Amy commented on an earlier post, and I was particularly distressed by her easy dismissal of proportionality.
The concept of proportionality is closely related to that of just war. Just war theory has a long history in Western thought, going back to Roman times with Cicero and expanded by Christian theologians in the centuries since. Secularists point to universal ethical concepts that transcend religious and cultural lines saying that the concept extends beyond Christian thought. The theory applies both to the conditions under which it is permissible to go to war, and the means and methods by which the war should be prosecuted. Current just war thought includes the conditions for armistice and peace terms as well. While personally I find war abhorrent, I understand that it is sometimes necessary, but only if the following conditions are met.
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Let’s examine the current war in Gaza by these criteria. Was the damage inflicted by Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages “lasting, grave, and certain?” The rockets are unguided, crude weapons that have killed fewer than 50 people since 2000. Does this rise to the level of “lasting, grave, and certain”? To be sure there is also psychological damage to those people living in the towns, but do 50 deaths justify the deaths of hundreds? The concept of an eye for an eye is intended to minimize the damage done to avenge a wrong. It doesn’t permit 100 or even 10 lives for a life.
Second: have all other means of putting an end to the attacks been shown to be impractical or ineffective? This, too, is subject to debate, and the conclusions reached by the various parties will reflect their individual perspectives. Again, one must look at the effect of the blockade on Gaza and of the system of parallel roads and checkpoints on the Palestinian population in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Obviously, the Israelis think that since the blockade and the checkpoints have not halted the attacks, more severe punishment is necessary and appropriate. But has the blockade had the opposite effect — one of driving ever more Gazans to support Hamas?
Third: there must be serious prospects of success. All parties agree that there is no military solution to the conflict, that the parties must negotiate a solution. Given the density of the population in Gaza, the only way to a military solution is to obliterate every building and person in order to ensure that all the Hamas fighters are among the dead and the rocket sites destroyed. Additionally, it’s not entirely clear that there are not rogue groups among the combatants.
Finally: the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. This one is particularly contentious given the differences in the weaponry available to both sides. The Hamas fighters may take refuge in underground bunkers and tunnels but the civilian population is left to fend for themselves, unlike the Israeli population that can escape to underground shelters. The Hamas rockets cannot penetrate these shelters while Israel has weapons that can penetrate at least 24′ underground. While one may argue that the lack of civilian shelters is the fault of Hamas, it is still a reality that must be considered. And there is ample wiggle room in international law permitting, for example, the use of white phosphorus shells IF they are used for defensive purposes. The white phosphorus burns when it comes into contact with oxygen, and it puts out a lot of dense smoke making it useful to light up a darkened area and to provide cover for troop movements. Its use as incendiary devices and to cause s civilian damage is illegal. Yet because it is difficult to separate the legitimate uses from illegal ones in a crowded urban setting, human rights groups contend that their use in such settings is always illegal.
Israel initially said that its intent in this action was to eliminate Hamas’ ability to launch their crude rockets into Israel. But there seems to be both mission creep and mission contraction. We now hear that they seek only to degrade Hamas’ offensive ability, not to eliminate it. And we heard that there was no desire for regime change, yet the attacks clearly are targeting Hamas political leaders as well as their fighters and that government buildings have been destroyed as well as rocket positions. So, it’s difficult to know what to believe or what is the truth about their intentions. That is always difficult when actions and words don’t match up.
I happened across a piece by Chris Hedges. While I find his suggestion that Israel may be engaging in ethnic cleansing disturbing to say the least, we need to acknowledge that there is an element within the Israeli body politic that advocates expelling the Arabs from Israel, including from the West Bank and Gaza. These radical elements want to fulfill what they see as their God-given right to all of the land of ancient Israel, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Tigris River. And thousands of fundamentalist Christians in the US are eager to see that come to pass as well — not out of any real sympathy for the Jews but because they believe that it will usher in the events leading to the Second Coming of Christ.
Given what I know about the history of the Middle East as a whole, about the decisions and events leading up to the creation of the modern state of Israel, and the events since then, I must conclude that the current war fails the test. It cannot be seen in isolation but as the latest in a series of events going back at least to 1947 if not to 1916 or even back to Biblical times. As has happened numerous times in human history, combatants tend to justify wars in religious terms. And the wars fought over and justified by religion have too often been the bloodiest.
Actually, I think the Israeli response has been proportional. Israel has been attacked on multiple occations by Hamas by rockets coming from Gaza that have landed in Israeli territory. These attacks have resulted in some Israeli casualties. Now I am not certain but it seems that the rocket attacks from Gaza were directed at Israeli neighborhoods. (Non-military targets) The purpose, therefore, was to kill (and frighten) Israeli civilians. A plan that seems to have worked.
The IDF on the other hand has fired rockets at legitimate military targets. Hamas leaders that have ordered attacks on Israel, rocket launch sites etc., are military targets. The purpose of these attacks, therefore, is to kill combatants. People who are by definition enemies of Israel and threats to her security and survival.
Gazan civilians have doubtless been injured or killed in these attacks. But Israel didn’t put rocket installations in civilian neighborhoods, Hamas did. Israel isn’t using civilians as human shields to protect their military assets and leadership, Hamas is. So whose fault is it really that Gazans are being killed by Israeli rockets? Israel? or is it really Hamas’?
I’m not advocating for Hamas to fire rockets. In fact, when the current round of conflict began, I specifically said that Israel has the right to defend itself. And I’ve repeatedly said that the rockets inflict emotional and psychological damage in addition to the physical damage, injuries, and deaths.
What I’m questioning is whether attacking a densely populated area where there are bound to be a disproportionate number of civilian casualties is the best solution. I’m questioning whether the siege that Israel imposed on Gaza is having the desired effect. About 10 days before the commencement of the current war, a truce expired. Why was it not extended? Hamas asked Israel to lift the siege it placed on Gaza — a siege that had already led to a serious degrading of the quality of life there. Israel initially agreed to reduce the siege, then changed its mind. Yes, there had been a few rockets lobbed into Israel. But was a siege of the entire population a proportional response? Did it stop the attacks entirely? No, but it did increase local support of Hamas.
It’s so very easy to look at this round in isolation rather than in the context of the past 60 years.
Gaza, Guerra Avisada: Israel vs. Hamás…
Otro dia más de guerra entre Hamás y el ejército israelí en Gaza, un comportamiento que podria hasta denominarse rutinario[...]
……
I’m not advocating Hamas fire rockets into Israel either. In fact I would recommend they not fire any more rockets at Israel ever again. Certainly as long as Israel’s rockets are better and more presicely targeted than theirs are.
“Israel initally agreed to reduce the siege, then changed its mind. Yes, there had been a few rockets lobbed into Israel.”
It seems to me that Hamas cannot ask Israel to lift the siege, and continue to fire rockets into Israel at the same time. If a child whines to try to get something they want, do you give in to get them to stop or does giving in invite more whining? Any one that has dealt with a toddler knows that giving in to whining invites more whining. Now Hamas is not a toddler and Israel is not its parent but the principle is the same. If Israel were to have lifted the siege after Hamas had asked it to and then launched more rockets into Israel, Hamas would have launched more rockets not less and asked Israel to give more territory over to the Palestinian Authority. And should Israel have failed to do so they would have launched more rockets.
You asked if the suffering caused by the siege was a proportional reponse to Hamas’ actions. You also questioned if the Israeli rocket attacks into Gaza were a proportional response. You also questioned if the ground assalt by the IDF was a proportional response. But you never gave your opinion of what a proportional response was. If you don’t want Israel to use a siege against Gaza, you don’t want them to launch rockets at Hamas and its leaders, you don’t want the IDF to invade Gaza what is left? What will convince Hamas that further rocket attacks against Israel are a bad idea?
Again, I think the rocket attack against Hamas and its leadership was a proportional response. Hamas’ rockets were unguided but targeted at Israeli neighborhoods. In other words civilians. Israeli rockets were targeted at Hamas military targets. (Yes some civilians were killed and wounded as well but that happens in a battle.) Civillians were not the targets with the Israeli rockets. They were with Hamas’. That sounds proportional to me.