A proportionate response
Don Quixote on Jul 17 2006 at 9:03 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
DQ here. I’ve been silent about the recent events in the Middle East because Bookworm knows the topic far better than I do and is doing a fine job of blogging about it. I do want to make a couple of suggestions, though.
I keep hearing calls warning Israel not to make a “disproportionate” response. I urge everyone who hears anyone say this to ask the speaker what they would consider to be a “proportionate” response. If they suggest that Israel consult the UN, point them to the UN reaction to the current actions, which opposes Israeli targeting of civilians without opposing Arab targeting of civilians. More importantly, if they suggest negotiations, ask who they would negotiate with. Israel is surrounded by entities who have sworn to drive them into the sea. Unless these entities are ready to change their tune and support Israel’s right to exist (an extremely unlikely event) there is little to talk to them about. There are, of course, such things as moderate Arabs, but how much pull do they have with Hamas or Hezbollah? If they suggest Israel do just enough to continue the current long-running standoff, ask how that standoff benefits Israel.
Most importantly, whenever you hear anyone oppose what Israel is doing, ask them what ultimate outcome they would like to see in the Middle East and how they think Israel can go about achieving that end. Honestly, I have my doubts that Israel’s current goal, disabling Hezbollah, is even possible. But I have no better solution to offerand would trust the judgment of the Israelis themselves before I would attempt to impose my own. I do know that I agree with Israel’s goal (a peaceful Middle East, with a place for Jews and Arabs) and do not agree with Hezbollah’s goal (the distruction of Israel). Everything else is just a discussion of tactics.
None of this will be new to regular Bookworm readers, but I think it bears repeating. In a prior post, Bookworm takes Israel to task for losing the media wars. I think that is partly because Israel and its supporters often fail to challenge the most basic assumptions of their opponents.
Finally, I can’t resist one comparison. I heard a Syrian official last night going on, basically without challenge, about Israeli killing of innocent civilians in Lebanon and ignoring that it has been an Arab tactic to intentionally target innocent civilians for many years. I was reminded of an earlier comment by the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations (sorry I can’t find the exact quote) that said, in effect, “Every time Israel kills an Arab child it is a mistake and a tragedy. Every time the Arabs kill an Israel child it is a victory and cause for celebration.” It does not take Bookworm’s knowledge or wisdom to see which side of this battle all Americans should be on and it is not those who target children and raise their own children to be human bombs.
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “A proportionate response”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I find the whole doctrine of “proportional” response to be thoroughly repugnant. War is waged to be won and any country that hamstrings their military in order to achieve some perverted concept of fairness deserves to lose. I, for one, would applaud Israel for unleashing any and all of their arsenal to decisively annihilate these terrorist groups, the U.N. and foreign opinion, notwithstanding.
Neo made a similar point here
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/07/danger-of-proportionality-in-war.html
For an example of when it is appropriate and right to use proportionality, go here and look at the bottom section on proportionality.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm
When I was in the military (during the Iranian hostage crisis), we used to have a saying, “it’s as easy to drill for oil through glass as it is through sand.”
The proportionality discussion in Neo’s link is strictly philosophical and while it may provide subject matter for intellectual banter over cocktails, I believe it to be pure sophistry. There is significant wisdom to be gained from the old saying, “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day” which was possibly the impetus for another old military saying, “kill ‘em all and let God sort them out.”
I’m tired of listening to the threats from this-or-that group about what they will do to Israel as well as the incessant cluck-clucking from the U.N., Europe, and even the U.S. about Israel being “mindful” of the consequences for her actions. I adamantly support Israel’s prerogative to use ANY and ALL means at her disposal to instill real fear into her enemies; perhaps the credible fear of massive retaliation by Israel may ultimately prove to be the best incentive for peace.
I see to problems with the doctrine of proportionate response: no one can actually define it and its give the benefit of controlling the crisis for the side that is being the aggressor.
What would be a proportional to blowing up the WTC? What would be proportional to a computer virus attack that paralyze the economy of one country?
Why should the side that strike first have the power to decide how much to escalate the violence? why to provide such advantage to organization like the Hezbulla?
When I hear the European demand to proportionate response from Israel I really wonder about their motives.
There’s two kinds of proportionality. Retaliation and to accomplish a goal. The former is useless while the latter is useful.