T. Belman. I was there too and can tell you that Arlene did a great job of highlighting what was said.
By Arlene Kushner
This is the subject of a conference currently being held by Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center, founded and run by the amazing Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.
Current laws of warfare are outdated, she explained in her introductory remarks. The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the asymmetrical warfare that is waged today. We must redefine the laws of warfare, so that democratic states can adequately fight back. Today, terror groups attack civilians, and when democracies fight back, their defense is referred to as a war crime. Terrorists should not be able to apply to international courts as if they were victims when they are the perpetrators.
The IDF must be able to fulfill its mission of protecting the people of Israel and we we must protect our soldiers, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~
The conference is not being held with the expectation that it has any ability to change the rules of war. Rather, the goal is to stimulate an international dialogue on the issue. What I will do here is summarize key speakers, and offer significant thoughts garnered throughout the day.
Participants are Israelis, Brits and Americans with legal and military expertise/experience.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, immediate past Chief of Staff of the IDF, provided the opening keynote speech.
His words were particularly powerful, as he spoke from experience in the field, addressing both strategic and moral issues.
Warfare in the past, he explained, took place on a battleground, on which military forces met each other. That battlefield has now disappeared and new dimensions have inserted themselves. As never before, we see the involvement of civilians – both as targets and human shields. How does a soldier even determine who the enemy is, when he is not wearing a uniform?
As far as the international community is concerned, Israel has lost before even starting. Israel has no desire to hurt others who are not combatants but must protect the Israeli people. A human dilemma.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are broad similarities with regard to the situations in Gaza and Lebanon. In all instances, hostilities have been started by the terrorists, with Israel holding its force until there is no choice. In both instances, the enemy fighters are allied with the ruling powers, and operate from inside civilian society. A house in a village in Lebanon will have a livingroom, but also a missile room; in the garden a launching pad may be hidden. Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as headquarters for Hamas terrorists.
We – as a moral nation – must update our legal tools. The soldier today is subject to uncertainties as he faces a complicated situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Second speaker, Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, Former Deputy Commaner, US Special Operations Command, asked: Can you deter terrorists? He thinks not. Americans do not get it, he declared. They are shielded by the media.
~~~~~~~~~~
The first panel addressed the problem of human shields – civilians who protect weapons. What we are dealing with here is military necessity vs. humanitarian needs. We cannot attack civilians as such or use indiscriminate force. but there is an obligation upon the enemy (in principle only as it is never honored) to separate civilians from combatants and from military operations.
Said Prof. Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, eyes must stay on the target, with fire adjusted one round at a time, using precision weapons. The enemy is trying to provoke a response that uses overwhelming force. What is needed then is a modulated response.
~~~~~~~~~~
The next member of the panel to speak was Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan, and one of Israel’s staunchest friends.
The use of human shields is rapidly increasing, he said:
– there is a greater prevalence of asymmetrical power, with the weaker side using civilians
– this is a means of political warfare against the Western powers (Israel included), a way to undermine democracies and democratic armies
– there is influence by the media
– this hinders direct attack, restrains democratic armies ability to operate
Today human shields are used as primary weapons. Greater blame is placed by the world on those who hit human shields than on those who use them.
The use of human shields continues, said Kemp, because this works. He suggested here that if democracies had greater reluctance to be deterred by human shields they might be employed less. He is not suggesting wholesale slaughter! but wonders if perhaps there is a need to permit greater collateral damage. The proportionality calculus must change, and it needs to be codified.
~~~~~~~~~~
Human shields lose their status as protected persons because they enhance the enemy’s goals. But only if they are serving as shields voluntarily. (More on this follows.)
Death of human shields must be considered the responsibility of those who use them. It is illegal to use human shields. In fact, the law requires moving civilians from a combat area.
Kemp suggested that over-all military objectives, and not just the immediate situation, must be considered when deciding on how to respond to human shields. If there is greater collateral damage permitted in one operation, perhaps in the long term it would discourage use of human shields.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bassem Eid, a courageous Palestinian Arab Human-Rights activist, followed with some comments on what Kemp had suggested.
The civilians in Gaza must wake up, he declared: their leaders do not have the right to do as they do. However, Hamas coerces people, pays them to motivate them to stay put, and charges those who flee an area that Israel is about to attack with being Israeli collaborators.
International human rights organizations do not raise the issue of human shields: “No Jews, no news.”
Hamas cares nothing about civilians or reconstruction – only about new tunnels and a stronger military.
~~~~~~~~~~
I want to move here to the panel that discussed the critical issue of proportionality. Proportionality is not about how many deaths were suffered on each side – which is how the topic is frequently represented.It is rather a question of what is a proportionate amount of collateral damage for a given military advantage. In the end, this is a principle that requires interpretation. The rule of proportionality is the most misunderstood and misapplied.
Prof. Yuval Shany, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, says that democracies do not normally utilize indiscriminate force or kill civilians on purpose. But there remains a host of related questions. Regarding, for example, weapon choice: do you act quickly, even though there will be collateral damage? Or do you lose valuable time and wait until a more accurate weapon is brought in? Risk to the soldiers serving under a commander must be considered by him, as must issues of military necessity.
On these questions, “reasonable minds may disagree.”
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of Law, asked how one measures proportionality. The law does not define what the proportion is. Who decides? In international law, there is no final legal decider.
~~~~~~~~~~
We are dealing, he said, with the hypocrisy of double standards. The law is not going to change, but we should not allow it to be distorted: if properly understood, there is flexibility.
The keyword is excessive: a significant imbalance. Commanders must anticipate the risk, and make an assessment regarding whether it is worth it.
The commander must be judged on conditions that prevailed when he made his decision. Many tactical factors will have weighed into the equation.
Instead, the commander is criticized based on the results. No commander, no matter how moral, can always make the right decision.
~~~~~~~~~~
Professor Corn prefers to think in terms of the rule of precautionary obligations. This provides objective evidence of good faith and morality. Did the commander take into consideration different weapons, different timing, how much warning to give? Etc. etc. If all these measures have been weighed, then it is possible to move ahead with lethal force to defeat the enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Corn says that the moral considerations need to be ramped up when fighting the most immoral of enemies – otherwise all moral footing is lost. The moral well being of our combatants at the end of the war must be considered.
~~~~~~~~~~
These are exceedingly heavy issues that must be struggled with in real time. We know that down the road – soon – we will be confronting these situations again.
I close here by noting that it was remarked several times during the course of the day that there is no more moral army in the world than the IDF. No other army takes the extraordinary measures that ours does to warn civilians before we attack. At the same time, we take the most heat from the world.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is highly likely that when I next post it will be to discuss the formation of the coalition. The deadline for Netanyahu is almost upon us. It has not been a happy scenario, but I believe he will pull it off somehow by Wednesday. The news today is that Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu and until now foreign minister, is declining to participate in the coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene atakushner18@gmail.com
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
@ Yidvocate:
well done 🙂
remember to leave a space before, between and after the smiley, laugh, frown and remember the laugh is a capital P 😛
@ bernard ross:
I take that back! Like magic the colon and bracket morphed into a smiley after all once I posted! Thanks! 😛 😛 😛 🙂
@ bernard ross:
🙂
🙂 Not as nice and colorful as yours, but I guess it conveys the same message 🙁
Yidvocate Said:
smiley = shift while typing a colon and a closed parenthesis(bracket)
laugh = shift while typing a colon and a capital P
make sure to leave a space after the last letter typed
@ Yidvocate:
looks like we mainly agreed on actual scenarios when we left out the philosophy 🙂
Yidvocate Said:
depends which end of the bomb you are on 😛
@ bernard ross:
Depends what you consider extreme. If maximum force ends a war in a week with x number of casualties and a more “considered” approach, observing all the niceties of proportionalities and other such considers extends the over several months with 2xX casualties, which is the more extreme/humane approach?
It does indeed and even requires you to violate Shabbos if someone tries to steal some of your crops growing on your borders. Your point?
Agreed. I wasn’t suggesting volunteers!
@ bernard ross:
Not sure I’m entirely on-side as I maintain overwhelming force to end the war at the earliest possible moment is in fact the most humane way to fight a war and is in fact the the most “proportionate” way to do so in the macro (the micro should therefore be irrelevant). But I don’t mind disagreeing with you, because your heart and mine are in the exact same place (don’t know how to put a smiley in here, so just pretend I did!)
Yidvocate Said:
See, advocay is irrelevant becuase in actual fact you will make extreme decisions; but you want to feel human while doing it.Yidvocate Said:
I thought it said to kill he coming to kill you before he kills you?
Yidvocate Said:
I meant examples where you decide more humanely than me
I agree on shock and awe but on transfer over mowing down those trainning jew killing toddlers I would wonder how many Jews will die in the process of transfer and is it worth it. better to give the option to leave or to die.
Yidvocate Said:
that is why I said the “humanity” issue was generic andintellectual because in the end I appear more humane than you, but I dont pretend to be humane.
Yidvocate Said:
See, when given specific scenarios the doctrine of proportionality flies out the window along with the other ridiculous “laws” of war.
@ bernard ross:
It most certainly is as I yidvocate for humanity even in war as the Torah enjoins us to observe. Not risk the lives of our children, G-d forbid, but to avoid needless death and suffering.
Really? Tell that to the Japanese or Germans who through the Marshal Plan have been deNazified. Germany is today our greatest European ally. Only Israel doesn’t win wars because it never fights them to victory.
True there are degrees of inhumanity and the Torah is our guiding light in this as in all areas of life. Our operating manual for spaceship earth!
Thought I did – shock and awe to end it quickly and pack them off to Jordan for example.
@ bernard ross:
How wouldn’t sending them and their families off to Jordan not achieve the same result?
@ bernard ross:
LOL! Turns out that I’m more extreme than you are because under my “doctrine” this would never enter my calculus at all. Remeber, “guns ablazing” to inflict the greatest harm as soon as possible so victor is achieved at the earliest possible moment – shock and awe, to use a tired phrase. I make no distinction between combatants and civilians or children. It is not Hamas that is at war with us, but Gaza, all of Gaza. The Nazis weren’t at war with us, Germany was and Dresden had to be carpet bombed before the Nazis cried uncle.It looks like we’ve now come full circle with me the extremist and you the moderate – LOL!
Yidvocate Said:
seeking to kill my children is a bit more than an “ill intention”. Definitely any such folk, including those moms who send their children to jew killing summer training camp, should be mowed down post haste. they are a serious danger who will without doubt cause dead Jews, the only questions is whose daughters will those dead Jews be?
They have another option of not training their toddlers to kill jews.
Yidvocate Said:
…….
Yidvocate Said:
i dont remember writing that 🙂
Yidvocate Said:
o pullease, my remorse is not the subject of discussion
Yidvocate Said:
I did not say that “to win the war” but to save Jewish lives. I gave specific examples of bombing and assasinating to save jewish lives. no one really wins a war.
Yidvocate Said:
perhaps you can tell me how to stop them killing jews AND preserve your humanity? War and killing is inhuman and bestial, you cannot really preserve your humanity.
Better to cite specific examples of situations where you do not agree with me rather than keep intellectualizing it as a philosophical subject.
Yidvocate Said:
I did not say it was a luxury to be human but that
bernard ross Said:
such questions are posed philosophically in an environment removed from war. Here is what I further said:
bernard ross Said:
it is meaningless to discuss this without specific examples of how you and I would make decisions with our “perspectives’ on humanity.. It is possible that when making decisions in specific circumstances we would agree more than disagree: we certainly agreed on Gaza. My decision would likely give more weight to the potential danger to my own than the immediate danger to theirs.
E.G. not bombing a target would be guided first by the question of will any of mine die from not bombing as opposed to how many of their children will die from bombing. If I find that protecting them might bring greater risk to mine, they will be bombed regardless of collateral damage. How many have died from released terrorists and from terror planners of murders. All suspected planners, participants, funders etc should be liquidated as soon as their plan is discovered regardless of collateral damage.
I am disinterested in jumping though the hoops of the frauds.
@ bernard ross:
See above.
Dear Bernard,
You keep putting words in my mouth and making me out to be the circus dog imperiling the life of your children. So let’s have it your way and start cutting off heads and nailing Arabs to the cross, imbibing our childrens on Arab hatred and strapping bombs on them to murder Arabs – humanity be dammed! Don’t want to be exhibitionist!
My reed Sea example is not irrelevant but you miss the point that your kids and their kids are both G-d’s children and He is saddened by their, well deserved death as should we be as we are charged to emulate our Creator. It’s not a question of rejoicing but of remorse, which you seem to have in short supply. Where exactly do I yidvocate for Jews dying to lessen enemy casualties? Oh contraire, I’ve said guns ablazing to end the war as quickly as possible because that is not only the most humane but the most effective means to end it.
I’ve never supported and in fact am revolted by the cat and mouse IDF games as much as you are, but I for one don’t think all of Gaza has to be carpet bombed to win this war. In fact if it were up to me I would send every Arab, citizen or not, packing off to Jordan. Not because I’m extreme but because that is the most humanitarian solution and it will be the solution in the end after more needless deaths and maimings while it sounds like you would rather mow them down where they stand because they harbour ill intentions towards your children.
We both agree that they are toxic, implacable and an irredeemable enemy population, but there is more than one way to deal with them that preserves my humanity and my children and effectively deals with them.
Yidvocate Said:
Why do you cite irrelevant examples…. we are not speaking of rejoicing over the deaths of others but of killing others to protect ourselves and our children. Did I rejoice? NO, I said ii would not apologize nor regret killing them to guarantee the life of my child. The onus and responsibility is on them for seeking my childs murder.
Yidvocate Said:
Instead of struggling with the serious problem of Jews dying to lessen enemy casualties, of jews dying to maintain images of good Jews with those seeking to send Jews through hoops like circus dogs……. instead, we have made the focus of our struggle a “struggle to maintain humanity in the face of barbarian savagery”.
This is the same focus with which the defamers want us to spend our time struggling …… like CA who always has us spend our time on the struggles and problems of the pals. The “maintenance of humanity” is what leads to dead Jews.
Yidvocate Said:
I do not agree. an exhibitionist is concerned with the conveyance of impressions to others rather than performing the deeds for their own value.
Yidvocate Said:
I thought that the observance of that light was the observation of the will of HaShem rather than the observation of vain gymnastics of various jews. In other words, in spite of jewish action, Hashem demonstrates the light according to His will; that He does it for His own sanctification, to show the world His will.
Yidvocate Said:
I care less about how I am seen by many frauds than by the actual nature of what I do.
Yidvocate Said:
where did I represent extremism, perhaps you misinterpret my words?
Yidvocate Said:
The misinterpretation of that sentiment is what leads to what you call ridiculous, as you are doing now. I will not endanger a millionth of a per cent the life of my child to save the life of their children. Their children are being trained as toddlers to hate and kill jewish toddlers. Jewish children will die, without one shred of doubt, from those children being trained and the mothers that sent them and glorified killing jewish babies. The baby who died from rock throwers was such a victim of their hate of Jews. I have no time to think of their children in such scenarios.
Yidvocate Said:
the precepts you enumerated are not relevant as those precepts are not a problem and are naturally observed. why do you bring scenarios that do not exist as a problem when the problem is that Jews die in order to protect enemy civilians: that is the problem that is relevant and is the result of the intellectualized sentiments that led to the problem. In my view it is criminal to tell a soldier to risk his life to protect the enemy. When you send in an army instead of reducing the enemy to rubble you are making the choice to risk the soldiers life to lower enemy casualties: that is a fact borne of the sentiment of war rules.
sentiments are meaningless without specific examples.
should a targeted assassination of an enemy terrorist responsible for killing and planning the murder of Jewish children be aborted because enemy children might die? that is the choice often made but that choice puts a jewish child at risk of being killed.
@ bernard ross:
There you go again, “A comparable choice”. It’s not comparable in the least. It’s not a contest between saving your son and their son. Where do you get that nonsense? Certainly not from me so don’t try to paint me into that obscene corner! It’s not a luxury to be human but the very challenge we were put on this earth to be. That doesn’t result in endangering your life in consideration of preserving the life of the enemy. Stop attributing such bull shit to me!
Yidvocate Said:
This is a very interesting philosophical question but perhaps there are more important questions like how important is it to be better than others or is it an unrealistic question and perhaps an irrelevant question? Perhaps the question is a luxury when compared to the lives and deaths of ones or others children? Perhaps it is the luxury that only those who are not risking their childrens lives can afford?
Here is a comparable question:
Would a parent of one of the dead IDF soldiers be comforted by the fact that an enemy child was saved because his son or daughter died instead?
Given the choice, preceding the incident: would that parent choose the enemy child’s life over that of his son or daughter?
Those who advise Jews to play the game of one sided “laws” of war are dishonest and uninterested in laws of war. Instead, their agenda is to confound,confuse and libel the Jews using Israel as the proxy.
Dear Bernard and Keelie,
You put words in my mouth and infer meaning in my words that simply are not justified.
Yes a Jew is a moral exhibitionist. That’s what a “light unto the nations” means. And yes you should care that you are not seen in the same light as the Islamist scum. That doesn’t make you a quisling leftist. You both argue extremes juxtaposing the loony left while representing extremism off the chart in the opposite direction. Yes I agree “my children” come first, but are you human if you don’t recognize that even on the enemy side there are scores of parents who don’t to imperil their children in a conflict imposed on them. That doesn’t make you a leftist, it makes you human. This sentiment is not to be confused with what the IDF does of late which is ridiculous. Cease fires don’t convince the enemy to cease hostilities but only to put them into abeyance temporarily. I don’t advocate for protecting human shields nor does the law of war. The problem is the law is not applied (at least as far as the IDF is concerned!). I make no distinction between combatant and civilian and I urge extreme force to end the brutality as quick as possible because that is the most humane way to resolve the conflict.
The Torah precepts are not mine but G-d’s so if you have a problem with them, take it up with Him, not me. That same G-d admonished the Jewish people for their rejoicing over the death of the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds, because, while you value your children, so does He and all humans are his children.
I too am angry and sympathize with your extreme positions but I at least struggle to maintain my humanity in the face of barbarian savagery.
@ bernard ross:
The “exactly” refers to posting #12.
@ bernard ross:
Exactly.
@ Yidvocate:
What is this? Moral exhibitionism? Why to we either have to be “better than they are” or perceived to be “better than they are”? This kind of thinking led us ultimately to Auschwitz and will lead us down a similar path in this century.
Frankly I don’t care if they are better than us; this is an ongoing war of survival. I totally agree with Bernard Ross: I have children and one very young grandchild. Whatever it takes to ensure their survival is fine with me, even if it defies your definition of morality, or morality as defined by the Torah in this respect.
Some people can only be ‘convinced’ by their own death. One thing I learned in a practical debating class is that there is no arguement to counter pigheadedness.
Yidvocate Said:
by the way, how is that “convincing” going? Making any headway? 😛
Yidvocate Said:
so now you invoke a “moral doctrine of war”?
tell that to the parents of soldiers who died because the “moral doctrine” said they should not bomb the house before going in because enemy children might be inside. any one who wishes to send in their own sons to reduce enemy casualties should be allowed to do so but sending others sons unnecessarily into a building which could have instead been first bombed to rubble, is criminal.
Yidvocate Said:
I dont think He wants Jews to die in order to reduce the casualties of those trying to kill His children.
Yidvocate Said:
the objective cannot be thus: to convince the enemy. the objective is to incapacitate or kill the enemy. Look how you reduced kill or be killed to an intellectual objective. “Convincing” is something in which intellectuals engage. soldiers try to kill in order not to be killed.
Yidvocate Said:
not the planet, destroy the aggressor and those who support him.
Yidvocate Said:
never inferred that. when they were totally decimated and begged to surrender unconditionally, bringing their weapons, accepting the rule of the conqueror, then you stopped. and rightly so. what did americans say “it saved american lives”. If only Israel had a similar MO.
Yidvocate Said:
there you go, intellectualizing the scenario, rendering into an intellectual game of what if, and what should. there is no need to talk about such things because when you destroy the enemy there is no need for further “excess”.
Yidvocate Said:
Not at all, my frustration is playing the game of making it relevant to try and filter them into good and bad when the focus should be on destroying the threat regardless of who gets hurt with them. We know who they are when hamas attacks or threatens then all of gaza will suffer the same fate. It is of no interest to me to figure out which mothers sent their toddlers to Jew killing training summer camps. thats how it worked and still works, all in the nation or entity suffer the same fate. what we see now is how it doesn’t work.
Yidvocate Said:
see, you can feel it 🙂
Yidvocate Said:
see…. this is where you went astray. the problem is not “after”. the problem is reaching to that point. there is no need to discuss after when there has never been an after. How many times to go back to gaza and send in young Jews to die needlessly when instead Gaza could have been turned to ashes and many parents would have avoided sorrow. Unless of course you are concerned about the enemy childrens deaths and wish to trade your sons life for theirs.
what about the 60 + who were killed? was that justified to send them in for nothing? why were they sent? they were sent to die in order to protect the enemy civilians lives, to reduce their casualties. If my son was one of those 60 I would consider those who sent him as traitors and murderers. what gave them the right to trade the lives of others sons and daughters for the sole purpose of reducing enemy civilian casualties. Fool Jews have bought into this narrative like circus dogs jumping through hoops.
remember the tunnel where the soldier was killed chasing after…. why was he sent into that tunnel? Look how many times soldiers risk lives and enter homes without first bombing it to bits.. I do not agree with one ounce of risk that is not mandatory by nature.
Yidvocate Said:
See what happens when you intellectualize possible scenarios, you leave your son and daughter out of the picture. Then it becomes possible to trade your own lives for theirs. None of that paragraph is relevant to what happens, none of that is the problem. the problem is that they want to and attempt to kill your children but you are still intellectualizing on what ifs.
How many wars do you engage and lose lives before you decide to guarantee the end by liquidating the threat. do you wait for Iran to have a bomb and then decide? Once they issue threats there should be no hesitation. Their threats demonstrate their contempt because if they took the Jews seriously they would not warn them. Instead they believe the Jews will intellectualize themselves into suicide, worrying about whether they have done the right thing for the enemy children. If you asked the enemy if he worries about your children he would laugh for days.
keelie Said:
they can have the choice to go in on foot first without doing those things and then we can ask their parents if it was worth it afterwards.
keelie Said:
its called jew baiting. If foolish Jews are willing to do what they say and jumpt through hoops they will give them smaller hoops ringed with fire to jump thorugh next time. Do those nations apply the same rules of war that they demand of the Jews? Do they respect the Jews for trying to play the goyim jew baiting game chock full of rules which apply to one side? did they inform the Jews at the outset of this game of war that the Jews would have a handicap written into the rules? when the nazis baited the Jews and made them do demeaning and humiliating things, the nazis did not respect them afterwards. So it is with the goyim rules of war that only fool Jews follow.
the whole notion of “rules of war” is absurd. As if somehow war will be or even should be more humane. It is a game of rationalizations and intellectualization to render what is abhorrent into something acceptable.
keelie Said:
It is an intellectualization which enables the discussion of irrational scenarios as if they could be rendered rational. By intellectualizing “rules of war” we depersonalize its horror and discuss it without any emotional connection. this is why I always talk about “my children”. everyone understands that perspective, and there is no other sane perspective wrt war. By intellectualizing rules of “what if” we remove our self from the picture and de-humanize those of our tribe who die.
@ keelie:
So to your understanding because the Arabs want to kill each and every Jew, therefore that’s what justifies us doing that to them?
Then are we so much better then they are?
Maybe the Torah has something to say about it. I’m no expert, but I understand that when Jews attack the enemy, they have to always leave a corridor for them to escape because if they choose not to fight, they should be able to escape (even to fight another day). Moreover, before engaging the enemy, the Jew must always offer them terms for surrender. Fighting seems to be something of a last resort and only to prevent aggression.
Perhaps you know better than G-d?
And I do define “proportional”. It’s a variable term and dependant on a whole host of circumstances, never to be judged in hindsight, but the objective must be convince the enemy to cease hostilies, whatever that might take in any particular theatre of war.
@ Yidvocate:
A well-meant definition of proportionality even though what you say in no way defines the word “proportional”. But how does one decide and when does one decide what force is necessary to stop the aggression? And chances are that that “anything in excess” will be necessary to stop the aggression cold, otherwise you have a stalemate, as in the current Gaza situation and many others around the world.
I’m with Patton.
@ bernard ross:
Of course you would, I would too and so would just about anyone but wars are decided or conducted on that basis and shouldn’t be because you don’t have to destroy the entire planet to stop the aggressor. You cite Hiroshima and Nagasaki as prime examples. Those two bombs stopped Japan in its tracks. So why would also bomb Tokyo and half of mainland China? Proportionality means whatever force that’s needed to stop the aggression. Anything in excess is well, in excess and simply not justified under any moral doctrine. The trouble is and I suspect the source of your frustration is that there no longer seems to be recognition of who the enemy is. Can you imagine if the Allied powers could only target card carrying Nazis and the German nation that they controlled? That’s exactly what’s happening today. If Hamas is attacking Israel, why in the world do we make a distinction between Hamas and all of Gaza that they control? There should be no distinction between the the Hamas gunman and his human shield as all lethal force should be utilized against all of Gaza until they stop their aggression. Carpet bombing Dresden was entirely justified and if that didn’t stop the aggression, keep the carpet bombing going until they do – but not after.
Proportionality is likely thought of by many as ‘make the punishment fit the crime’ but who decides how bad the crime is and how practical is it to make the fit? Gen Patton said “The point of war is not to die for your country but make the other fellow die for his country.” If the enemy isn’t going by rules of war (armies faced off in battle) then those rules are impossible to follow.
How many of those bleating about proportionality had rockets falling on them? Too bad IL didn’t roll over Gaza in the last war.
I just came upon an article in today’s National Post (Canada), that spoke about testimonies from Israeli soldiers who have formed an NGO (always a bad sign these days) called “Breaking the Silence”. This group is accusing the IDF of gross violations of the laws of war:
Proportionality again. The aggressor becomes the victim, etc. No wonder the West can’t or won’t win its wars; it seems to be illegal to do so.
Who are these people?
@ bernard ross:
Yes – ugly as this approach may be, this has to be our mindset. Why so? Just read Ted’s essay (see the column on the right),”The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler”.
Right now, a number of people in fine suits, who send their children to fine schools, and who live thousands of miles away from most of the dangerous areas of the world, are dictating to us Jews, whether in Israel or the Diaspora, how we should view the world, and in particular, how we should respond to very real threats of death to both ourselves and our offspring.
Such people need a good dose of reality, but failing implementation of such reality, we have to take care of the many situations that threaten us, and we have to do this by, as you say, making it clear that “proportionality” is not in our lexicon – either in word or deed.
“Proportionality” is a legal “buzz word” that has its place only in mathematics; it cannot be applied to events that have not yet happened, but most surely will, such as overt preparations to wipe out Israel or the Jews in general. We thus have to be the judges of what surely will happen to us at the hands of our enemies if we do not apply extreme but necessary measures.
The enemy always has a choice: either back away from whatever violence you wish to impose, or suffer the consequences. Unfortunately most aggressors have the arrogance that causes them to believe that they can easily be victorious. In the case of the Jews, this idea will be dispelled as soon as this enemy is fully crushed.
Yidvocate Said:
what does that mean? If destroying a city of enemies keeps my son alive then for me it is entirely proportional. where is your line of proportionality, and why? When I cast my child into the picture, everything becomes clear as to what to do. Others who would cast my child into a role of sacrificial lamb would not have the amazing clarity that I have. Israel sacrifices its soldiers lives in order to satisfy an image to Jew killers. the burden is on he who starts the trouble. It could never be acceptable to me to fire a rocket at my children and then whine about their dead children. Israel should tell them this clearly, fire rockets at Jewish children and all their children will die. simple common sense.
Yidvocate Said:
were you with me when I said I would destroy whole cities rather than have my son die? the way in which the Jew killing enemy is liquidated means little to me. what is important to me is that not one life of my family or my tribe should be delivered to save millions of the enemy. Is it the choice of weapon that kills them that troubles you? the US did it at nagasaki and hiroshima and if it meant saving my sons life I would do it at tehran or anywhere. Frankly, my sons life is worth billions of theirs. that’s how I think Jews should be seeing this, as the enemy has the choice to cease his attempted genocides. when he does not cease, the important thing is to destroy him. The enemy seeks to kill our children, the euros support him in his efforts…. why hold back,do they deserve it?
@ bernard ross:
I was right there with you until you got to the WMD part. What you say makes complete sense and is a breath of fresh air! but there still even at that level has to be some semblance of “proportionality”.
I see no reason to observe treaties where the enemy does not. If the enemy attempts to attack civilians one time he must be hit in all disproportion to make it clear that everyone will die. By allowing oneself to blindly be the only one following the rules one endangers their own family, tribe and nation. I could never agree to allow any child of mine to fight for a nation who does seeks to protect the enemy at the expense of his soldiers. Rather than my son die I want entire cities of the enemy obliterated. I am biased in that regard and dont give a damn about rules or ethics of war, it is an oxymoron.
Unlike Israel, if the enemy fired ONE rocket at my children I would INTENTIONALLY seek to kill ALL his children without apology or regret. I have not one shred of doubt that if the enemy thought he could get away with it he would use WMD on my children, therefore I say use the WMD first, inc. BIO WMD. The Euro supporters of the honor killers seeks to confound the Jews into chasing their tails: urging restraint as opposed to doing to them what they would like to do to us. The Jews like fools, play along with this game.