should.
But really, Palestinians do live under a de facto occupation, that pushes settlers, little by little, block by block, mile by mile, into Palestinian territory.
If your everyday existence was to have to kowtow to soldiers of another country that treated you like dirt, every day, how would you feel?
I'm of the opinion the situation is fairly hopeless. The political will doesn't exist for Israel to rein in the settlements, the Palestinians, even those that are willing to come to some sort of peace settlement, don't have the social structure to contemplate peace in the face of the many daily depredations of dignity that they deal with - on top of the money that flows in from other Arab countries, the money tied to having Palestinians oppose and attack Israel, but leaving no fingerprints for the funding country. (The Middle East version of the cold war), and then there is the religious conflict on top of it all.
Israel is turning, slowly but surely, in the name of security, into a kinder gentler version of South Africa apartheid. And given the forces arrayed against Israel, if I were in charge of Israel, I would probably be making most of the same choices, in the name of security.
I'm assuming longterm, that more and more walls will be built by Israel. That should be combined with demarcating some boundaries and STICKING TO THEM, giving the Palestinians everything on the other side of those boundaries. And bringing in all settlers BY FORCE into those walls, those boundaries. And do NOT have Palestinians flow into Israel to work in Israel - do not allow that.
Anyone INSIDE those boundaries - make them an Israeli citizen, subject to Israeli laws.
Anyone outside - when citizes of Gazaland or West Bank land attack, Israel attacks back.
But what Israel is not doing is structuring the physical and social boundaries of the Israeli state, in such a way as to reduce the contact (and thus the violence) between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, there is this slow creep creep creep of Israeli encroachment, with the imposition of Israeli security INTO a Palestinians homes and roads.
Israel did precisely as you suggest in Gaza, and what was the result? Why should Israel expect it to be any different should they do the same in the West Bank?
. . . and just in case there was any lack of clarity as to the Hamas position, this, from today's NYT:
""We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity," said Hamas leader Fathi Hammad at the funeral of Nizar Rayyan, the cleric who was killed along with his family.
The bearded Rayyan, who mentored suicide bombers and sent one of his sons on a "martyrdom" mission, was the highest ranking Hamas official to be killed in the current offensive. He had called loudly for bombings in Israeli cities.
Hamas spokesman Ismail Rudwan said that "following this crime, all options are now open including martyrdom operations to deter the aggression and to strike Zionist interests everywhere ... killing begets killing and destruction begets destruction."
I haave an idea for not only proportional responce, but identical responce.
Hamas uses specific types of rockets and mortors. It would not be difficult to figure out the trajectory that they came in on, nor would it be difficult for Israel to duplicate them.
SO
For every rocket or mortor shell that is fired across the border Israel should fire one exaclty the same, in the opposite direction at a random time.
[NM: Dan, we appreciate substantive contributions, including yours. Please don't crosspost essentially identical content in multiple threads. Thanks.]
Annoying Old Guy,
Israel had been maintaining the blockade of Gaza.
If you recall, one of the reasons that the Six Day War was launched, from the Israel side, was because Israel viewed the BLOCKADE by Nasser of the Straits of Tiran, a causus belli.
By that rationale - ISRAEL'S OWN RATIONALE IN 1967 - Hamas has a causus belli.
Hypocrisyrules: Same question to MT, that I asked previously. What is the solution for Hebron, and checkpoint after checkpoint after checkpoint, for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, for the sake of a few hundred Israeli settlers?
Why are you even asking me this question? What does that have to do with missiles from Gaza?
The solution to that problem is to dismantle the settlements in Hebron. Did you expect me to say something different? If so, why? I really would like to know.
Robin, when properly understood, "proportionality" is an important part of the law of war as it exists.
A target strike (in any phase of warfare) that causes collateral damage (i.e., to innocent civilians or to civilian property) may only take place if the collateral damage is not excessive with respect to the military objective being achieved. Likewise, in a self-defense situation, the force used should be limited in scope, intensity, and duration to whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat. In other words, the proportionality that matters legally is not with respect to the damage the other side has done, but with respect to what is needed to achieve the objective or neutralize the threat.
Either way, the goal is to minimize the collateral damage, not to make the enemy's success (or choice of weapons) a limiting factor. And as it is, it is an excellent principle.
The situation is much more complicated than simply addressing proportionality issues, although on that narrow point, I do agree with you. After all, what is the Powell doctrine that served us so effectively (if brutally) in GW1? If Israel is going to respond - and respond to...is it hundreds? - of rockets, a weak response is not called for.
Still, in terms of who is responsible for what, is tricky.
Given the economic blockade, you can say that Hamas has been in a state of war with Israel since the blockade started. And that blockade, with the effects it has had, as I mentioned above, is really the actions of a party at war, given the effect on the inhabitants of Gaza.
But then you would go back, and visit what Hamas was doing in 2007, which was due to ANOTHER round of Hamas rockets and mortar fire.
It seems to be always groundhog day in that area. Until one day, it won't be.
By that rationale - ISRAEL'S OWN RATIONALE IN 1967 - Hamas has a causus belli.
Sure they do. But they don't have sufficient military capacity to win it and they're logistics are almost entirely dependent on their putative enemy. Because they don't have the military capacity to engage the Israeli military, they're reduced to ineffective rocket attacks on civilians. They have a causus belli, but initiating a shooting war is a stupid strategic decision.
Hamas is not behaving rationally - they're behaving like a rabid animal. And like a rabid animal, they need to be put down.
hypocrisyrules: Hamas has been in a state of war with Israel since the blockade started.
Hamas has been at war with Israel since the day they wrote their charter. You might want to read it.
hypocrisyrules;
I don't see how Israel is blockading Gaza. What of the border with Egypt? Would it not have to be Israel and Egypt blockading Gaza? And in that case, would that not put Hamas at war with Egypt just as much as with Israel? Yet that is not the case. I therefore do not accept your theory. It is continually astonishing to me that people write about Gaza as if it had borders only with Israel as if we could not see differently on any map.
P.S. And of course, as Mr. Totten notes, to promote the blockade theory is to treat Hamas with Bwana Contempt, in which you, the Bwana, state your own views as those of Others, blithely disregarding what those Others say about themselves and their motives, because you as Bwana know better than they do. I, however, take Hamas' statements about Hamas' goals and purpose to have far greater weight than yours.
AOG, Israel continues to control the official border crossing between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah, as it has since 1967. In beeter times, after clearing Israeli border control it was possible to exit the border facility eastbound through two lanes, one into Israel (driving a road literally adjacent to the border fence before turning east into Israel), and the other into the Strip. I believe that persons going into the Gaza Strip also passed a Palestinian border guard, but I never did that.
For some time the Rafah crossing was closed entirely. There was an attack on it by Palestinians sometime about 7 years ago. I don't know whether one can cross there now between Egypt and Israel, but I have no doubt that Israel prohibits any crossing from Egypt into the Strip. Gaza and Egypt are physically adjacent, not counting the narrow Israeli road, which is why the Gazans can and do connect to Egyptian Sinai with tunnels. The extent, if any, to which these are tolerated or encouraged by Egypt is a matter of dispute. However, Egypt has no say, under its border arrangement with Israel, in the blockade.