Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Israel Must Reject Calls for ‘Proportionality’
There’s a new buzzword among the Hamas accommodationists and those worried that Israel might defend itself from terror: “Proportionality.”
When it comes to warfare, proportionality is bad policy. The victor in any fight is the one who disproportionally harms the enemy more than the enemy harms them. To wit…
Japan destroyed several US Navy assets in an outlying American territory, then captured a few further-flung territories, brutalizing the populace. America’s disproportionate response starved Japan of food, fuel, and materiel, carpet-bombed its urban cores, dropped two nukes, and killed somewhere between 1 million and 2 million of its people (estimates vary widely). Even then, half the Japanese Imperial Cabinet wanted to fight on. Following Japan’s surrender, we occupied their country, recreated their government in a Western image, imposed a new constitution, and still maintain a military presence nearly 80 years later.
Germany declared war on the UK, Russia, and the US, and devastated much of Europe. The Allies’ disproportionate response was to lay waste to Germany, flattening cities, towns, and villages; annihilating their economy and social structures; starving the people; and, as in Japan, imposing a new government, business, military, and civic life.
What are the proponents of proportionality even asking for? Would they praise Israel for breaking into Gaza without warning, taking civilian hostages, beheading babies, and livestreaming it all for laughs and celebrity approval? Would they have praised the UK for the industrial murder of 6 million random Germans? Of course not.
What would have been a proportional response to 9/11? Kabul didn’t have gleaming skyscrapers to raze or a globally interconnected economy to devastate. If the US had run amok in Kandahar slashing thousands of innocents with box cutters, I don’t see the UN praising us for proportionality.
Those demanding proportionality from Israel do not want proportionality at all. Instead, they do not want Israel to defend itself. They want Hamas to be the victor.
Asking for tit-for-tat responses guarantees a forever war.
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
Point of order – the 6 million killed by the Germans weren’t random.
You already beat me to the larger issue though – presumably “proportionality” would be for the Israelis to go in, rape some women and kill a bunch of random civilians, including babies.
The people crying for “proportionality” don’t really want proportionality, they want Israel to surrender.
Fortunately, Israel is going disproportionality medieval on their asses.
Given what happened I’d vote “salt the earth” as a proportional response.
I started writing a brief history of how Israel is continually accused of atrocities in their self-defense efforts against constant attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and assorted other Muslim aggressors. The further I got into that, the more I realize that everyone on this site certainly knows that history and total hypocrisy of those who call upon Israel, and no other nation to exercise “proportionality.” What happened last Saturday is the direct consequence of Israel doing exactly that. It is the time for total and complete annihilation of Hamas and Hezbollah if it chooses to get involved. That is the only proportional response when someone is attempting to kill you and your family.
As a concealed carry permit holder I have been through a great deal of training about what constitutes a justification for the use of deadly force. It isn’t hard to extrapolate that concept out to a situation in which your country, your family members, and all you hold dear are in imminent danger. Such a time exists and Israel has every right to take whatever actions it needs to to insure that that peril is totally eliminated. Proportionality be damned! When has any other nation been called when attacked to limit their response? I would conjecture, never.
Assuming there can be no negotiated peace, indeed.
Wrt disproportionality, just from wiki, but:
IMO the only meaningful constraint on how disproportionate is public opinion in the West. It’s a balance, and hence the propaganda war.
So, our Editor in Chief goes beyond advocating that Israel ignore the Geneva Convention. He is even critical of those who advocate that Israel follow such international law.
The specific provisions involved are part of “Protocol I” (or “Additional Protocol I”), a 1977 amendment to the Geneva Convention. According to Wikipedia, it has been ratified by 174 states, though I haven’t counted them myself. Here is the webpage of the International Committee of the Red Cross listing the parties to Protocol I, if anyone wants to check the count.
The United States signed Protocol I, but did not ratify it. Israel has neither signed, ratified, nor acceded to Protocol I. Other notable nations that have not done so are Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.
Article 51 of Protocol I addresses this point. Section 4 prohibits indiscriminate attacks, in no uncertain terms. (“Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.”) Section 5 provides that:
Article 57 of Protocol I also addresses this point. Section 2 requires the following precautions to be taken:
I have added the emphasis in these two quotes, as it is these terminology about attacks being “excessive” which is commonly expressed in the language of “proportionality.”
I’m rather a skeptic of the effectiveness of international law myself, but these are the established rules. They were established after WWII, in an attempt to prevent the type of frightfulness that occurred in that conflict.
The vast majority of the world has agreed to them, though not the US or Israel (or Iran and a few others).
It is quite ironic to see calls for disregarding the laws of civilized warfare, such as they are, in the name of opposing barbarism.
Is Hamas a party to Protocol I of the Geneva Convention? In fact, it can’t sign any of the Geneva Conventions because it is a terrorist group, not a state. So its personnel have no protection under the Conventions.
“You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!” – Jim Malone, The Untouchables
The story shown in the string in the OP is quite illustrative. The lack of self-awareness, and frank dehumanization of the opposition, by this particular author is astonishing. (I don’t mean Jon. I mean the author of the article at All Israel News, Cookie Schwaeber-Issan.)
The headline is: “Is there such a thing as a proportional response to savage attacks on innocents?”
Well, I think that the answer to this is “yes,” and I think that anyone who disagrees with this is not thinking clearly.
If, for example, the US were to wrongfully kill a Chinese civilian, and the Chinese retaliated by killing 10,000 US civilians, that would be disproportionate, I think. If, in response to an attack that killed, say, 1,000 Israeli civilians, the Israelis were to kill 1 million Palestinian civilians, that would be disproportionate.,
The persons carrying out such retaliation would be far beyond equally guilty of savage attacks on innocents. They would be more guilty, by several orders of magnitude, than the original attacker.
This is an indication that, if anything, some Israelis or their supporters are even more savage, brutal, and barbaric than Hamas.
I do understand the emotional reaction. It is, I think, precisely the same reaction that led Hamas to launch its horrible and deadly attack in the first place. Escalation is a natural human instinct, and is fairly sound from a game-theoretic basis. It is prohibited by the Bible, though, and generally frowned upon by civilized people.
Well, except when they’re whipping themselves, and others, into a homicidal frenzy.
Alas for poor humanity.
I didn’t say any of that, so I’m unclear as to what you are responding. Also, I mentioned neither “indiscriminate” nor “excessive.”
Force Gazans to drive electric vehicles.
That probably violates the Geneva Conventions.
“Proportionality” is not a new buzzword. The usual suspects have been braying it since the Seventies.
“Proportionality” is just another way leftists lie to themselves about their moral superiority. Like their claim to “support” the Palestinians. If they were interested in helping the Palestinians, they would not want them living under Hamas for starters, and would tell the truth about their barbaric, primitive religion that is keeping them from any possibility of human flourishing. Instead they lie that the Palestinians are being held back by Israel rather than their own toxic theology/ideology.
The United States signed Protocol I, but did not ratify it. Israel has neither signed, ratified, nor acceded to Protocol I. Other notable nations that have not done so are Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.
The vast majority of the world has agreed to them, though not the US or Israel (or Iran and a few others).
You could have saved a lot of typing by just posting the above sentences.
I think Israel has signed on for at least some of the Geneva Conventions, but two points:
In how many of the wars they fought since WWII have the signatories adhered to these conventions? From memory the only people actually prosecuted for war crimes have been from small countries without a patron in the Security Council.
And
Killing civilians is wrong, whether the responsible country has signed the Geneva Conventions or not. It’s a moral issue, not a legal one.
The only moral war is total war.
If you’re not in it to end it, you are just getting your own people killed.
Killing civilians is part of war, tragically. Always has been.
My understanding of the Geneva Convention(s) is that they do not limit Signatory A in fighting Non-Signatory B.
IOW you are required to play as fair as the other guy.
IOOW Not a suicide pact for one.
Yes. And it is to be avoided.
But not at all costs.
The curse of smart missiles is that people start expecting zero ‘collateral damage’.
See Vietnam.
I think we need some numbers. In solving the equation for proportionality, do they calculate that Israel will hit ’em harder or hit ’em softer than they’re doing now?
Kill as many as it takes.
Just like Germany and Japan.
Italy BTW had the sense to surrender.
The goal of Hamas, the popularly elected governing body of Gaza, is to destroy Israel utterly and drive every last Jew into the sea. It’s in their charter. They recently reinforced their position towards this goal by committing the most heinous murder spree possible against civilians without regard to their victims being elderly or infants. A proportional response from Israel would be to amend their constitution to say they are wholly committed to destroying Hamas utterly and driving every last Palestinian in Gaza into the sea, and then to act on that commitment.
Israel’s response has so far been disproportionate in the Palestinians’ favor. I hope it remains that way, for the sake of the Palestinians and the Israelis both.
It is also understood that Geneva applies to lawful combatants. Hamas is an UNLAWFUL combatant and is not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. One reason we lose wars, unlawful combatants hide behind civilians, and unlawful combatants engage in brutality is we impose pantywaist ROE on the military when it isn’t or shouldn’t be required. Jon is correct.
New?
Hardly.
Not new, but almost always applied as an attack on Israel.
Given Hamas’s action, one might say they’d auto-dehumanized already.
I remember early in the days of the Ukraine war, when I posted some pictures of a residential neighborhood that had been targeted by the Russians, how one could go on Google street view and see the pizza parlor and swing sets and signs of a normal peaceable community before they got the Putin-pounding. IIRC your reaction was a rather bloodless shrug about War and Larger Issues and the like. You know, stuff happens, c’est la guerre.
Israel warned the citizens of Gaza to evacuate, HAMAS is blocking them from leaving so they have their human shield and can have propaganda points with the useful idiots in corporate media and the west.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/idf-urges-gazans-to-evacuate-as-hamas-blocks-escape-route-our-war-is-not-with-the-people-of-gaza
How do you deal with such people?