Weighing Proportionality in Gaza

Proportionality in war is often judged subjectively as each side weighs the consequences of hostilities, especially when civilian casualties are involved. While it is extremely difficult to justify a military operation solely on the basis of proportionality at any stage during war, a just cause must be central to the argument. Since Hamas' political agenda and raison d'être has been Israel's destruction, Israel claims that its pursuit of Hamas becomes a just cause.

Under this type of equation, the Israeli leaders are duty bound to take whatever measures they deem necessary to bring Hamas to heel. From their perspective, this is not a fight between Israel and the Palestinian people -- although Hamas would like to portray it as such -- but a fight between Israel and a fanatic terrorist cult acting as agents for Iran, a country that threatens its very existence. Seeing the conflict with Hamas in this context raises different questions about proportionality as well as the stakes for Israel's long-term national security considerations.

Scholars in international ethics have often argued that proportionality and the use of force in war is based on moral rather than on quantitative or qualitative equivalence. In this case, as long as Hamas' objective is to destroy Israel, the moral equivalence would be the destruction of Hamas or, at a minimum, marginalizing its militant capabilities. If, by adhering to proportionality, Israel could dramatically reduce civilian casualties and still reach its objective, it would be obliged to do so. Proportionality in and of itself, however, does not necessarily provide an acceptable equation. If Israel had indiscriminately launched one rocket against Gaza for every one fired by Hamas during the past three years, Israel's response would have been by definition ''proportional'', but would have resulted in the death of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. But Israel would have also been severely and rightfully condemned by the international community for its horrific and yet proportionate response.

It should be noted that the proportionality norms apply not to the combatant's casualties, but to the relationship between the means and goal of war. Moreover, although Israel possesses overwhelming technical and fire-power advantages, Francis Winters, a noted scholar on international ethics, has observed that 'There is nothing in the moral logic of self-defense that can support the notion that great powers may justly fight only when they reduce themselves to functional equality to small powers.'

Proportionality is also dramatically affected by the effort made to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants with the aim of minimizing civilian casualties. Israeli soldiers strictly follow military protocol to avoid civilian casualties through targeted attacks and accuse Hamas of using civilians as human shields to deliberately increase the civilian death-toll. Hamas rejects this argument on the grounds that their organization is a grass-roots movement inherently embedded in civilian communities. There is no doubt that when a fight is viewed in existential terms, be that political or physical, greater sacrifices are easier to swallow. Hamas wants to put Israel on the defensive, placing it under intense international pressure to end the hostilities before it reaches its objective. Hamas' leaders have time and again publicly asserted that they are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians as long as they emerge victorious. They continue to fire rockets from schools and mosques, knowing full well that Israel is likely to target their launching pads.

Finally, there is the question as to whether these hostilities were avoidable, and as to whether or not Israel had exhausted all peaceful means before it decided to wage war. Israel no longer considers Gaza as occupied territory because it argues that Hamas was given every opportunity to rebuild and develop the strip since the Israelis withdrew in 2005. Hamas opted instead to use the territory as a staging ground to rain more than 10,000 rockets on Israel. Having attempted repeatedly through political and proportionate military means in the past to end Hamas' constant rocket attacks, without success, Israel was left with no choice but to use force. Though this was disproportionate, it is morally justified on the grounds that it is dealing with an enemy bent on its destruction.

Every single Israeli and Palestinian who believes in peaceful coexistence should know that if Hamas is left to its own devices it will continue to undermine any prospect of reaching a just and durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to guard against civilian casualties in order for this war to fall into the category of a just cause. Regardless of proportionality, however, the losses on both sides will be all in vain if the final outcome of the war does not substantially improve both the prospects for an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace and for Palestinian citizens' living conditions. For this reason, any ceasefire agreed upon must provide the basis for such an outcome. Anything short of that will make this war just another sad chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian annals, and the question of proportionality just an obscure footnote.

Comments

[murphy80]

the dead are evidence enough.

not a mistake...........................

[Akin]

Mr. Ben-Meir,

Thanks so much for sharing your cogent and timely thoughts on proportionality in war.

There have been many who have sought to re-write the current provisions of international law so as to exonerate one side but castigate the other. This has led to wild accusations of war crime, dis-proportionality, ethnic cleansing, genocide, inverse-warsaw-ghetto, and so on.

Often these histrionic claims do not bear scrutiny in the light of the actual text of the laws they cite.

This is why your article is so helpful. I admit that your perspective is not wholly objective, but you nevertheless present a side to this discussion that is sometimes not clearly heard or understood.

Exonerating Hamas of its war crime of civilian targeting does no good to efforts to achieve a resolution; also, the IDF's campaign is now demonstrably killing victims & hitting targets it did not intend (according to its announced war goals) in such large numbers that a fundamental rethink is surely required very hastily indeed.

I do not think that there are 5 people on this forum who actively desire all this killing to continue. Every call for peace & harmony over bloodshed is a good one.

But spurious name-calling in order to try & leverage public opinion is shameful and illiberal.

Do continue to contribute to this poignant debate (a person died for every word I have just written in the past 7 days).

[bannorhill]

I guess Israel should have responded proportionally. They should have launched 10,000 rockets indiscriminately into Gaza civilian areas.

[Michale32086]

@Repubnomore

}}}}
Basically, you just admitted that there is no exact analogous example.
{{{{{

Uh... yea... That's what I said... :^/

}}}}
How about an example involving the UN and a non-middle east conflict in the past twenty years (of any kind)?
}}}}

The UN is a joke. It is THE most corrupted entity on the planet.. If you want to tout the UN, then you are already lost...

}}}}}
My point; not everything is apples to apples.

I'll wait for a different example than that of WWII...
}}}}}

Like I said, it's close enough to point out the fallacy of your argument. Using casualty numbers as an indication of proportionality is not a valid argument.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Repubnomore

}}}}}}}
Specifically, today, where is the documented evidence that Hamas had taken over the UN compound that Israel bombed?

Israel will say that they were shelling combatants. The UN will say that no combatants were there.

Should we always believe Israel's account of events? Where are the independent journalists who can verify this?
}}}}}}

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950855726&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I employ Occam's Razor...

An Israeli commander woke up this morning and said, "Ya know... I feel like shelling a UN building full of innocent civilians..

A HAMAS commander woke up this morning and decided to attack Israel forces from the sanctity of a UN Building..

Of those those, which is more likely??? Especially when one takes into account that HAMAS has a history of firing from, attacking from and using as weapons storage, UN buildings..

Michale.....

[Repubnomore]

Except for the fact that the UN officials that were on the scene dispute the IDF's version of events.

Can't you just once admit that quite possibly, an IDF soldier made a mistake?

[Michale32086]

Absolutely..

100% absolutely I concede that the IDF might have made a mistake in hitting the UN buildings..

But until there is some incontrovertible evidence that this is the case, the official version has to stand...

As for trusting the UN?? Shirley you jest...

This is the agency that stalled the Iraq situation so that they could clear, CLEAR, 9 billion dollars a year..

This is the agency that sent peacekeepers down to an African nation to disarm the rebels and ended up supplying them with weapons. At a nice profit..

The UN is, bar none, ***THE*** most corrupt entity on the face of the planet...

"The best thing for the UN to do is go condo."
-Robin Williams.

Michale.....

[StephanCotton]

There's one part missing from this analysis. Israel's attack on Gaza cannot possibly lead to its strategic goal (peaceful coexistence) and therefor its tactic of bombardment cannot fit either the just cause or proportionality argument. I'm not arguing that Hamas is in any way a reasonable neighbor, only that Israel's tactics have to be based on a reasonable chance of success to be considered in an ethical sense. The fact that they have created such widespread animosity in both the Middle East and the West and have weakened Fatah (their only hope of finding a cooperative negotiating partner) while failing to make a dent in Hamas's ability to be an aggressor makes ethical arguments no more than excuses.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
There's one part missing from this analysis. Israel's attack on Gaza cannot possibly lead to its strategic goal (peaceful coexistence)
{{{{{

Your evidence to support this conclusion??

}}}}}
I'm not arguing that Hamas is in any way a reasonable neighbor, only that Israel's tactics have to be based on a reasonable chance of success to be considered in an ethical sense.
{{{{{

It's recent hiccups notwithstanding, Hezbollah has been awful quiet of late. If Israel had the success back then she appears to be having now, who knows...

}}}}}}
while failing to make a dent in Hamas's ability to be an aggressor
{{{{{{

Once again, what evidence do you have that supports this??

Michale......

[LiteSleeper]

While I agree with the spirit of what you post, I disagree with your contention that Israel's strategic goal is peace. It's strategic goal is land, pure and simple. If it was peace they would have tried to help the Palestinians develop the West Bank and Gaza Strip decades ago so they'd have their own state and would look more favorably upon Israel.

[Themos]

1) The author states that "Israeli soldiers strictly follow military protocol to avoid civilian casualties through targeted attacks and accuse Hamas of using civilians as human shields to deliberately increase the civilian death-toll." The facts argue differently. Witness the huge numers of civilian casualties and the attack on the UN compound. Even if the Israeli command and most soldiers do "strictly" follow protocol, what is this protocol exactly? We would love to read it. And what about fanatics within the IDF?
2) One can argue in favor of obliterating Hamas with reasonable arguments. But, in the real world, one must separate between the purported aims of military action, and the actual results. The hundreds of civilian deaths are simply unacceptable. I will salute the Israeli soldiers who track down and eliminate the enemy at the cost of their own lives, not those of children and innocent men and women.
3) The authors states "losses on both sides will be all in vain if the final outcome of the war does not substantially improve both the prospects for an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace and for Palestinian citizens' living conditions." The losses on the Palestinian side actually make these outcomes even less likely.
4) The US media may be favorable to Israel; but the rest of the world is angry.

[Michale32086]

1) "Huge" numbers of civilians casualties is innaccurate. Considering the number of combatant/terrorist deaths, the innocent civilian casualties are surprisingly low.
Of course, this ignores the fact that, by placing it's military hardware in crowded urban areas and using human shields, it is HAMAS who is primarily responsible for the innocent civilian casualties. Not the IDF.

2) If HAMAS places their military weaponry in crowded civilian areas, they are primarily responible for the civilian casualties.

4) I see no evidence of this, beyond the normal ISRAEL IS EVIL crowd.. Israel seems to be winning the PR war a LOT better than they did in '06.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Lon

}}}}
As an aside, it should be noted that the claim that "Nothing justifies terrorism" is a moral principle, not a fact. It is not clear why you think you strengthen your position by misuse the word fact.
}}}}}

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to dispute the fact that nothing justifies terrorism.

You think this is a moral assertion, not a statement of fact?

Nothing justifies racism.... Moral assertion or statement of fact??

Nothing justifies genocide... Moral assertion or statement fact??

Nothing justifies child molestation... Moral assertion or statement of fact??

Are you sure you want to go on record as defending racism, genocide, child molestation and terrorism??

Somethings are simply bad and unjustifiable.. FACT No moral equivocating is necessary...

If you want to argue these facts, be my guest...

Michale.....

[Lon]

They are all moral assertions. The difference between moral assertions and facts is one of type not one of level of truth. There are many true moral assertions. There are also false ones like "nothing justifies terrorism." If terrorism was the only means to avert the holocaust, it would have been justified. Your view that terrorism would have justified the holocaust seems to me to be a moral abomination. (I know your view is that terrorism justifies anything, but since the holocaust was a thing, it follows pretty directly from your principle that terrorism would have justified the holocaust).

But debates about justification are moral debates not factual ones.

[Lon]

Have you really not noticed that your principle that as long as Hamas does A B and C they have the moral high ground is inconsistent with your principle that nothing justifies child molestation, genocide, racism, etc? After all you just said that terrorism justifies all of those things. Otherwise whether Israel has the moral high ground would have to be checked against your list of "facts."

Does it bother you that your list of "facts" are not even consistent with each other? Most people think that consistency is a requirement of a set of things all being true. But maybe terrorism justifies inconsistent things being true as well. As suppose if terrorism justifies anything it justifies impossible things.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
After all you just said that terrorism justifies all of those things.
{{{{{

How did you get there from here?

I am on record as saying that NOTHING justifies terrorism...

}}}}}
Does it bother you that your list of "facts" are not even consistent with each other?
{{{{{{

For example.......???????

Michale......

[livnletlive]

as a palastinian who was yearning for peace with Israel since Oslo, i have reached the conclusion that the Israelis as a people are simply not people one can make peace with simply because of their entire nation has moved to the extreme right in the past 15 years adn even before....the oslo accords point to that, the israelis stood on such a high pedestal that they made even the handshake with Arafat to be an enormous concilliation...and i am not talking psychologically, even talking to a palastinian was subject for jail if you were an israeli prior to Oslo, raising a flag would get u shot as a friend of mine in the west bank learned painfully. thus the premise of Oslo and thereafter was always FLAWED...their concept of peace with PLO was to convert Arafat into the southern lebanon army leader i.e a collaborator....what we should do as palastinians is give israel an ultimatum to withdraw by next summer and if no responce, declare the end of 2 state solution and struggle like MLK for equality in a one state solution for ALL arab and jew, not a pure jewish state nor a pure muslem state, one state and that way we'll get enormous sympathy caause it will truely be an apharteid situation like south africa....and time will then be on our side...that's were we are headed, because israel is making it that way, mostly through the settlement policy.....

[chaos4700]

I feel sorry for you and your people. A lot of injustice has been done to your people, and a lot of it was enabled out of political convenience by the United States.

I know it isn't entirely consoling, but the truth is finally made painfully obvious by Israel's blatant militarism and sabotage of Palestinian statehood by manipulation of international politics and now, open and systematic ethnic cleansing. Here are a few examples of credible, respected people who are speaking out about what's going on.

Avi Shlaim, foremost academic on Israeli history, Oxford professor and formerly of Israel himself:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/14/leading_israeli_scholar_avi_shlaim_israel

Bob Simon, renowned international journalist for CBS:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900

[livnletlive]

Thank you...we need more of you...spread the world....Peace.

[FairTalk]

In terms of proportionality, on the moral issues, Hamas has won. Even if each and every palestinian who is a direct "member" of Hamas, were to be exterminated by Israel during their ongoing slaughter in Gaza, those who support and respect hamas have increased with every bomb that falls. And that support is not just on the Arab street, nor just among anti-Zionist Jews. Because every bomp Israel drops on the Gaza Ghetto, a virtual one is dropped on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordon.

The arguments and positions presented in this op ed piece, have failed to impress, because the "Israel has gon ewild" statement by Livni is all too vivid.

Time will tell who the winners and losers are, but one loser will be "The War on Terror." I am sure that, and referring to all combatents as terrorists will not survive.

[Michale32086]

@Precisionist

}}}}}
When using phrases such as "...simple fact is..." please define by what criteria. Not everyone considers it a "fact". It isn't fact just because YOU say so.
{{{{{

No, it's a fact because it's a fact..

Now, you can go one of two ways here..

You can come up with evidence that refutes my facts...

Or you can choose the route that people like Chaos and Siberian choose and simply make childish and immature personal attacks, thereby conceding the argument to yours truly..

The choice is yours. But, as the British knight cautioned in INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE....

"Choose wisely"...

Michale.....

[chaos4700]

I don't know what's worse. The fact that HuffPo allows you to hijack discussion by spamming threads, or the fact that your pseudo-intellectual arguments are laced with cheap Hollywood movie quotations.

[Freenation]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/israel-shells-un-headquar_n_158078.html

Does this make thinks clear to you...it seems like your brain is washed with constant dosage from MegaPhone....try to get some fresh air and listen to real news not from USA sources which are extensions to IDF propaganda....

[Michale32086]

It's an established fact that HAMAS uses UN buildings from which to launch attacks.

This is documented...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Many here would like to reduce the issue of proportionality to one of mere numbers.

X has more casualties than Y so X must be morally correct...

German deaths in WWII outpaced American deaths 11-1.... Japanese deaths, 8-1...

Using that method of reasoning, Japan and Germany were morally, legally and ethically in the right because they suffered MILLIONS of more casualties than the US did...

I keep saying it over and over in (apparently futile) hope that it sinks in.

Proportionality is NOT defined by mere numbers of casualties.. Jackson said it best, "The rule of proportionality is that the amount of civilian death and injury that is anticipated from a military action cannot be out of proportion to the military objective sought."

In Article 32(c)(1) from the International Criminal Courts, it is stated thusly:

"Our thumb is on the scale in favour of the defender", such that the magnitude of the response may exceed the degree of danger created by the initial attack"

Michale.....

[livnletlive]

everybody seems to be drawing stupid analogies from their behind.....no case is the same and it's just plain silly, if people are so dum and unwilling to seek info from different outlets to reach their own conclusion without analogies, then they don't deserve the debate, however, in this case, it's the quality of injured, babies and women that's horrendous and points out the obvious, also news break for you: we are not in 1945 and even your lovely yankees could not get away with the crap and carpet bombings they did in drezden and heroshima that they got away with even if they saved the world from faschism, otherwise, we as a human race have achieved morally, nothing since 1945, oh wait, u're right cause they got away with Iraq and the scores of banned aresenal they used at the run to war and after....well maybe they will with darker skin people but not in Germany or Japan anymore.

[Repubnomore]

World War II and the Mexican border arguments are invalid.

Please provide a recent example of proportionality that is not between two armed, sovereign nations. Let's see an example of an unarmed, occupied territory versus a heavily armed democratic nation. Do you have one?

[Michale32086]

The examples are not invalid simply because you say so.

Provide evidence that invalidates the examples..

Since it would be nearly impossible to find an EXACT analogous example, these one's suffice..

The only reason YOU view them as invalid is because it totally devastates your argument..

That fact doesn't invalidate the example, but rather simply invalidates your argument. Which is as it was intended..

Michale.....

[Akin]

Why is WW2 invalid, precisely?

[Michale32086]

@Lon

}}}}}
Actually Hamas has participated in third party cease fire talks (as it is doing now). It has also at various times encouraged negotiation with the Palestinian Authority to be put to a referendum of the Palestinian people. So their are options there is one cares about reality.
{{{{{

And the REALITY is that

A> HAMAS still fires rockets into Israel

B> HAMAS still attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers

C> HAMAS still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist

Until HAMAS addresses these, Israel has the moral, ethical and legal high ground.

This is the reality...

Michale....

[Lon]

So your view is that until Hamas addresses your points A B and C it doesn't matter what Israel does it has the moral high ground. That is an interesting view. It is not a morally justifiable view. Certainly an equally good argument could be given that as long as Israel maintains its occupation of the West Bank, its control of borders of Gaza, its policy of assaination of foreign leaders that Hamas has the moral, ethical and legal high ground. And that would be a stupid view as well. In general the view that since X does something bad, what I do is moral without consideration of what it may be is a stupid view not based in any serious ethical principles.

But it is interesting that you think defending Israel requires adopting such a stupid view. I think that means my more limited defenses of Israel show more respect to Israel than your ludicrous blind defenses.

So does the fact that your comments don't actually respond to my point above mean that you are acknowledging that the "fact" that I was countering was in fact a false one? Have you acknowledged yet that the idea that Israel controlling all flow of goods into Gaza by any means is not akin to our closing out border with Mexico yet?

For someone who talks about facts a lot you seem to be uninterested in whether the things you give as facts are actually true.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
So your view is that until Hamas addresses your points A B and C it doesn't matter what Israel does it has the moral high ground.
{{{{

Yep, that pretty much sums it up..

It's consistent with the overriding FACTUAL theme that NOTHING justifies terrorism.

An idea that has yet to be refuted...

My comments address your points completely... You claim that there are other options and as I have proven, there aren't any other options until such time as HAMAS is either eliminated or radically alters it's stance..

My personal opinion is that the former is preferred, but I can probably live with the latter.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Repubnomore

}}}}
I believe that the point is twofold; Gaza is far more densely populated that the areas the Hamas rockets were capable of reaching and Israel's rockets would have been much more lethal than Hamas' bottle rockets.
}}}}

You seem to believe that GAZA is nothing but urban sprawl..

Have you ever been to Gaza?? Have you ever even SEEN Gaza??

Michale.....

[Repubnomore]

First, I was clarifying the assertion of someone else.

No, I've never been to Gaza. I haven't seen it because Israel hasn't allowed any US media outlets to cover the invasion!

From what I've read, Gaza is 26 miles long by 7 miles wide, so roughly 182 square miles. 1.5 million people live there, so that's over 8,000 people per square mile on average, although Gaza City is far more dense. Any rocket launched into an area of this population density would logically generate more casualties.

Clarification two was that an Israeli rocket would have more than a 12-mile range.

[Michale32086]

@Rainman

}}}}}
Americans generally would not care about deaths .......they happen all the time.

Except that ,1000 people have died in an exercise of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT in Gaza with the use of US planes, bombs, using our tax money by a beloved country that we cannot even ask to stop....

Why have we become so heartless; a nation without honor and without courage to act for what is right?
{{{{{

It has been proven that there is no "collective punishment"..

But, it's interesting.

Did you know that, when HAMAS illegally took control of GAZA, over 1500 Palestinians were brutally killed..

Why is it that people only care about dead Palestinians when Israel is involved??

I have asked this question a dozen times or more. No one has been able to answer..

I guess that is an answer in itself.

Michale......

[Freenation]

"Collective Punishment" means 1000+ killed do you get it...No matter how much you try to glorify actions of IDF (Israel Disgusting Force) nothing will change...killer will be called killer...Be it Hamas or IDF

[Michale32086]

So, what do you call it when 1500 Palestinians were killed when HAMAS took control of Gaza??

You can try to spin it however you want..

But the FACTS are clear..

Israel is within compliance of the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Courts...

Michale....