Arithmetic of Pain

Jewish World Review ^ | July 20, 2006 | Alan M. Dershowitz

[rockprof]

"Disproportionate" response? The misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the rules of war.

There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

[rockprof]

Dershowitz making a lot of sense.

[Raycpa]

If we used this proportionate response math in WWII, we would still be fighting.

[dawn53]

When you hide a missile launcher in a home, IMHO, the people in that home can no longer be considered "civilians."

[From many - one.]

Good article, clearly expressed.

Not as belligerant, but in the same vein as Patton's statement about the idea not being to die for one's country but making the other poor b*st*rd die for his.

[magua]

Is everyone forgetting that Chirac said he would nuke any state that sent terrorist into Fwance.The same Chirac who told Israel it is using a disproportional amount of force.

[From many - one.]

No, they'd have won.

[From many - one.]

Got a cite? Not doubting you, but I'd like to have it in my argument arsenal.

[ClaireSolt]

It is all part of relativism and multiculturalism, level playing field, as it were.

D says, "If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens." I agree, but we are not there yet. We need a diversion for busybody diplomats. Maybe algore could show his movie at the UN.

[Dudoight]

"Dershowitz making a lot of sense."

Once in a while he does. This is an excellent response to that 'disproportionate' crapola.

[magua]

Plug in "Chirac and nukes" at google

[ChristianDefender]

I think there is no such thing as proportionate response against terror muzzies... because if they get some nasty stuff on their hands anytime, they will use it indescriminately whoever the target will be...

I see them as viruses on earth... if we have the best weapon to completelY wipe them out then we should...

[Agent Smith]

This proves that broken clocks and Alan can be correct once in a while.

[EBH]

He does make a lot of sense. Last night as I was watching Shepard Smith tick off the casualty count like a football game score this very type of thinking was running through my mind.

How many of those casualties on the Hezbollah side were in fact terrorist, co-conspirators, safe houses, etc. vs. actual true innocents? How many islamic terrorist males chose to have their families act as human shields?

And finally why is the proportionality so whacked out if Israel is not bombing all willy-nilly and Hezbollah is bombing civilian areas in Israel? Could it actually be because the people of Israel value their citizenry and most of them have safe places to go to? Verses the Hezbollah use of their citizens as shields, propaganda, and hailing them as martyrs for the cause?

I think the latter is very important to consider, especially when the enemy, radical islam, does not acknowledge civilians as separate from military action.

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani Al-Siba'i, head of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45221

[The Brush]

the Hezbollah use of their citizens as shields, propaganda, and hailing them as martyrs for the cause?

When citizens dance in the street shooting guns in the air they should automatically be seen as military targets and removed as such

[Mrs. Don-o]

I have studied the classic Just War criteria (based on Natural Law and Judeo-Christian morality) quite seriously over the years, and I think Dershowitz is right on both of his major points:
(1) Islamofascists have redesigned war so that massive numbers of civilians serve as unwilling "shields" or willing "swords"; and
(2) a continuum of "civilianality" should be envisioned with the "most civilian civilians" absolutely immune from direct attack, those in middling categories given different status, and the "weaponized civilians" treated exactly as the combatants they are.

As I see it, this is not a negation of the Just War theory, but an application of it under changed circumstances.

I'm going to ping this around; friends, I beg your serious consideration and comments.

[Mrs. Don-o]

In the above post, I'm considering the question of direct targeting, not collateral deaths and proportionality.

[narses]

+


Please review the post above and add your comments.

[Aquinasfan]

As I see it, this is not a negation of the Just War theory, but an application of it under changed circumstances.

That seems right to me.

Just War conditions from the Catechism:

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.

Dershowitz seems to be expanding on the fourth criteria. It seems that the Israeli action meets the other three. While #3 may be debateable, Israel has no option but to fight, since their backs are against the wall.

[Biblebelter]

When your enemy is not organized as a nation, then how can you apply any of the rules of war? This is terrorism pure and simple. Peace, treaties, and cease fires cannot be negotiatied with entities that are nations. As long as terrorists have access to weapons which can inflict great pain and harm, they will not hesitate to use them.

[DuncanWaring]

...there must be serious prospects of success;...

This would be in conflict with Sir Winston Churchill's admonition that "...you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, for it is better to die than to live as slaves."

I'm more inclined to go along with Sir Winston.