Proportionality and Disproportionality: A Guide to Arguments about Gaza

Israel's Right to Exist ^ | 01/08/2008 | Polarik

[Polarik]

A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas seems imminent, although how long it will last is anyone's guess. One thing is fairly certain: even as the guns fall silent the charges and counter-charges of violations of international law will continue. Already the airwaves are full of talk that Israel's "disproportionate" response is a flagrant violation of international law. The Palestinian Authority has claimed, in addition, that Israel's actions constitute "aggression against the Palestinian people," and a "crime against humanity. "(See CNN's Jim Clancy's interview with the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the United Nations, Riyan Mansour, January 3, 2009). In this climate, it might be wise to take a deep breath and consider international law not as a propaganda tool but as a guide to reasoned behavior. Here is what such an approach reveals:

1. In international law, the concepts of proportionality and necessity are intertwined. If the action is not necessary for a legitimate military objective (security against armed attack), then it is inherently disproportionate. Was Israel's response to more than a thousand rocket attacks by Hamas, which were bound to continue upon Hamas' refusal to renew the ceasefire with Israel, a legitimate military objective?

The international community has recognized that they are developing nuclear weapons to give them that capability. Iran's proxy troops are Hezbollah in Lebanon to the north of Israel, with a capacity to fire tens of thousands of Iranian manufactured rockets wherever it chooses; and Hamas in Gaza to Israel's south, able to direct sufficient indiscriminate firepower to intimidate a million Israeli citizens into living lives that vacillate between air raid sirens and the rush to shelters. In this context, an Israeli military response to Hamas' decision to let the rockets rain again was clearly justifiable.

[cvq3842]

In war, a “proportional response” would seem generally to be exactly what one does NOT want to make.

Conflicts end when one side “wins,” by crushing the other, by degrading the enemy’s ability and/or will to fight.

[MrB]

A father wouldn’t be much of a man if someone kept shooting at his house where his children lived and didn’t do something about it for fear of what the neighbors would say.

[cvq3842]

Absolutely!

But unfortunately, much of the world doesn’t seem to believe Israel has a right to exist at all. How else to explain MORE attacks, rather than fewer, after Israel gave up Gaza? (I’m sure there is some rationale being floated, but I would bet a month’s pay it’s by people who question Israel’s right to exist.)

[ArrogantBustard]

I think that there is widespread confusion as to the meaning of "proportionality"

3. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. They must restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends.

In the present case, the "military end" which Israel seeks is putting an end to the barrage of Qassam rockets. "Proportionality" DOES NOT mean, as some folks on this forum seem to think, that Israel is limited to launching the equivalent of Qassam rockets. Indeed, doing so would violate the principle of "Discrimination". Rather, "Proportionality" means that Israel must use force appropriate to destroying the Qassam rocket launch sites and the associated communications, command, control, and intelligence infrstructure. This is, in fact, what Israel appears to be doing. Nuking Gaza into oblivion, as some of the more bellicose on this forum suggest, would violate both Proportionality and Discrimination, and would be a hideous crime.

[goldylight]

From a friend in Israel on this very topic(notice the disdain for Sarkozy):

There have been numerous articles, learned and not so learned, decrying the use of the term ‘disproportionate’ in describing Israel’s response to eight years of missile attacks from Gaza. My own feeling is that ‘inadequate’ would be a better word, especially in light of today’s news about a three-hour cease fire which is clearly the precursor to leaving before the job is done.

Proper use of the term would be, say, “French President Sarcasti’s marriage to a super-model after dumping a plain wife is clearly a disproportionate act.”

Keeping in mind that the killers of Jews in Mumbai were Pakistanis and not Palestinians, and those who blew up the Buenos Aires Jewish Center were Iranians and not Palestinians, it is clear the war is not between Israelis and Palestinians but between Jews and Muslims. Given that there are some ten million Jews and one billion Muslims, proportionality would call for one thousand Muslim deaths for every Jew killed.

[jiggyboy]

The Palestinian Authority has claimed, in addition, that Israel's actions constitute "aggression against the Palestinian people,"

Snore. As does any statement on any subject whatsoever coming from any "Palistinian" or mouthpiece.

The only thing that keeps me from muting the TV when a "Palisinian" comes on the screen is to wonder how long it will take him to work "aggression" or "occupation" into his answer or statement. It's never more than 20 seconds.

[chesley]

A “proportional” response would be to do to the enemy exactly what he is trying to do to you. Do it first, do it fastest, and do it more often, until he cries uncle and quits.

[cvq3842]

Good points.

[cvq3842]

Thanks.

[Polarik]

Conflicts end when one side “wins,” by crushing the other, by degrading the enemy’s ability and/or will to fight.

Ditto...and they do NOT return land to the aggressor.

What this war is all about:

[LucyT]

Ping.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks LucyT.