Did Israel Use Disproportionate Force?

Once again Israel is under fire for using disproportionate force in response to Hamas rocket fire from Gaza. Israeli bombs have left hundreds of Palestinians dead, the bulk of them Hamas militants but dozens of citizens have died as well. So is Israel justified in its retaliation or did it violate international norms on proportionality?

The operative phrase tossed around is "self-defense," enshrined by Article 51 in the UN Charter. If a country -- or non-state actor for that matter -- attacks you, you are entitled to respond to defend yourself. But you cannot respond with disproportionate force. I cannot burn your house down if you spit on me. But I can slug you one in the face and be in the clear.

The targeting of civilians, whether deliberate or not, violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As such, Hamas sprinkles its militants around population centers as a form of deterrence but also to maximize world outrage when Israel responds with overwhelming force and ends up killing scores of civilians. What's remarkable is that time and again Israel falls for the bait. Regardless of how many Hamas fighters it kills or what kind of signal it sends to Syria and Iran, world perception is what ultimately matters, not body counts. And the tide of public opinion seems to invariably side with the underdog, regardless of who's to blame.

Hence, Israel now finds itself in the awkward yet familiar position of defending its actions. A state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered and is immediate, necessary, refrains from targeting civilians, and requires only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. Also implied in this argument is the right of Israel to prevent Hamas from carrying out future cross-border attacks.

Yet there is growing confusion as to what constitutes a legitimate military target. Arguably, if a hospital or church is used to house enemy troops, or a bridge is vital to moving militants, then these areas would become fair targets. The same goes for an electric grid. As international legal expert Michael Glennon told me after the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, "Virtually no target can, ipso facto, be de-listed from a list of potential military targets."

Critics say Israel has a history of using disproportionate force. For example, its war with Hezbollah drew international condemnation for its use of cluster bombs and disproportionate use of force, regardless of the fact that Hezbollah provoked the war. In 1993, Israel's seven-day bombing campaign of Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks was also criticized. And in 1981, Israel struck Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor without provocation, a move Israelis said was justified under international norms on anticipatory self-defense.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force" against Hamas. The Obama camp has been mum on the issue, only to issue anodyne statements standing by Israel's right to defend itself and urge a peaceful solution. But this issue -- what is an acceptable level of violence in response to attacks by non-state actors -- will rear its ugly head again, whether along the Turkish-Iraqi border, in northwest Pakistan, or in Gaza. There is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a proportionate response to terrorist attacks.

States, especially those with hyperactive militaries and nukes at their disposal, cannot be given carte blanche to retaliate. But it should be in their own self-interest not to respond with disproportionate force. After all, non-state actors tend not to be deterred much less defeated militarily. All that results is a surge in recruits and international sympathy for the non-state actor -- in this case, Hamas. Yes, it's tough for states to sit on their hands in the face of incoming rockets. But to respond, especially with disproportionate force, is suicidal.

Comments

[Wordstosay]

Israel has the total right to protect all its citizens from harm. Hamas has not stated that they want peace. For they believe they are Muslims that are terrorist. There is no peace with people who think this way!

As far as Israel is concern it needs to move more food and medical needs to the residents of Gaza faster. A hungry population will run to despair and that will mean in their despair hate have developed and their life and others matters not.

[mira375]

I think a "proportionate" response is a response that STOPS the attacks. If it takes massive airstrikes and ground invasion in order to stop the attacks, that is the proportionate response.

[barryblogger]

Continued...

5.3. Israel's response, it can therefore be said, is indeed disproportionate. A proportionate response, if that’s Israel’s aim, would be to fire 6,000 rockets directly at civilians in Gaza. If these civilians sit in Shelters like their Israeli counterparts, there would be much less Palestinian casualties. This is of course not the case – Israel does not target civilians, since its aim is not to “get even” with the Palestinians – but to remove the threat of Hamas on Israeli civilians, a threat that has made the life of half million Israelis unbearable for such a long time.

A lot of people like to believe Terrorists' PR that they are freedom fighters and defending the underdog. But that isn't the truth. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza and only wants to be left alone and live in peace. But this isn't about freedom, it is about hate. Terrorists believe they go to heaven and are served by 72 virgins if they murder innocent women and children and they teach this to their young. It is a warped culture that is raised to hate and they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. This may be difficult for those of who whom were raised in democratic and free countries to understand, but it is the truth.

[mira375]

Barryblogger, thanks for the good post. You only omitted one point: Hamas and its supporters claim that they were justified in shooting rockets into Israel because Israel has blockaded Gaza's borders. Israel does not control all of Gaza's borders, Egypt controls one border. Egypt has kept that border (Rafah border) closed as well, but Hamas did not shoot rockets into Egypt. Moreover, in spite of the closed borders, Hamas manages to bring weapons into Gaza. If they would bring food and other supplies in instead of weapons, their people would be in a very different position. But Hamas has made a choice that bringing weapons into Gaza is more important then bringing food and supplies.

[barryblogger]

Additionally, Hamas blew up one of the crossings themselves to BLOCK aid from getting in. The aid that does get in, they don't distribute. They also cut the power to their own power plant (it wasn't bombed by Israel)? Why?? To CREATE a humanitarian crises in hopes the world pressures Israel to stop. Israel has actually donated millions in aid. But when the government refuses to distribute it, what should they do?

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/bigLies.asp

[barryblogger]

Continued...

5. 1. Proportionality is not measured by the outcome but rather by the intention. Every single rocket Hamas fires on Israel is meant to cause civilian casualties. However, Israeli air and ground attacks against Hamas are meant to cause as less damage as possible to civilians, and as much damage as possible to the terrorists. The optimal result for Israel would be 100% Palestinian militant casualties, while Hamas’ optimal result is 100% Israeli civilian casualties.

5. 2. 6,000 rockets Hamas fired on Israelis can result in dozens of thousands of Israeli civilian casualties. This is not the case not because Hamas doesn’t want to target so many Israelis – but simply because Israel protects the potential victims. People in the city of Sderot, near the border with Gaza, which is being attacked by Hamas for almost 8 years now, are sitting in shelters and protected areas when Hamas fires rockets on the city. They go to school with protection from rockets, play in secured playgrounds, and receive a 15 seconds alarm before a rocket is about to explode. This point should be as clear as possible – there were “only” 4 dead Israelis from Hamas’ rockets in recent days because all the people who live in the range of the rockets (around half million people now) sit in shelters and are protected when Rockets are being launched.

Continued...

[barryblogger]

Continued...


3. After establishing that Israel must act against Hamas – let’s review the conditions of the latter’s actions: Hamas is not an official state’s army, but an internationally recognized terror organization. Its people are civilians in Gaza, operating within a civilian population. The rockets are held in storage within civilian private and public places, and are often launched from these areas directly at Israeli communities.

4. If Israel is to attack Hamas, as an act of self defense, it becomes clear that there will be civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. They are clearly, however, not the target. Not only that the Israeli army does not aim at attacking civilians, it also invests milliards of dollars in developing and purchasing technologies that will minimize civilian collateral damage and will allow an accurate hit on military-terrorist targets. In fact, the Israeli army makes more efforts to refrain from civilian casualties than any other army in the world, and that is why Palestinian civilian casualties in Israeli military actions have constituted so far less than 5% of the total number of casualties.

5. A common accusation that comes even from those who do understand all the above is that Israel attacks the Palestinian terrorists “disproportionately”. For instance, in the current war against Hamas it is given that Israel has killed more than 300 Palestinians, while only 4 Israelis died from Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel. Here I would like to make three points:

Continued....

[barryblogger]

Is Israel's response Disproportionate?

1. Let’s first understand the context - Israel left the Gaza Strip in August 2005 and does not constitute an occupying force in that area. There is currently only one Israeli soldier in Gaza – his name is Gilad Shalit. He was kidnapped by Hamas from Israel’s territory in 2006 and since then no one has heard from him.

2. Gaza Strip since the summer of 2005 is a non-state region taken hostage by a militant radical Islamist group. Since Hamas ultimately fights for the destruction of Israel (take a look at its Charta to verify), Israel should not negotiate with Hamas, and it is in fact obligated to refrain from any contact with the organization. That includes closing the crossings between the Gaza Strip and Israel. While this would be justified, Israel continues to provide services and resources to the Palestinians in Gaza despite the fact that it is being ruled by a hostile entity.

2. Hamas has fired more than 6,000 rockets on Israeli civilians in the last 3 years, while having no official excuse like “fighting the Israeli occupation”, which has ended in 2005. Israel, has more than just the right to defend its citizens from those rockets – it has an obligation to. Israel must defend its citizens from any external threat on their lives and their daily routine. Again, it is not a right- it’s a duty.

Continued...

[MShemel]

Kentuckydan makes an interesting point. But why not take it a step further. If you want an exact proportion response, for every Israeli civilian killed, Israel can send snipers or precision guided weapons to try and kill the exact same amount of civilians in Gaza. So a proportional response would not target Hamas, but just civilians. Then the world should force Israel to tie its civilians to the front of tanks before entering so that they could have a proportional human shield. I'm sure Amnesty International would applaud such an effort to maintain proportion.

[Magenta]

Hi everybody, please note that Hamas uses old, obsolete and inaccurate rockets against israel. That's why israeli casualties are low.

And before the ceasefire, Hamas did not aim rockets at civilians. Their response was symbolic and in defiance of Israel which tried to starve Gaza Strip to force regime change during the ceasefire as Israeli controll all entry points to the Gaza Strip.

[doodlefarbe]

Of course! How could we have missed that?

[barryblogger]

You should get your facts straight Magenta. Hamas now has an upgraded arsenal of missiles that were smuggled in from Iran and China after the Sinai border wall was blown up by Hamas in January.

The reason casualties are low on the Israeli side is because the entire Southern population is literally living day and night in underground bomb shelters. They might be physically alive, but sychologically, many of these people died long ago. The problem isn't that Israeli is defending itself, it is that they waited so long to do so. Any other country in the world would have have retaliated far sooner had its civilians come under missile attack from a hostile neighbor.

More on the rockets:
The Chinese rockets have a range of 40 kilometers inside Israeli territory bringing over 800,000 Israelis within missile range, including major cities like Beersheba, Ashdod and Ashkelon. They are very similar to the 122 mm Soviet-made Katyusha that was used extensively by Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War and are slightly more sophisticated than an Iranian-made Grad-model Katyusha that is also in Hamas's arsenal.

Many of these rockets were filled with metal balls that can scatter up to 100 meters from the impact site.

You can read about these missiles here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733119975&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[kentuckydan]

I have 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.

[barryblogger]

Israeli has already tried this to no avail. Hamas tends to fire its missiles from highly mobile launchers that are placed in heavily populated civilian areas - hospitals, school playgrounds, individuals home's etc. Some of the civilians openly allow them to do so, others are forced to do so at gunpoint. Hamas hopes Israel does exactly what you suggest. That way the mobile launcher will be long gone and if Israeli retaliates on the same trajectory they will kill a high number of civilians. That will help Hamas win the PR war. Remember Hamas doesn't care about the Gazans, they are an officially recognized terror group that took control in a bloody coup when they ousted Abba's more moderate goverment.

[Palspal2]

Major Kong (and others). It is not difficult to discern the details of the Conflict. Roughly a hundred years old, the conflict began in earnest when the Brits encouraged Jewish colonists to settle in Palestine (as Britain did in America and elsewhere by funding colonists in an already inhabited land.) The Zionists did not come in peace - they came to establish a Jewish state - the native population could shrivel up, die, or go away. Instead they chose to resist eviction from their homeland. The Jewish colony (YIshuv) made war on the Palestinians repeatedly until they finally conquered the remaining 22% in 1967. The effort now is to maximize the land grab while coming to an eventual understanding with the PLO and its head traitor Abbas. The problem is Hamas was elected in Gaza and Gazans have withstood a long genocidal siege by Israel. This final effort is to weaken Hamas through warfare so much so that Gaza turns to Abbas. At that point Israel expecs the lions share of Palestine to be absorbed into Israel. And what's left can be a Palestinian failed state which will eventually merge with Jordan.

The rockets coming from Gaza mean next to nothing except as propaganda for Israel. Israel aims to crush Palestinian resistance to occupation with or without rocket attacks. Ultimately its like asking did Nazi Germany use to much force in invading Poland. The question is irrelevent to the issue.

[barryblogger]

What anti-semitic, revisionist history. Get your facts straight Palspal2. First of all, there has been a Jewish presence in Israel for thousands of years and are the only people with an ancestral claim to the land who are still around. It was the Romans who changed the name from Israel to Palestine in order to repress Jewish National feelings. Palestinians never had a country of their own and the Palestinian movement didn't even exist until 1967. And let's not remember that with the 1948 UN Partition Plan, Israel was supposed to be split between the Arabs and the Jews (with the Jews getting mostly desert). The Jews readily agreed to the plan while all the surrounding Arabs rejected the plan and immediately attacked. Israel somehow miraculously won this war and the right to reestablish their homeland giving equal rights to Jews, Chirstians, Muslims and every place else. There are over 20 arab countries in the middle east and one Jewish one. Radical Islam wants to islamisize the world, first with the middle east and then with the rest of the world. Arabs can walk safely in any Jewish town, but any Jew who accidentally enters an Arab town will likely be killed. It is a shame you don't see the world the way it really is and believe poorly crafted PR by the Hamas terrorist organization over actual history. Try to pick up an Encylopedia and learn something.

[mrcholly]

How long will Israel get away with playing the guilt card over the Holacaust? Please remember that the reasoning behind the Jewish homeland is based on a piece of fiction written over two thousand years ago.Israel has no more moral right to exist than any other country or group of people.What would world reaction be if Iran used Israel"s line of reasoning to attack one of it"s neighbors?

[barryblogger]

Mrcholly you may think the Bible is fiction but millions of others do not. Regardless, The Jewish People have had a documented presence in Israel for thousands of years. Far more than any other people.

Regardless, who said anything about the Holocaust? This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It has to do with the people of Israel being under a constant barrage of missiles and suidice bombers that are sent my a crazed, militant terrorist organization (Hamas) that are bent upon the destruction of Israel and all of Western Civilization. If they ever succeed in destroying Israel, they may target your home next. It is easy to tell the Israeli people what they can and can not do to protect themselves from the safety of your couch.

[sirgorpster]

I think Lionel is cherry picking the UN and Geneva articles conventions etc.

The situation is a mess but surely any reasonable person would look at the whole
history of last 50+ years and see a whole range of responses and attempts to
use force and other means to achieve lasting peace.
The recent attacks on Israel (without provocation) gives Israel the right to decide
how to protect it's citizens. Nothing in the response it not the responsibility of Hamas.
They abuse their own "citizens" and do not even try to bring a peaceful settlement.

The Palestinians need new (and non-religious in my view) leadership.
The Israelis also need to find more ways to support ways to give "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" to the Palestinians.
That is the only long term way to fight despair and terrorism it breeds.

But, in the short term, they have the right to full use of force - whatever it takes - to
protect their own country.

[LeeCalif]

The answer is Yes. Rockets vs. Laser-guided missiles & 50 year Occupation.

[eelbaz]

I do not understand his directionally skewed and fundamentally flawed logical assessment of the basic facts on the ground. While I do applaud the vale of humanitarian sentiment he is trying to show, you need to realize that in war there is no such thing as “disproportionate use of force”, this sentiment was cooked up in the halls of academia in the chambers of the UN.

Ask yourself would it make more sense to fire back crude Qasam rockets back at Hamas? How many people would die in such a scenario? Don’t forget that Gaza is the most populated place on earth. We have to admire the Israelis for being so cautious and making their precise targeting work so effectively.

Lastly does anyone even question how many innocent civilian casualties we would be seeing on CNN if Hamas had F-16s? This is a necessary mission that must succeed for the greater good of everyone in the region.

The Gazan elected Hamas has to be toppled. The civilian population that elected Hamas in Gaza to power has to fight for their freedom and pressure their leadership to stop the madness, stop firing missiles on innocent children in Israel and return to the negotiating table.

1+1=2 Hamas stop the rockets attacks = quite.

[MajorKong]

The Israelis and Palestinians are so deep into the cycle of attack-revenge-repeat that it's hard to argue who provoked who. It just depends on how far back you want to go.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

An endless war, in the Holy Land, of all places.

[instaurationist]

Let's not forget Israel has a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

[barryblogger]

Wrong Instaurationist:

Actually, Israel is the ONLY country on the planet that is not allowed to have a seat on the Security Council and has never held one, certainly not now as you incorrectly claim. This is because there are too many Arab countries that oppose Israel holding a seat. Recent seat holders include Iran, Libya and Syria, some of the countries with the worst human rights violations and a history of promoting terrorism against Western Countries. Ironic isn't it?

The Security Council is made up of 15 members-- five permanent members and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The permanent members are the US, Russia, the UK, China and France.