Comments on: Gaza and the Question of the Proportionality http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/ Commentary about Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism and the conflict in the Middle East Mon, 21 May 2012 15:09:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5-RC1.1 By: Milton Alter MD PhD http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2778 Milton Alter MD PhD Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:18:02 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2778 The air attack by Israel on Gaza is clearly intended to eliminate (or at least reduce) rocket launching sites that fire indiscriminately on CIVILIAN targets. (I was a potental target in Ashkelon of no less than 3 rockets on my recent trip to Israel earlier this month). Israel openly is sorry for the any civilian deaths and collateral damage. Hamas and its supporters, on the other hand, celebrate civilian deaths and collateral damage. Which is more just? (There are deaths in either case). The air attack by Israel on Gaza is clearly intended to eliminate (or at least reduce) rocket launching sites that fire indiscriminately on CIVILIAN targets. (I was a potental target in Ashkelon of no less than 3 rockets on my recent trip to Israel earlier this month).
Israel openly is sorry for the any civilian deaths and collateral damage. Hamas and its supporters, on the other hand, celebrate civilian deaths and collateral damage. Which is more just? (There are deaths in either case).

]]> By: Paula http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2749 Paula Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:56:18 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2749 Proportionality: international law, international practice, Hamas' behavior, Israeli conduct http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2008/12/proportionality-international-law-and.html ---------------- "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand." Proportionality: international law, international practice, Hamas’ behavior, Israeli conduct

http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2008/12/proportionality-international-law-and.html

—————-
“This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand.”

]]> By: Michelle Sieff http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2745 Michelle Sieff Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:44:20 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2745 Hello-- for those of you following this strand, read my own blog post today which also addresses the application of international law to this conflict. Thank you Fabian for your clarification. Jus ad Bellum. Exactly. Hamas does not even make it through the first hurdle in legitimating its actions under international law. But if Robbins is still reading, I want to respond, since I spent some time thinking about why this issue matters so much. Many of those who invoke international law to criticize Israel are people who do not "hate" Israel. They are not radical islamist, anti-semitic Hamas leaders. They are well-intentioned human rights activists, international lawyers, and people of a liberal persuasion. And the fact is, when groups like Human Rights Watch put out reports--like the ones they issued after the Lebanon war--accusing Israel of "war crimes", and failing to even consider the application of the Genocide Convention to the conflict, well they help to undermine Israel's legitimacy. And so, one does need to consider and respond to these arguments. And it's not all sophistry. There are facts. In my mind, it is impossible to make a reasonable case that Israel is pursuing genocide against Palestinians, when you consider that the legal finding of genocide turns on intent. Intent cannot simply be extrapolated from the number or pattern of killings. One must show--through political speeches, documents, statements--the intent to exterminate a group. Now I am not saying that Hamas should be prosecuted in the ICC for genocide. Just that it is important to raise questions about which international laws are applied to this conflict; to recognize that these are political choices; and to recognize that perhaps we need to shift the debate on international law to defend Israel's legitimacy. Hello–
for those of you following this strand, read my own blog post today which also addresses the application of international law to this conflict.

Thank you Fabian for your clarification. Jus ad Bellum. Exactly. Hamas does not even make it through the first hurdle in legitimating its actions under international law.

But if Robbins is still reading, I want to respond, since I spent some time thinking about why this issue matters so much. Many of those who invoke international law to criticize Israel are people who do not “hate” Israel. They are not radical islamist, anti-semitic Hamas leaders. They are well-intentioned human rights activists, international lawyers, and people of a liberal persuasion. And the fact is, when groups like Human Rights Watch put out reports–like the ones they issued after the Lebanon war–accusing Israel of “war crimes”, and failing to even consider the application of the Genocide Convention to the conflict, well they help to undermine Israel’s legitimacy. And so, one does need to consider and respond to these arguments. And it’s not all sophistry. There are facts. In my mind, it is impossible to make a reasonable case that Israel is pursuing genocide against Palestinians, when you consider that the legal finding of genocide turns on intent. Intent cannot simply be extrapolated from the number or pattern of killings. One must show–through political speeches, documents, statements–the intent to exterminate a group. Now I am not saying that Hamas should be prosecuted in the ICC for genocide. Just that it is important to raise questions about which international laws are applied to this conflict; to recognize that these are political choices; and to recognize that perhaps we need to shift the debate on international law to defend Israel’s legitimacy.

]]> By: Fabian from Israel http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2741 Fabian from Israel Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:54:02 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2741 Oh, damned preview! sorry: "jus ad bellum" not "jus ad bello". Oh, damned preview!

sorry: “jus ad bellum” not “jus ad bello”.

]]> By: Fabian from Israel http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2740 Fabian from Israel Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:53:22 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2740 sorry: "just ad bellum" not "just ad bello". sorry: “just ad bellum” not “just ad bello”.

]]> By: Fabian from Israel http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2739 Fabian from Israel Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:51:55 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2739 "war theory and the related Geneva Conventions assume that both parties have legitimate political objectives. But if one party–namely Hamas–aspires to eradicate Israel–then is the application of international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions reasonable?" Hi Michelle. There are two aspects to the rules that someone concerned to apply the theory of Just War needs to take into account, and they are independent (with some special cases that are exceptions which are not relevant here). One is: Which one of the sides is fighting a just war? (jus ad bello). It relates to what you mentioned, what are the political objectives of Hamas in this war? The other is jus in bello: Are the sides fighting the war justly? And I wrote about this last aspect in my post. But they are independent. Here it is obvious that Hamas is not fighting a just war, since his political objective is the destruction of a country, and because in the pursuit of this goal it has started the aggression with uninterrupted barrages of rockets since the year 2005 at least. And it is obviously not fighting justly, since each and every military action by Hamas is a war crime (launching rockets towards civilians is all they do). Best, Fabian “war theory and the related Geneva Conventions assume that both parties have legitimate political objectives. But if one party–namely Hamas–aspires to eradicate Israel–then is the application of international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions reasonable?”

Hi Michelle. There are two aspects to the rules that someone concerned to apply the theory of Just War needs to take into account, and they are independent (with some special cases that are exceptions which are not relevant here).
One is: Which one of the sides is fighting a just war? (jus ad bello). It relates to what you mentioned, what are the political objectives of Hamas in this war?
The other is jus in bello: Are the sides fighting the war justly? And I wrote about this last aspect in my post.
But they are independent.
Here it is obvious that Hamas is not fighting a just war, since his political objective is the destruction of a country, and because in the pursuit of this goal it has started the aggression with uninterrupted barrages of rockets since the year 2005 at least.
And it is obviously not fighting justly, since each and every military action by Hamas is a war crime (launching rockets towards civilians is all they do).
Best,
Fabian

]]> By: David Adler http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2733 David Adler Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:55:43 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2733 Robbins - In my very first comment I acknowledged that "raising the point about proportionality is fair." The change in tone you detect on my part is nonexistent. Robbins - In my very first comment I acknowledged that “raising the point about proportionality is fair.” The change in tone you detect on my part is nonexistent.

]]> By: Robbins http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2729 Robbins Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:31:50 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2729 David you have now changed your own tone. Earlier your veiw was hostile to Fabina and now you acknowledge that he raised a valid point. Tell us how you would deal with continued attacks by Hamas on civilians? How do you deal with an orgnanization which quotes from the Elders of Zion in its founding charter? Being uncomfortable is not a policy perscripion. David you have now changed your own tone. Earlier your veiw was hostile to Fabina and now you acknowledge that he raised a valid point.

Tell us how you would deal with continued attacks by Hamas on civilians?

How do you deal with an orgnanization which quotes from the Elders of Zion in its founding charter?

Being uncomfortable is not a policy perscripion.

]]> By: David Adler http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2728 David Adler Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:55:23 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2728 One can acknowledge that there are voices consumed by hatred of Israel and still be uncomfortable, to say the least, with Israel's actions in Gaza. I'm with modernityblog - what's the plan here? One can acknowledge that there are voices consumed by hatred of Israel and still be uncomfortable, to say the least, with Israel’s actions in Gaza.

I’m with modernityblog - what’s the plan here?

]]> By: Robbins http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/gaza-and-the-question-of-the-proportionality/#comment-2724 Robbins Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:54:18 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=752#comment-2724 Michelle Sieff “Just war theory and the related Geneva Conventions assume that both parties have legitimate political objectives…. Maybe we are better served by applying the 1948 Genocide Convention to this conflict, since one party–Hamas–arguably intends the genocide of Jews/Israel.” I see no advantage in substituting the Genocide convention for the question of disproportionate force in order to adjudicate questions of moral conduct in this conflict. Pro Hamas and anti-Israel voices will use the argument by claiming that Israel is planning genocide against Palestinians. Such arguments have already been raised even though they have no proof that such is the case. In other words, we are back to the same problem. If we want to talk dispassionately and objectively about moral conduct, we will need to acknowledge that there are many voices out there that are consumed by a hatred of Israel. This is what Fabian made clear and he is right to have done so. We can’t get away from this fact, Michelle. Michelle Sieff “Just war theory and the related Geneva Conventions assume that both parties have legitimate political objectives…. Maybe we are better served by applying the 1948 Genocide Convention to this conflict, since one party–Hamas–arguably intends the genocide of Jews/Israel.”

I see no advantage in substituting the Genocide convention for the question of disproportionate force in order to adjudicate questions of moral conduct in this conflict.

Pro Hamas and anti-Israel voices will use the argument by claiming that Israel is planning genocide against Palestinians. Such arguments have already been raised even though they have no proof that such is the case.

In other words, we are back to the same problem. If we want to talk dispassionately and objectively about moral conduct, we will need to acknowledge that there are many voices out there that are consumed by a hatred of Israel.

This is what Fabian made clear and he is right to have done so. We can’t get away from this fact, Michelle.

]]>