Israeli Military Operations in Gaza and the Question of Proportionality

Help me out with this one. Would you encourage your twenty-something kids to vacation in a country currently involved in an unjust war? Next week my sons, who are Jewish by birth, are on their way to Israel for this first trip. Hopefully, they will be cosseted from rocket exchanges, but I have qualms about them drinking cappuccinos in a land busy in bloodbaths.

Last night I caught a report from public television on the conflict in Gaza. There were clips of Palestinians families huddled in their homes. As Israeli planes thundered overhead, you could see the signature of fear on a young child's face as it formed a mass of tics. Of course, Israelis insist that their own boys and girls live under the constant threat of rocket fire. But how much harm can a nation legitimately deliver to make itself feel from attacks?

One of the tenets of Just War theory, an age old body of beliefs governing western thinking about the moral evaluation of war, has it that there must be proportionality both with respect to the overall good that might come from an armed conflict and with regard to particular military operations. Having distinguished between combatants and non-combatants, and in the process having done everything possible to protect the latter, the carnage caused must be in proportion to the desired objective. The idea is, of course, that warring nations should use a minimum of force to attain their ends. According to Just War theory, it would be immoral to undertake an operation aimed at taking out terrorist leaders when that action is likely to kill or maim thousands.

Though there is some dispute about the figures in the current conflict, most sources agree that four Israeli children have died in comparison with at least 400 Palestinian deaths and 1400 wounded. This kind of imbalance is to be expected in asymmetric wars in which one side has rocks and old rockets and the other, jet fighter bombers; nevertheless, the death and destruction that Israel is delivering seems out of all proportion.

To be sure, it may take another Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. to douse the flames of war in the Middle East. The cycle of rocket strikes and massive Israeli retaliation will only serve to recruit another brigade of suicide bombers. From the practical point of view, Israeli policy seems misguided but even if does put a halt to the attacks, it remains profoundly wrong; no less wrong of course than Hamas' targeting of civilian populations, but just the same, wrong.

For those who believe that a war can be justly fought, it is critical to remember that there are moral limits to what a nation can do to make itself feel safe. This is especially important for countries that essentially have all the tools of war and who risk few casualties when they start the engines of their fighter planes and drones. There can be no doubt that Israel has passed that limit in Gaza, just as the US passed the limit by turning Iraq upside down and inside out after 9/11.

Comments

[Michale32086]

@Okay

}}}}}
Michale

I see you are back. Several of us thought you may have taken a different name.
{{{{{{

Nope, I have always been around.. My postings go up and down in relation to the topics being posted here on HuffPo..

Terrorism (or rather counter terrorism) just happens to be one of my biggest passions and it irks me to no end to see people ignorant of the field throwing the term around with absolutely NO CLUE as to what they are talking about.

I do not use the term "ignorant" to be insulting.

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything­."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident.

Michale...­..

[Peter007]

Gordon brings up an interesting point. I would like to expand that idea and question whether or not this can be called a war.
Old wars were fought between armies. Civilian casualties were small in comparison to military deaths. Modern wars have reversed that trend. We can now fire rockets from thousands of miles away and we kill civilians with impunity. The battles between armies is an ancient idea. The enemy is no longer a standing army or navy but rather an idea attached to a radical or desperate group. Because we can longer destroy their army, we target tangential targets. Newspapers, radio stations, leaders homes or apartment buildings, bank accounts. It's all an indication of the frustration military and political leaders have in putting down an uprising. The only easy target left are civilians.
Science and technology has advanced exponentially during the past 200 years. Why haven't our ideas on handling human suffering or injustices?

[Michale32086]

United Nations Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ..."

International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur."

Proportionate is defined as whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat. Proportionate is not defined as tit for tat. Therefore, as long as rockets keep landing within Israel, any actions by Israel are considered proportionate by international law, until the initial threat to their state is eliminated.
{{originally posted by voiceofreason}}}

Michale

[Okay]

Michale

I see you are back. Several of us thought you may have taken a different name.

[Gordon Marino - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi and happy new year - just been under a pile of grading. Hope you are well.

Gordon

[RabidRightRebel]

What I do not understand is how all the Israeli apologists fail to understand that oppression and terrorism are two sides of the same coin. After the Israelis take Palestinian land and force them into ghettos that they blockade to enforce obedience, is it any wonder that the Palestinians are angry. As history has clearly shown the Israelis willfully ignore peaceful and diplomatic attempts to correct this abuse, what options other than violent protest are available to the Palestinians?

It is just so sad because this dispute could be resolved so easily if only the Israelis were willing to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, in return for NATO membership and a placement of a NATO base on the border between Northern Gaza, (Palestine) and Ashqelon, (Israel). Returning the occupied territories would resolve the Palestinian issues and NATO would resolve the Israeli security issues.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
What I do not understand is how all the Israeli apologists fail to understand that oppression and terrorism are two sides of the same coin.
{{{{

Sorry, but this is completely incorrect.­.

NOTHING justifies terrorism.­.

ANY cause that employs terrorism immediately loses all legitimacy, consideration or compassion­...

As far as returning lands, then I am sure you advocate that the USA must return all lands to native Americans, right??

Rightly or wrongly, the Palestinians are a conquered people. Like native Americans.

It might not be just, but it IS the reality...

Michale...­..

[dschwarz]

>It is just so sad because this dispute could be resolved so easily if only the Israelis were willing to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians

"If only". Israel withdrew from EVERY INCH of Gaza, and what did it get in return? Rocket attacks.

I believe the Israelis will offer a viable two state solution to the Palestinians (they did so at Taba) but only if there is a partner on the other side that they can strike a deal with. Hamas is no partner - it is committed to nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. Fatah is a partner, but a weak one. I am not hopeful for the future.

[yappnmutt]

there were zero israeli dead prior to the israeli response.

[ahuffreader]

Good thing your sons will be cosseted. If they were spending their winter vacation in Sderot, would you feel the same way?

[emilio]

“Next week my sons, who are Jewish by birth, are on their way to Israel for this first trip.”
Hopefully their tour will include at least Ber Sheba and Sderot so that they are able to come back home and report to you first hand what it feels like to have “old rockets” coming at you. Your sons will look you in the eye and tell you what a naïve fool you are.
Proportional response is what you do when you are attacked by another nation. Hammas is a terror organization and unfortunately a proportional response accomplishes exactly nothing. So the choice Israel has is to live with the terror of rockets or do something about it. Doing something means changing Hammas mind or killing them off. Lets give Israel a chance to do one or the other.
You said, “there are moral limits to what a nation can do to make itself feel safe”. Its not about ‘feeling safe” . its about not dying and getting slaughtered yourself. There are no limits when you are defending your very existence. Hammas, Hezbolah, Syria, and Iran pose an existential threat to Israel. Israel is a nation of less than 5 million Jews in a sea of hostile 325 million Arabs (and 1.4 billion Muslims). It is a nation that is 15 miles at its waiste and 300 miles from end to end. The Arab world stradles two continents in 24 countries. Who is a threat to whom?

[Catothemuchyounger]

Really? There are a number of problems with your argument. First, your casualty figures lump together all the Palestinian casualties. The casualties for people not directly associated with Hamas are much less.

Second, Israel's goal is to destroy the power of Hamas. The Israeli attacks are proportionate to their goals. They are attacking Hamas' members and destroying its infrastructure. They are not, for example, simply carpet bombing entire neighborhoods, as we did in German and Japan in WWII. They are taking out specific targets, hitting also non-targets in the area of the targets.

Third, your concept of proportionality is bizarre. Why should the Israelis limit the destruction they bring on their attackers to an amount proportionate to the attacks they are receiving. Why should the Israelis give the Palestinians a level playing field to fight on? The Palestinian strategy is always to feel out the Israeli' limits, to continually sting like biting flies. Why should the Israelis play that game?

I see no moral reason the Israelis cannot try to cripple Hamas, which is their mortal enemy. It is a bloody and terrible thing, but it is what warfare looks like. We incinerated whole cities in WWII, using fire bombs. The Israelis are fairly limiting their targets and avoiding wholesale casualties amongst women and children. Every such casualty is a tragedy, but the Israelis are trying to break their sworn enemies here, and there is no other way to do it.

[Gordon Marino - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comment. As for the causality figures, they are from the UN and though I can't say how many of the dead or wounded were involved in Hamas military ops, there are many indications that a large number of non-combatants are amongst the casualities. More than 6 women and children have been killed.

The fact that Israel's goal is to destroy Hamas, does not authorize the use of excessive force. How many deaths would you say are too many to accomplish that end?

The idea with proportionality in Just War Theory is that it limits destruction and the chances for peace after war. That seems to make some sense. It would for instance be wrong for a country with a nuclear weapon to use it to end some border conflict because that country wanted to avoid having any causalities of its own. You're right that according to Just War theory many of our actions in WWII would have been considered illegitimate. And I did not mean to imply that the Israelis were purposefully hitting civilian targets.

Thanks for your comments. Gordon

[Catothemuchyounger]

Gordon, the figures I saw were some 60 women and children killed. I am sure it is probably closer to a hundred now, maybe more. Still, I take that as evidence the Israelis are being fairly careful about inflicting casualties. Most civilians killed have been in the vicinity of legitimate Hamas targets such as police stations, homes of Hamas personnel, government buildings, etc. Some of those killed are family members of Hamas targets, who had been warned that they would be attacked. Even the total number of casualties does not seem large for an operation of this type.

It is an ugly and brutal business. But what constitutes "excessive force" is necessarily an ill defined concept that could mean many things. Here, the object is limited and legitimate. The Israelis are using as much care to avoid civilian casualties as the circumstances permit (there could easily be 10,000 civilian casualties, given how tightly populated the area is).

When formulating "just war" theory, one must take into account the freedom nations need to defend themselves, and not just the desire to limit casualties as much as possible. It is a concern, respecting developing international law regarding proportionality, that few countries nowadays have the broad ranging military commitments of the U.S., and their views on the use of military power reflect this. This may result in developing "legal" norms that do not adequately take account of our interests.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.