Posted on 08/04/2006 3:58:52 AM PDT by Alouette
Was the Israeli strike at Qana village a disproportionate military response? According to International Law, not necessary
The Israeli strike at Qana village resulted in a humanitarian disaster. The sight of the bodies of dead children is truly unbearable. Does this dreadful tragedy indicate "disproportionate" military response and exaggerated use of power by Israeli forces? Not necessarily.
The International Humanitarian Law is becoming consistently irrelevant for the purpose of global combating terrorism. It deals with the laws of war between nations, not with terror organizations or individual terrorists who hide among civil population.
It is impossible, therefore, to implement the old "proportionate" requirement, shaped for a war between states fighting in a defined area, to the modern needs of combating terrorism. How can countries "proportionately" strike individual terrorists who hide amid civil population and use them as human shelters? How is it possible to thwart rocket launchers which are activated from private homes?
The laws they are a-changing
Following World War II, the international law had changed dramatically. Similarly, the new menace of terrorism obliges us to reinvent the laws of war and to redefine operative rules in fighting terrorists who uses civilians as shields.
A well founded international law principle is an inherent right for self-defense. The laws of war recognize an inevitable causing of harm to civilians where there is no other alternative to hit legitimate military targets.
Hizbullah terrorists, certainly legitimate military targets, hide in densely populated areas and utilize them for military purposes. They place rocket launchers in private homes in villages and conceal ammunition dumps in private flats. Potential civil tragedies, thus, are the unavoidable result of the war.
Of course, not everything is allowed; combating terrorism should be proportionate as much as possible. But the recent widespread interpretation of "proportionality", as forbidding using any military force which has a potential of harming civilians, is totally unrealistic.
Civilians who harbor terrorism by serving as human shields cannot claim immunity from counter measures intended to prevent terrorism. Otherwise, it would be a one-sided warfare in which the aggressive terrorist has full automatic immunity. Closeness to population centers doesn't abolish the necessity to legitimately pre-empt immediate threats.
Double standards
More worrying is the dual standard in which the "proportionate" provision is applied to Israel. I doubt if there is one country that implements the "proportionality" provision as it is interpreted nowadays towards Israel.
Were the US military attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan "proportionate"? Did the British air force "proportionately" attack in Germany? Did Russia "proportionately" combat the Chechen terrorism? Did NATO bomb Belgrade' hospitals and the television station in a "proportionate" way?
Furthermore, should Israel strictly implement a "proportionate" retaliation against a "disproportionate" enemy? What about the reciprocity principle in international law? The two thousands rockets that were launched at the Israeli cities were also not a "proportionate use of force".
Proportionate indeed
The Israeli attack at Qana village was a proportionate use of power. The army sent an advance warning to the residents that an attack is drawing near. Qana is not "an innocent village" but a launching base from which 225 rockets were fired at northern Israeli cities; the tragedy has occurred hours after the military attack; and as opposed to the Hizbullah' rockets aimed to kill innocents people, the Israeli air force didn't intend to hit civilians.
The Israeli proportionate use of force can be seen in other fields as well. The Israeli Supreme Court, perhaps the most activist court in the world, had rescinded a variety of operational means in combating terrorism due to "dis-proportionality".
The Supreme Court abolished the use of tortures, canceled sections of the security fence, and narrowed the use of administrative detention and terrorists' deportation. Is there any other country in which the court has imposed so many massive limitations on the war against terrorism?
Israel is facing the gravest terrorism threat in the democratic world. Israel's neighbors are not Sweden or Canada but Syria and Iran, which officially declared their will to eliminate Israel. Two thousands rockets fell on Israeli cities during the last two weeks, much more than the 39 Scud missiles that were launched at Israel during the Gulf war.
After the Holocaust horrors, the UN and the international community recognized Israel's right for self-determination. This right is being threatened toady by Iran and its satellite organization Hizbullah. Unless you think that this right is not "proportionate" any more, the UN and the international community should stand by Israel and protect its right to exist.
Liav Orgad is lawyer and LLM Candidate, Columbia University. He specializes in International Law.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
No, it was a fake, put up job by hezbullsh**.
Law is an attribute of sovereignty - IOW, law needs a lawgiver.
In the case of the US, the lawgiver is the People of the United States who have delegated all legislative power to a Congress.
There is no international sovereign, hence there can be no such thing as an "international" law.
As far as causing civilian casualties, at the close of our last successful war, we were doing 100 000 women and children at a pop, with stellar results.
Israel should stop her obsession with phony "international law" and start killing her enemies until they beg for mercy.
THEN, she'll get her "right to exist".
I don't think they should stop at that point. They should kill their enemies till there aren't any left alive to beg for mercy.
While indescriminate rockets are fired all around you in Israel, you and millions of other Israelis have to cower in a bomb shelter most of the day worrying if the next one is for you. There is nowhere safe above, and only slightly less unsafe in your shelter.
On the other hand, while descriminate bombs are fired at just military targets nearby you in Lebanon, you and other non-combatant Lebanese can go about your daily chores, stores, schools, and work as long as you keep away from the targeted Hezzies.
Well, that would be fine, too.
But it's usually not necessary.
The problem comes when you start building day-care centers before they are begging for mercy. THAT leads to all kinds of trouble.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
An embattled nation like Israel must be guided by the principle of "do whatever you have to do to survive in the savage jungle." No law or morality or ethics says you should feel guilty about enemy casualties when that enemy unequivocally wishes to wipe you off the face of the planet.
Qana should provide us an opportunity to stress over and over that it is Hezbollah which is violating the rules of war by launching offensive operations from civilian occupied areas, refusing to expidite or even allow the flight or removal of civilians from the battlefield, fighting without uniforms, and the like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.