Let’s talk about proportionality--or, more important, about its negative form. “Disproportionate” is the favorite critical term in current discussions of the morality of war. But most of the people who use it don’t know what it means in international law or in just war theory. Curiously, they don’t realize that it has been used far more often to justify than to criticize what we might think of as excessive violence. It is a dangerous idea.
Proportionality doesn’t mean “tit for tat,” as in the family feud. The Hatfields kill three McCoys, so the McCoys must kill three Hatfields. More than three, and they are breaking the rules of the feud, where proportionality means symmetry. The use of the term is different with regard to war, because war isn’t an act of retribution; it isn’t a backward-looking activity, and the law of even-Steven doesn’t apply.
Like it or not, war is always purposive in character; it has a goal, an end-in-view. The end is often misconceived, but not always: to defeat the Nazis, to stop the dominos from falling, to rescue Kuwait, to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Proportionality implies a measure, and the measure here is the value of the end-in-view. How many civilian deaths are “not disproportionate to” the value of defeating the Nazis? Answer that question, put that way, and you are likely to justify too much--and that is the way proportionality arguments have worked over most of their history.
The case is the same with arguments focused on particular acts of war. Consider the example of an American air raid on a German tank factory in World War Two that kills a number of civilians living nearby. The justification goes like this: The number of civilians killed is “not disproportionate to” the damage those tanks would do in days and months to come if they continued to roll off the assembly line. That is a good argument, and it does indeed justify some number of the unintended civilian deaths. But what number? How do you set an upper limit, given that there could be many tanks and much damage?
Because proportionality arguments are forward-looking, and because we don’t have positive, but only speculative, knowledge about the future, we need to be very cautious in using this justification. The commentators and critics using it today, however, are not being cautious at all; they are not making any kind of measured judgment, not even a speculative kind. “Disproportionate” violence for them is simply violence they don’t like, or it is violence committed by people they don’t like.
So Israel’s Gaza war was called “disproportionate” on day one, before anyone knew very much about how many people had been killed or who they were. The standard proportionality argument, looking ahead as these arguments rightly do, would come from the other side. Before the six months of cease-fire (when the fire never ceased), Hamas had only primitive and home-made rockets that could hit nearby small towns in Israel. By the end of the six months, they had far more advanced rockets, no longer home-made, that can hit cities 30 or 40 kilometers away. Another six months of the same kind of cease-fire, which is what many nations at the UN demanded, and Hamas would have rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv. And this is an organization explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel. How many civilian casualties are “not disproportionate to” the value of avoiding the rocketing of Tel Aviv? How many civilian casualties would America’s leaders think were “not disproportionate to” the value of avoiding the rocketing of New York?
The answer, again, is too many. We have to make proportionality calculations, but those calculations won’t provide the most important moral limits on warfare.
These are the questions that point us toward the important limits. First, before the war begins: Are there other ways of achieving the end-in-view? In the Israeli case, this question has shaped the intense political arguments that have been going on since the withdrawal from Gaza: What is the right way to stop the rocket attacks? How do you guarantee that Hamas won’t acquire more and more advanced rocketry? Many policies have been advocated, and many have been tried.
Second, once the fighting begins, who is responsible for putting civilians in the line of fire? It is worth recalling that in the Lebanon war of 2006, Kofi Annan, then the Secretary-General of the UN, though he criticized Israel for a “disproportionate” response to Hezbollah’s raid, also criticized Hezbollah--not just for firing rockets at civilians, but also for firing them from heavily populated civilian areas, so that any response would inevitably kill or injure civilians. I don’t think that the new Secretary General has made the same criticism of Hamas, but Hamas clearly has a similar policy.
The third question: Is the attacking army acting in concrete ways to minimize the risks they impose on civilians? Are they taking risks themselves for that purpose? Armies choose tactics that are more or less protective of the civilian population, and we judge them by their choices. I haven’t heard this question asked about the Gaza war by commentators and critics in the Western media; it is a hard question, since any answer would have to take into account the tactical choices of Hamas.
In fact, all three are hard questions, but they are the ones that have to be asked and answered if we are to make serious moral judgments about Gaza--or any other war. The question “Is it disproportionate?” isn’t hard at all for people eager to say yes, but asked honestly, the answer will often be no, and that answer may justify more than we ought to justify. Asking the hard questions and worrying about the right answers--these are the moral obligations of commentators and critics, who are supposed to enlighten us about the moral obligations of soldiers. There hasn’t been much enlightenment these last days.
Michael Walzer is a contributing editor at The New Republic. This piece also appears on the website for Dissent Magazine.
By Michael Walzer
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (59)
Perhaps Israel could devise a system of accurately determining where each Hamas rocket was fired from. Then Israel could fire a rocket at the spot from whence came the Hamas rocket. Accurate rockets, I note, must be most expensive. If Israel decided not to spend money on accurate rockets, it could simply fire a rocket whenever Hamas fired one. Random damage would occur in Gaza as it does in Israel when a Hamas rocket lands.
When large Hamas (maybe, secretly, Hezbollah or openly Iranian) rockets hit Tel Aviv, then Israel can fire larger warheads at Gaza.
What measures propotionality? The size of the explosive warhead or the number of people killed by the explosio ... view full comment
Perhaps Israel could devise a system of accurately determining where each Hamas rocket was fired from. Then Israel could fire a rocket at the spot from whence came the Hamas rocket. Accurate rockets, I note, must be most expensive. If Israel decided not to spend money on accurate rockets, it could simply fire a rocket whenever Hamas fired one. Random damage would occur in Gaza as it does in Israel when a Hamas rocket lands.
When large Hamas (maybe, secretly, Hezbollah or openly Iranian) rockets hit Tel Aviv, then Israel can fire larger warheads at Gaza.
What measures propotionality? The size of the explosive warhead or the number of people killed by the explosion? If it is the latter, how would Israel know how many Gaza residents would die from a rocket aimed merely at Gaza in general--like Hamas rockets aimed any old place in Israel?
Hamas uses Gazan youths to fire the rockets. That means Hamas wages war without using uniformed soldiers.
Can Israel use ordinary civilians to fire rockets at Gaza to maintain proportionality?
The whole ridiculous idea is put forward by people who want Hamas-like Muslim Arabs to have open access to Israel. The resulting imposition of Sharia would put Israeli Jews and Christians under much greater disability than are Israeli Arabs and Christians today. Proportionality advocates should first undergo life as non-Muslims under Sharia.
You could have truncated this "scientific" approach to Israel's retaliation in Gaza by simply noting, "what are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"
george
You could have truncated this "scientific" approach to Israel's retaliation in Gaza by simply noting, "what are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"
george
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
Thank you, Prof. Walzer. I always appreciate your writings on just war's application to current events.
George Walton--I have read your comments on this site, and your flippant dismissal of Michael Walzer is just your latest display of arrogant, self-satisfied ignorance.
Thank you, Prof. Walzer. I always appreciate your writings on just war's application to current events.
George Walton--I have read your comments on this site, and your flippant dismissal of Michael Walzer is just your latest display of arrogant, self-satisfied ignorance.
The lying eyes of george walton have never seen a dead Jew. And when they have, it has filled his black soul with joy.
The lying eyes of george walton have never seen a dead Jew. And when they have, it has filled his black soul with joy.
When my wife and I was in law school we went to a meeting of a group that was promoting what would become International Criminal Court. My wife said it all seemed like a means to put away the losers of the conflict.
The more desperate your condition the more likely you are going to cut corners. Like the use of child soldiers. Sure we would like to end the use of child soldiers and many who use them are monsters who also use children as sex slaves. But when barbarians come over the hill there is no one too young to fight. I had a friend who lived in England during WWII. One day her father brought home small pistols for her and her sisters. She was five at the time. But they seriously ... view full comment
When my wife and I was in law school we went to a meeting of a group that was promoting what would become International Criminal Court. My wife said it all seemed like a means to put away the losers of the conflict.
The more desperate your condition the more likely you are going to cut corners. Like the use of child soldiers. Sure we would like to end the use of child soldiers and many who use them are monsters who also use children as sex slaves. But when barbarians come over the hill there is no one too young to fight. I had a friend who lived in England during WWII. One day her father brought home small pistols for her and her sisters. She was five at the time. But they seriously trained with the guns every time he could come up with some ammunition.
Similarly, I am sure that Hamas would love to target Israeli military targets but they don't have technology to do it. So in effect they do what they can.
We have expanded the concept of war crimes so far that is has become a meaningless farce. We have defined terrorism so widely that includes burning down empty buildings. Should we dig up the participants of the Boston Tea Party, clearly a terrorist act under current American law and hang them a la Cromwell.
The legalism surrounding war has become a mere joke. This is one area where old Bush might be onto something is the idea that laws of war have become quaint.
They should in fact be done away with. They don't seem to have any deterrent effect. And, in a well run army, they are unnecessary.
Why not torture prisoners of war, because it doesn't work and discourages the enemy from surrendering thereby increasing the cost of the conflict.
Why not attack civilian targets, because it encourages the enemy to respond in kind and discourages their surrender, increasing the cost of the conflict.
Amazing, in the time where free markets are at their most suspect in years a market outlook on the prosecution of war may actually be more effective at reducing its horrors.
When Israel uses legalistic justifications for their actions it ignores the fact that it doesn't matter what the Israelis think, or what Americans think, it only matters what the Palestinians think. Because they are people that Israel is trying to influence by their actions.
Now I have to add Michael Walzer to my list of fools to avoid.
You speak of proportionality as though violence of the sort Israel is doing is the only possible response. You actually have column space and you cannot put forth an intelligent suggestion.
This is where Israel starts losing support; people advocating or excusing vile behavior.
My neighbor's dog bit me and could have killed me, so I stabbed their 12-year-old daughter in the face, and then cut off her mother's arms. That dog should not bite me any more.
Now I have to add Michael Walzer to my list of fools to avoid.
You speak of proportionality as though violence of the sort Israel is doing is the only possible response. You actually have column space and you cannot put forth an intelligent suggestion.
This is where Israel starts losing support; people advocating or excusing vile behavior.
My neighbor's dog bit me and could have killed me, so I stabbed their 12-year-old daughter in the face, and then cut off her mother's arms. That dog should not bite me any more.
Every Kassam loaded with ball bearings raining randomly in Israel from Hamas responded with rockets loaded with ball bearings raining randomly on civilians in Gaza. This would be proportionate. This is not what the critics want at all. They want Hamas that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel to be protected and Israel not defending itself. In short they are run of the mill anti-Semites. No other country would have held up for so long before responding like Israel did.
Every Kassam loaded with ball bearings raining randomly in Israel from Hamas responded with rockets loaded with ball bearings raining randomly on civilians in Gaza. This would be proportionate. This is not what the critics want at all. They want Hamas that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel to be protected and Israel not defending itself. In short they are run of the mill anti-Semites. No other country would have held up for so long before responding like Israel did.
Good and thought provoking article. I struggle with the purpose of the ground offensive? What can be accomplished. If the goal is to wipe out Hamas' ability to fire rockets into Israel than this effort is unlikely to be successful. And the costs seem so high, in human life and in lost political capital. When Hamas fires rockets, Israel must fire back more strongly, and then stop. It seems that Israel's assumption is that no matter what they do, the world will be against them and as such, they might as well go as far as their hawks want. Beware of the unintended consequences - more radicalized youth, crushed Palestinian economy and less security. No easy answers but this doesn't seem ... view full comment
Good and thought provoking article. I struggle with the purpose of the ground offensive? What can be accomplished. If the goal is to wipe out Hamas' ability to fire rockets into Israel than this effort is unlikely to be successful. And the costs seem so high, in human life and in lost political capital. When Hamas fires rockets, Israel must fire back more strongly, and then stop. It seems that Israel's assumption is that no matter what they do, the world will be against them and as such, they might as well go as far as their hawks want. Beware of the unintended consequences - more radicalized youth, crushed Palestinian economy and less security. No easy answers but this doesn't seem to be the right one.
One's own suffering almost always seems worse than the suffering of others -- especially when the "other" is someone you don't like very much to begin with. That's why "proportional" responses inevitably lead to escalation. You always have to hit the enemy harder than he hit you to satisfy your sense of outrage.
The real moral question should be whether or not a military objective is being pursued in a way that minimizes the suffering of innocents. I can't say whether Israel is doing so or not because I really don't know. However, it certainly looks to me like neither Hamas nor Israel is giving that moral question much thought at all.
One's own suffering almost always seems worse than the suffering of others -- especially when the "other" is someone you don't like very much to begin with. That's why "proportional" responses inevitably lead to escalation. You always have to hit the enemy harder than he hit you to satisfy your sense of outrage.
The real moral question should be whether or not a military objective is being pursued in a way that minimizes the suffering of innocents. I can't say whether Israel is doing so or not because I really don't know. However, it certainly looks to me like neither Hamas nor Israel is giving that moral question much thought at all.
Very salient points, but intellectually limited. The international community must force Israel to understand it is only permitted to launch randomly thousands of rockets at palestinian population centers. Israel must begin immediately to teach its children that their neighbors are the sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys and therefore should eliminated. Israel must begin to evict its more than a million Arab citizens so that Jews and Arabs no longer live in the same country. Israeli schools, universities and hospitals must stop admitting Arabs. The list of requirements for Israel under the theory of proportionality is very long and will take some time to implement; surely everyone agr ... view full comment
Very salient points, but intellectually limited. The international community must force Israel to understand it is only permitted to launch randomly thousands of rockets at palestinian population centers. Israel must begin immediately to teach its children that their neighbors are the sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys and therefore should eliminated. Israel must begin to evict its more than a million Arab citizens so that Jews and Arabs no longer live in the same country. Israeli schools, universities and hospitals must stop admitting Arabs. The list of requirements for Israel under the theory of proportionality is very long and will take some time to implement; surely everyone agrees the items above are just the starting point.
This article and the responses above don't factor the calculus of Israel's occupation of Gaza into the equation. Israel has occupied Gaza for many years. They have, in-effect, imposed sub-human standards of living on Gazans for all of those years. Shouldn't the lives Gazans have lived for years be factored into this conflicts proportionality equation. The destruction Israel has rained on Gazans, since 1948, through war and occupation, has cost more/saved less life than Palestinian terrorism has.
This article and the responses above don't factor the calculus of Israel's occupation of Gaza into the equation. Israel has occupied Gaza for many years. They have, in-effect, imposed sub-human standards of living on Gazans for all of those years. Shouldn't the lives Gazans have lived for years be factored into this conflicts proportionality equation. The destruction Israel has rained on Gazans, since 1948, through war and occupation, has cost more/saved less life than Palestinian terrorism has.
Why is it that disportionality comes up only almost only when Israel tries to defend itself? During WWII
when V1 and V2 rockets slammed into London no one talked about German civilian deaths or disportionate actions. When america invaded Afghanastan after 9/11
no one talked about a disportionate response.
When Sunni and Shite moslems blow up each other's mosques with worshippers inside the Arab world doesn't raise its collective voice. The bottom line
is that Hamas was voted into power the same way the
Nazis were voted into power. Both German and Gazan civilian populationswere aware of the agenda of these repective parties, which was to destroy the Jews.
The des ... view full comment
Why is it that disportionality comes up only almost only when Israel tries to defend itself? During WWII
when V1 and V2 rockets slammed into London no one talked about German civilian deaths or disportionate actions. When america invaded Afghanastan after 9/11
no one talked about a disportionate response.
When Sunni and Shite moslems blow up each other's mosques with worshippers inside the Arab world doesn't raise its collective voice. The bottom line
is that Hamas was voted into power the same way the
Nazis were voted into power. Both German and Gazan civilian populationswere aware of the agenda of these repective parties, which was to destroy the Jews.
The destruction of Israel is the stated goal of Hamas.
But this time the Jews have bigger sticks.
The citizens of Gaza freely voted for Hamas so what
did they expect to happen? Israel's response is disportionate, disportionately mild. Any other country faced with terrorists putting their entire population at risk would have a no prisoners taken total destruction of their enemy.
To hell with your sophistry about proportionality. This is a disgusting article. The Israeli attack on Gaza is barbarism. It's time you people came out and said so.
To hell with your sophistry about proportionality. This is a disgusting article. The Israeli attack on Gaza is barbarism. It's time you people came out and said so.
Abel-
Walzer has taken the time to write a reasoned explanation of proportionality in warfare, and your answer is a non-sequitur? Cute.
What the hell does that have to do with the post? Your reply is Palin-esque. If you do not like Israel's actions, then point out the size of America's defense spending? Further, does the Borgen Project number include the necessary military cost of removing those leaders that starve their own citizens? Why not compare the cost to end world hunger with the price of a spending on private education in France, or the price that Russia spends in vodka.
There is no doubt that Israel is and has mistreated the Palestinians, but the Palestinians (and the rest of ... view full comment
Abel-
Walzer has taken the time to write a reasoned explanation of proportionality in warfare, and your answer is a non-sequitur? Cute.
What the hell does that have to do with the post? Your reply is Palin-esque. If you do not like Israel's actions, then point out the size of America's defense spending? Further, does the Borgen Project number include the necessary military cost of removing those leaders that starve their own citizens? Why not compare the cost to end world hunger with the price of a spending on private education in France, or the price that Russia spends in vodka.
There is no doubt that Israel is and has mistreated the Palestinians, but the Palestinians (and the rest of the Middle East) surely understand that Israel is not going away, and that they will beat anyone that tells them that cannot exist. Given your grasp of the situation, can you figure why a Jewish state would have an issue with being told that cannot exist?
Disgusting article,like so many others that seek to set up a numerical or objective
equivalence between various episodes of blood-letting.
Israel is killing innocent civilian people, including women, chidren and the elderly.
That is barbarism.
You can't have it both ways - either it's barbarism when Hamas do it AND when Israel do it or
neither is barbarism, and both can be dealt with in this despicable actuarial manner.
The only actuarial commentary that is relevant here is that when Israel kills, it makes damn
sure Palestinian casualties are tens or hundreds of times more than its own.
Disgusting article,like so many others that seek to set up a numerical or objective
equivalence between various episodes of blood-letting.
Israel is killing innocent civilian people, including women, chidren and the elderly.
That is barbarism.
You can't have it both ways - either it's barbarism when Hamas do it AND when Israel do it or
neither is barbarism, and both can be dealt with in this despicable actuarial manner.
The only actuarial commentary that is relevant here is that when Israel kills, it makes damn
sure Palestinian casualties are tens or hundreds of times more than its own.
Mr. Walzer asks some excellent questions. Among the questions he might in the future want to include in his brilliant moral inquiry into the question of proportionality is whether the goal of ending Israel's savage blockade of Gaza -- Israel 'withdrew' in a nominal sense, but its effective control over Gaza continued -- makes Hamas's rocket fire "proportional" to the goal of rescuing a starving devastated Palestinian civilian population from further harm.
Clearly, by Walzer's soul-searching moral criteria, Hamas should be 'doing more,' getting those rockets targeted at Tel Aviv, however distasteful and regretful unintended civilian deaths might be. One wonders why Hamas's 'critics in the We ... view full comment
Mr. Walzer asks some excellent questions. Among the questions he might in the future want to include in his brilliant moral inquiry into the question of proportionality is whether the goal of ending Israel's savage blockade of Gaza -- Israel 'withdrew' in a nominal sense, but its effective control over Gaza continued -- makes Hamas's rocket fire "proportional" to the goal of rescuing a starving devastated Palestinian civilian population from further harm.
Clearly, by Walzer's soul-searching moral criteria, Hamas should be 'doing more,' getting those rockets targeted at Tel Aviv, however distasteful and regretful unintended civilian deaths might be. One wonders why Hamas's 'critics in the West' aren't enlightening us on the difficult moral calculus Hamas must so obviously face.
The thought that BOTH the Hamas rocket fire and the Israeli military attacks are unjustified seems not to have entered Mr. Walzer's nuanced mind.
Michael Walzer accurately describes the complexity of deciding, in a particular case, whether a military response is proportionate. It may help to think in terms of presumptions--and in this case, the presumption must be that Israel's response is not proportionate. The ratio of Israelis to Palestinians killed is easily large enough to erase any doubts about which side has the burden of proof for establishing whether the response is morally justified or not. Namely, Israel.
Michael Walzer accurately describes the complexity of deciding, in a particular case, whether a military response is proportionate. It may help to think in terms of presumptions--and in this case, the presumption must be that Israel's response is not proportionate. The ratio of Israelis to Palestinians killed is easily large enough to erase any doubts about which side has the burden of proof for establishing whether the response is morally justified or not. Namely, Israel.
Hamas are killers and liars. They must be removed. Co-existence is not possible. They won't agree to denounce violence. It is their raison d'etre.
Proportionality would be possible only in a perfect world.
Protecting Israel and it's citizens is the primary responsibility of the Israeli government, just as the US government was obligated to pursue the perpatrators of 9/11 and India must deal with the Mumbai massacres.
Hamas are killers and liars. They must be removed. Co-existence is not possible. They won't agree to denounce violence. It is their raison d'etre.
Proportionality would be possible only in a perfect world.
Protecting Israel and it's citizens is the primary responsibility of the Israeli government, just as the US government was obligated to pursue the perpatrators of 9/11 and India must deal with the Mumbai massacres.
Palestinians are living the lives imposed by their rulers. Arafat stole billions meant for his people. The people continue to be ill-served by their leaders.
By the way, their are real problems ignored in Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc. and Muslims continue to kill in Thailand, Philipines, etc. bankrolled by regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. The 'liberal media" can't seem to get the "root causes" right.
Palestinians are living the lives imposed by their rulers. Arafat stole billions meant for his people. The people continue to be ill-served by their leaders.
By the way, their are real problems ignored in Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc. and Muslims continue to kill in Thailand, Philipines, etc. bankrolled by regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. The 'liberal media" can't seem to get the "root causes" right.
Excellent column by Mr. Walzer. Where was his likes to stand up and defend the poor Nazis who proportionately incinerated threatening Jewish babies...
Excellent column by Mr. Walzer. Where was his likes to stand up and defend the poor Nazis who proportionately incinerated threatening Jewish babies...
What the critics of Israel don't seem to undertand is that the members of Hamas are vicious, bloodthirsty, terrorists who seek to imitate their hero Adolf Hitler and perpetrate a second Holocaust. Or maybe they do understand that, and agree with Hamas's program. In either case those of us of the anti-fascist persuasion have only thing to say to Israel: Go for it! In the stuggle against absolute Evil it is victory or death.
What the critics of Israel don't seem to undertand is that the members of Hamas are vicious, bloodthirsty, terrorists who seek to imitate their hero Adolf Hitler and perpetrate a second Holocaust. Or maybe they do understand that, and agree with Hamas's program. In either case those of us of the anti-fascist persuasion have only thing to say to Israel: Go for it! In the stuggle against absolute Evil it is victory or death.
Hamas are demented terrorist pigs seeking to emulate their hero Adolf Hitler and perpetrate a second Holocaust. The sooner Israel kills every one of those bastards the better.
As for the civilian casualties of course there are civilian casualities, when Hamas uses the population as human shields. Note that Hamas makes no effort at civil defense. Hamas seeks to maximize Palestinian civilian casualities for propaganda purposes.
Hamas are demented terrorist pigs seeking to emulate their hero Adolf Hitler and perpetrate a second Holocaust. The sooner Israel kills every one of those bastards the better.
As for the civilian casualties of course there are civilian casualities, when Hamas uses the population as human shields. Note that Hamas makes no effort at civil defense. Hamas seeks to maximize Palestinian civilian casualities for propaganda purposes.
"Proportionality" is never applied to the United States, because a "christian" army can do no wrong.
Israel is "barbaric"? Really? Do they kidnap Palestinians and murder them on video? Do they lob rockets into civilian centers to provoke military reactions from Hamas? Do they send suicide bombers to Palestine to blow up buses, discoteques, or markets? The answer to all of these questions is "no" the Israeli's have never engaged in any of these truly barbaric practices. Yet, they get slandered and blamed for protecting themselves against these practices.
Anti-Semitism runs deep. And, for those of you who don't read history ... it was the Romans who killed Jesus.
"Proportionality" is never applied to the United States, because a "christian" army can do no wrong.
Israel is "barbaric"? Really? Do they kidnap Palestinians and murder them on video? Do they lob rockets into civilian centers to provoke military reactions from Hamas? Do they send suicide bombers to Palestine to blow up buses, discoteques, or markets? The answer to all of these questions is "no" the Israeli's have never engaged in any of these truly barbaric practices. Yet, they get slandered and blamed for protecting themselves against these practices.
Anti-Semitism runs deep. And, for those of you who don't read history ... it was the Romans who killed Jesus.
"My neighbor's dog bit me and could have killed me, so I stabbed their 12-year-old daughter in the face, and then cut off her mother's arms. That dog should not bite me any more" Ackerman...
Ackerman, the vileness that you write of is in YOU, you bitch! Why would you go after your neighbour's child you pariah, or your neighbour's wife you mutt?
The truth is Israel is killing misbegotten dogs, and every one of them will have it's day, It's coming, soon!
Just go to Gaza yourself you spayed cannine and take a look. Where are the vaunted 15,000 Hamas pack of pitbulls? Don't they want to come out to run eagerly and fetch the bone that Israel is throwing them?
"My neighbor's dog bit me and could have killed me, so I stabbed their 12-year-old daughter in the face, and then cut off her mother's arms. That dog should not bite me any more" Ackerman...
Ackerman, the vileness that you write of is in YOU, you bitch! Why would you go after your neighbour's child you pariah, or your neighbour's wife you mutt?
The truth is Israel is killing misbegotten dogs, and every one of them will have it's day, It's coming, soon!
Just go to Gaza yourself you spayed cannine and take a look. Where are the vaunted 15,000 Hamas pack of pitbulls? Don't they want to come out to run eagerly and fetch the bone that Israel is throwing them?
Michael Walzer has brilliantly framed the way policy analysts and makers should be thinking about this conlfict. Walzer has shown again how he is an exemplary public intellectual, briding the powers of reason and the practical need for sound policy. Thank you, thank you, thank you Prof. Walzer.
Michael Walzer has brilliantly framed the way policy analysts and makers should be thinking about this conlfict. Walzer has shown again how he is an exemplary public intellectual, briding the powers of reason and the practical need for sound policy. Thank you, thank you, thank you Prof. Walzer.
Walzer did the first good job among all TNR contributors.
All whining is understandable, it is disgusting that babies must die for the crimes of the Hamas and Iranian leaders.
The responsible Palestinians should reject the choir of the extreme Islam, and with dignity negotiate a decent opening for rehabilitating the sea of pain.
Walzer did the first good job among all TNR contributors.
All whining is understandable, it is disgusting that babies must die for the crimes of the Hamas and Iranian leaders.
The responsible Palestinians should reject the choir of the extreme Islam, and with dignity negotiate a decent opening for rehabilitating the sea of pain.
Brendan, you're missing some really important information. If Israel wanted to kill hundreds more people, they could stop dropping leaflets telling everyone where they plan to strike next. Or those planned lulls. Or using aimed missiles. Or start using nuclear weapons. Hmm. Seems like Israel is doing everything they possibly can to stop the rocket attacks while minimizing civilian casualties. But, you wouldn't understand any of that because you have never studied, well, anything.
Brendan, you're missing some really important information. If Israel wanted to kill hundreds more people, they could stop dropping leaflets telling everyone where they plan to strike next. Or those planned lulls. Or using aimed missiles. Or start using nuclear weapons. Hmm. Seems like Israel is doing everything they possibly can to stop the rocket attacks while minimizing civilian casualties. But, you wouldn't understand any of that because you have never studied, well, anything.
Lets be honest - i have a son serving in the israeli army and i served in lebanon. its not cool in the US to criticize Israel under any circumastances. lets be honest the jewish lobby aipac monitors every congresssman vote, if u say one word against israel you are toast. - if the IRA kep lobbying mortars (As they did) would the UK Govt bomb bomb dublin? my friends a 5 yar old blue eyed jewish girls life is worth more than palenstinian girls because"they" are arab muslims. u know , i now it but we wont say it.
Lets be honest - i have a son serving in the israeli army and i served in lebanon. its not cool in the US to criticize Israel under any circumastances. lets be honest the jewish lobby aipac monitors every congresssman vote, if u say one word against israel you are toast. - if the IRA kep lobbying mortars (As they did) would the UK Govt bomb bomb dublin? my friends a 5 yar old blue eyed jewish girls life is worth more than palenstinian girls because"they" are arab muslims. u know , i now it but we wont say it.
The doubts concerning the limiting effect of a principle as general as proportionality are understandable. However, Michael Walzer is using the principle in terms that are much too general. The usual proportionality test contains the elements of legitimate goal, the means to reach that goal must be able to achieve their purpose, they must be necessary to reach this goal (in other words, no alternative means exist that would be less harmful),and, finally and more probelematic, the means must not produce more harm than good (proportionality in a narrow sense). Thus, the general test is much more sophisticated than what Michael Walzer seems to imply. Effect on the Gaza conflict: I very much dou ... view full comment
The doubts concerning the limiting effect of a principle as general as proportionality are understandable. However, Michael Walzer is using the principle in terms that are much too general. The usual proportionality test contains the elements of legitimate goal, the means to reach that goal must be able to achieve their purpose, they must be necessary to reach this goal (in other words, no alternative means exist that would be less harmful),and, finally and more probelematic, the means must not produce more harm than good (proportionality in a narrow sense). Thus, the general test is much more sophisticated than what Michael Walzer seems to imply. Effect on the Gaza conflict: I very much doubt that Israel's action will lead to the removal of the Hamas rocket threat, but even if it were successful, it is questionable whether the prize of huge casualties and the production of future terrorist supporters is worth it.
However, in the law of armed conflict, another rational applies, and that is military necessity, on the one hand, and civilian costs, on the other ("collateral damages" to use this awful word). The civilian costs may not be excessive (Art. 51 para. 5 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions recognized as expressing customary law). To be criminal, the means must even be "clearly excessive" (Rome State of the International Criminal Court, those standards are even recognized by the US as reflecting international law). This standard applies to the actions undertaken within an armed conflict.
Taken together, proportionality may be too general to come to clear conclusions, but it is a far more sophisticated tool than Michael Walzer's article suggests.
I would like to read a balanced and comprehensive account of the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt that started in 2007. I searched for but wasn't able to find it. Can someone point me to such an account?
I would like to read a balanced and comprehensive account of the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt that started in 2007. I searched for but wasn't able to find it. Can someone point me to such an account?
Since, people are judging Israel's response to a threat to its existence, they just finished a war with Hizbullah, destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria, are living under the threat of Iranian nuclear annihilation, so Israel took a military action against this explicit threat.
Lets look at proportionality differently. All those pissing and moaning about civilian casualties never even whispered in criticism of Hamas rockets against Israeli civilians. This disqualifies them from making any moral judgments against Israel. Proportionately, they should all shut the hell up.
Since, people are judging Israel's response to a threat to its existence, they just finished a war with Hizbullah, destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria, are living under the threat of Iranian nuclear annihilation, so Israel took a military action against this explicit threat.
Lets look at proportionality differently. All those pissing and moaning about civilian casualties never even whispered in criticism of Hamas rockets against Israeli civilians. This disqualifies them from making any moral judgments against Israel. Proportionately, they should all shut the hell up.
Brendan,
You are a dutiful servant of Allah. Allahu Akbar baby.
Tell me where is your outrage against Sudan, the Taliban, the government of SriLanka, the Hutu militias, etc... No you are too busy condemning those who have the gall to defend themselves and their loved ones instead of putting their heads quietly into the hangman's noose.
You are a moral cretin. Seriously. Recognize it and try and change.
Brendan,
You are a dutiful servant of Allah. Allahu Akbar baby.
Tell me where is your outrage against Sudan, the Taliban, the government of SriLanka, the Hutu militias, etc... No you are too busy condemning those who have the gall to defend themselves and their loved ones instead of putting their heads quietly into the hangman's noose.
You are a moral cretin. Seriously. Recognize it and try and change.
The critics of Israel seem very taken with their own righteousness. Yet most of them adopt a stance that is profoundly immoral. They appear to believe that retaliation, imposing death and suffering for no purpose other than "getting even," would be a legitimate Israeli response to Hamas rocket attacks so long as the losses inflicted on the Gazans are not "disproportionate" to the losses suffered by Israel.
However, retaliation without a defensive purpose is not sanctioned by international law or morality. One cannot knowingly act in a manner sure to take innocent lives merely to avenge loss. The only justifiable purpose of military action is defense, to eliminate, prevent attacks or the i ... view full comment
The critics of Israel seem very taken with their own righteousness. Yet most of them adopt a stance that is profoundly immoral. They appear to believe that retaliation, imposing death and suffering for no purpose other than "getting even," would be a legitimate Israeli response to Hamas rocket attacks so long as the losses inflicted on the Gazans are not "disproportionate" to the losses suffered by Israel.
However, retaliation without a defensive purpose is not sanctioned by international law or morality. One cannot knowingly act in a manner sure to take innocent lives merely to avenge loss. The only justifiable purpose of military action is defense, to eliminate, prevent attacks or the imminent threat thereof. If Israel did what these critics want it to do -- endure a tit-for-tat exchange in which comparable numbers of civilians were killed on both sides -- its behavior would be profoundly immoral. So much for all the righteous outrage.
The critics also fail to observe that Hamas fights for absolutely no reason other than toe maintain its ability to continue its attacks. If it were to declare that it will desist from any further attacks and offer and take the concrete steps to eliminate its illegal weapons, all attacks by Israel on Gaza would cease, ordinary commerce would be permitted, and both Gazans and Israelis could live in peace and security. It would not even be necessary for Hamas to abandon its political goal of the elimination of the Jewish State so long as that goal were pursued by exclusively non-violent means.
In the calculus of right and wrong, it must be considered that Hamas attacks have no purpose other than to perpetuate war. Indeed, the deaths of Palestinians in the course of the Israeli response is not an unintended consequence of Hamas military tactics. It is the intended consequence, because this is the means by which Hamas perpetuates the conflict for the indefinite future. Hamas' strategy is nothing more than suicide bombing, except that the suicides don't get to make the choice. Hamas makes the choice.
Finally, Mr. Waltzer is exactly correct that, outside of the fantasy lives of pseudo-pacifists, "proportionality" does not mean inflicting comparable numbers of casualties. It means not taking action that exceeds what is apparently necessary to achieve the military outcome -- in this case the cessation of Hamas attacks that Hamas could freely abandon at any time without threat.
None of the critics that I have read here or elsewhere has displayed the moral decency to so much as suggest by what means, less damaging, Israel might defend itself successfully, that is, by what means other than those it is employing Israel might eliminate the willingness and/or the ability of Hamas to continue its rocket attacks.
In the absence of any concrete suggestion of what Israel can do to defend itself "proportionally," the criticism is dishonest, disgraceful, shameful, reprehensible. These hypocrites ought to consider the role that they play in encouraging the continuation of this conflict by leading Hamas to believe that, at the very least, it is accomplishing its political objective of discrediting Israel by compelling Israel to defend itself. Their consciences should not rest easy.
Some of Israel’s most blatant critics have written that for every Israeli killed, about a hundred Palestinians were killed. A half-truth is worse than a lie, but this is not even a half truth. This is deception. Because months and years of rockets fired at a civilian population are not a matter for bloody accounts. It is a nuisance that no country, neither Syria nor Sweden, would tolerate. It is a provocation that requires a tough response. And if we are already going for bloody accounts, we should do the overall math. We can suffice with just the accounting in the Arab-Muslim world.
So, since the establishment of the State of Israel, close to 12 million Arabs and Muslims have been butcher ... view full comment
Some of Israel’s most blatant critics have written that for every Israeli killed, about a hundred Palestinians were killed. A half-truth is worse than a lie, but this is not even a half truth. This is deception. Because months and years of rockets fired at a civilian population are not a matter for bloody accounts. It is a nuisance that no country, neither Syria nor Sweden, would tolerate. It is a provocation that requires a tough response. And if we are already going for bloody accounts, we should do the overall math. We can suffice with just the accounting in the Arab-Muslim world.
So, since the establishment of the State of Israel, close to 12 million Arabs and Muslims have been butchered, most of them by Arabs and Muslims. Israel’s “contribution,” since its establishment, is 60,000, and that includes all the wars and the two Intifadas. In other words, half a percent.
And more importantly, the confrontation is not between Hamas with its rockets and Israel. The confrontation is between Hamas, as one of the entities that compose radical Islam, and the free world. Its declared goal is to establish a world Islamic caliphate as part of an anti Semitic ideology that also calls for the annihilation of the Jews. Explanations will follow. And since political Islam has already annihilated millions without any announcement, we should take it seriously when there is an announcement about annihilation.
Smith- A few important differences;
1. Hamas's rocket fire won't rescue anyone. Not only is this behaviour the sole reasons there's a blockade in the first place, it also has no military value for the Gazans. It's not fighting, it's just killing.
2. The civilian deaths they cause are not unintended. Even with ground forces gathering at the border, they fired at cities with its civilian population being the only target.
And if you have a better idea than what Israel is doing I will be happy to hear it.
Smith- A few important differences;
1. Hamas's rocket fire won't rescue anyone. Not only is this behaviour the sole reasons there's a blockade in the first place, it also has no military value for the Gazans. It's not fighting, it's just killing.
2. The civilian deaths they cause are not unintended. Even with ground forces gathering at the border, they fired at cities with its civilian population being the only target.
And if you have a better idea than what Israel is doing I will be happy to hear it.
Think again, Smith. When Israel evicted its citizens from Gaza, turning over housing, businesses, greenhouses and infrastructure to the Palestinians, the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses, desecrated the remaining synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, and proceeded to build a regime led by mafia-like thugs. Rather than spend $400 million in international aid on development they spent it on armaments, booby traps, missles. Palestinians who tried to flee to Israel or Egypt via Rafah or Keren Shalom were attacked with mortars by Hamas and the crossings were closed. Had the Palestinians focused on development and state building there would be no blockade by either Israel or Egypt. Hamas' beha ... view full comment
Think again, Smith. When Israel evicted its citizens from Gaza, turning over housing, businesses, greenhouses and infrastructure to the Palestinians, the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses, desecrated the remaining synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, and proceeded to build a regime led by mafia-like thugs. Rather than spend $400 million in international aid on development they spent it on armaments, booby traps, missles. Palestinians who tried to flee to Israel or Egypt via Rafah or Keren Shalom were attacked with mortars by Hamas and the crossings were closed. Had the Palestinians focused on development and state building there would be no blockade by either Israel or Egypt. Hamas' behavior justifies the Israeli air and sea blockade as completely defensive, albeit unsuccessful given the ability of Hamas to smuggle advanced rockets anyway. Hamas faces no difficult moral calculus: they have only to live and let live. Forget about hating Jews, destroying Israel, imposing an Islamist existence on its captive citizens and focus on the economic development of Gaza. Israel would be their most enthusiastic partner!
There are three things certain in life: death, taxes, and the fact that people will be killing each other for a bunch of crappy land in Israel or Palestine or whatever you want to call it until the end of time because God told them to. Intellectuals should stop wasting their time analyzing, or trying to come up with solutions to the "problem", it's like trying to solve gravity.
There are three things certain in life: death, taxes, and the fact that people will be killing each other for a bunch of crappy land in Israel or Palestine or whatever you want to call it until the end of time because God told them to. Intellectuals should stop wasting their time analyzing, or trying to come up with solutions to the "problem", it's like trying to solve gravity.
Israel has done something no other nation on earth would have been able to: Israel has turned Gaza into the New Mesada. Under seige for so long, the Gazans elect suicidal leaders. The rest is history; the rest is the future. Is this what Israel wanted? Is this proportionalality?
Israel has done something no other nation on earth would have been able to: Israel has turned Gaza into the New Mesada. Under seige for so long, the Gazans elect suicidal leaders. The rest is history; the rest is the future. Is this what Israel wanted? Is this proportionalality?
Hamas just needs to ask for peace and they will have it! If Israel laid down its arms, what would happen?
Hamas just needs to ask for peace and they will have it! If Israel laid down its arms, what would happen?
K Ackerman, you are either ignorant, naive, or do not want to see the truth. What options exactly does Israel have? Negotiate with an implacable enemy whose very core and wicked soul is totally dedicated to destroy every Jew, and the State of Israel? Who doesn't and didn't care that Israel left Gaza, left behind building and greenhouses for the Arabs to use, but in their blind hatred destroyed the property that could have helped their own brethren? A gang that is, therefore, clearly not interested in Gaza but only in murder, terror and destruction?
Or should Israel maybe choose to beg Hamas to please stop shooting at children? (Israel did ask the terrorists many times to stop, at a stage w ... view full comment
K Ackerman, you are either ignorant, naive, or do not want to see the truth. What options exactly does Israel have? Negotiate with an implacable enemy whose very core and wicked soul is totally dedicated to destroy every Jew, and the State of Israel? Who doesn't and didn't care that Israel left Gaza, left behind building and greenhouses for the Arabs to use, but in their blind hatred destroyed the property that could have helped their own brethren? A gang that is, therefore, clearly not interested in Gaza but only in murder, terror and destruction?
Or should Israel maybe choose to beg Hamas to please stop shooting at children? (Israel did ask the terrorists many times to stop, at a stage where any other nation would already have long bombed the crap out the bastards).
So, do you still say Israel has choices? Oh, I forgot: maybe Israel should withdraw from Israel, move to the South Pole, and leave the keys with the
terrorists.
Don't be an idiot, Ackerman. There is time to be a nutty leftist, but when times are serious, there is only time for being level-headed and practical.
Destruction on Gazans by Israel? Since 1948? Kurt, I would call you some choice names but don't want to insult the body parts I'd compare you to. Who has kept millions of Palestinian Arabs in so-called refugee camps, to fester their hatred and resentment? Who has systematically withheld from the Gazans (and West Bank Arabs) Billions and Billions of foreign aid, including Israeli aid [yes, buddy]. Who is indoctrinating little Arab toddlers [ yes, toddlers ] by systematically immersing them in a sea of hatred, murder, and murder-suicide? Who is using these Gazans as pawns and human shields?
Your claim that Israel is at fault for the lousy lot of these people is a lie, plain and simple. Pales ... view full comment
Destruction on Gazans by Israel? Since 1948? Kurt, I would call you some choice names but don't want to insult the body parts I'd compare you to. Who has kept millions of Palestinian Arabs in so-called refugee camps, to fester their hatred and resentment? Who has systematically withheld from the Gazans (and West Bank Arabs) Billions and Billions of foreign aid, including Israeli aid [yes, buddy]. Who is indoctrinating little Arab toddlers [ yes, toddlers ] by systematically immersing them in a sea of hatred, murder, and murder-suicide? Who is using these Gazans as pawns and human shields?
Your claim that Israel is at fault for the lousy lot of these people is a lie, plain and simple. Palestinians' standard of living skyrocketed after Israel took over in 1967, something that never, ever happened during Arab rule. (And by the way, how many universities did Gaza and the West Bank have before 1967, and how many do they have now?
You are viciously anti-Israel. You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to lie.
Kurt says: "Israel has occupied Gaza for many years. They have, in-effect, imposed sub-human standards of living on Gazans for all of those years."
I wonder what the evidence is for this claim. Based on classical standard of living indicators, I would have thought that the population of Gaza is comparatively healthy and well educated. Life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is 72.3 years, higher than Egypt (71.6 years), Morocco (71.2), Syria (70.6), Iran (70.6), India (69.3 years), Ukraine (68.1 years), and Russia 65.9 years). Similarly, Gaza has a lower infant mortality rate (21.4 deaths/1,000 live births), than Libya (21.9 deaths/1,000 live births), Brazil (26.7 deaths/1,000 live births), Syria ( ... view full comment
Kurt says: "Israel has occupied Gaza for many years. They have, in-effect, imposed sub-human standards of living on Gazans for all of those years."
I wonder what the evidence is for this claim. Based on classical standard of living indicators, I would have thought that the population of Gaza is comparatively healthy and well educated. Life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is 72.3 years, higher than Egypt (71.6 years), Morocco (71.2), Syria (70.6), Iran (70.6), India (69.3 years), Ukraine (68.1 years), and Russia 65.9 years). Similarly, Gaza has a lower infant mortality rate (21.4 deaths/1,000 live births), than Libya (21.9 deaths/1,000 live births), Brazil (26.7 deaths/1,000 live births), Syria (26.8 deaths/1,000), Egypt (28.4 deaths/ 1,000 live births), India (32.3 deaths/1,000 live births), and Iran (36.9 deaths/1,000 live births). And even more suprising is that literacy in Gaza stands at 92.4%, which is far higher than India (47.8%), Egypt (59.4%), and even Saudi Arabia (70.8%).
Somone should change the geneva convetion to convit those not in uniform as a reconitze army and whose indager the life of a civilan by using them as human sheild a firing from a safe area such as a school, of war crimes.
Somone should change the geneva convetion to convit those not in uniform as a reconitze army and whose indager the life of a civilan by using them as human sheild a firing from a safe area such as a school, of war crimes.
Hamas sends suicide bombers and rockets, then Israel imposes a blockade. Hamas agrees to a cease-fire, without actually halting the rockets or suicide bombers, Israel builds a fence. Hamas sends larger rockets with longer range, Israel then finally gets fed up and takes drastic action.
Can you see a pattern? And by the way, Palestinians are certainly not starving, there have been hundreds of supply trucks from Israel (paid for with Israeli tax dollars) since the start of the operation.
If Hamas would stop wearing civilian clothes and launching morters from the top of schools being used as refuges, there would be scarcely any civilian deaths - please remember that the Palestinian de ... view full comment
Hamas sends suicide bombers and rockets, then Israel imposes a blockade. Hamas agrees to a cease-fire, without actually halting the rockets or suicide bombers, Israel builds a fence. Hamas sends larger rockets with longer range, Israel then finally gets fed up and takes drastic action.
Can you see a pattern? And by the way, Palestinians are certainly not starving, there have been hundreds of supply trucks from Israel (paid for with Israeli tax dollars) since the start of the operation.
If Hamas would stop wearing civilian clothes and launching morters from the top of schools being used as refuges, there would be scarcely any civilian deaths - please remember that the Palestinian dead includes hundreds of Hamas agents.
Why the extreme outrage? There was less furor over the US invasion of Afghanistan, which was infinitely less justifiable than Cast Lead... Is it because so many of you secretly wish the Nazis had been more successful? You cannot stand the idea of a self-protecting, self-sufficient Jewish state, can you?
Smith says: "Among the questions he might in the future want to include in his brilliant moral inquiry into the question of proportionality is whether the goal of ending Israel's savage blockade of Gaza -- Israel 'withdrew' in a nominal sense, but its effective control over Gaza continued -- makes Hamas's rocket fire "proportional" to the goal of rescuing a starving devastated Palestinian civilian population from further harm."
The answer to that question is, No. An economic blockade is a common and legitimate tactic of war, recognized as such in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, while firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians, regardless of the reason, is a war crime. None of Hamas ... view full comment
Smith says: "Among the questions he might in the future want to include in his brilliant moral inquiry into the question of proportionality is whether the goal of ending Israel's savage blockade of Gaza -- Israel 'withdrew' in a nominal sense, but its effective control over Gaza continued -- makes Hamas's rocket fire "proportional" to the goal of rescuing a starving devastated Palestinian civilian population from further harm."
The answer to that question is, No. An economic blockade is a common and legitimate tactic of war, recognized as such in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, while firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians, regardless of the reason, is a war crime. None of Hamas’s grievances, whatever their merits, justifies the rocket fire that it has directed against civilian targets in Israel. But since Hamas, which forms the de facto government of Gaza, is by its own admission intent on a war of attrition with Israel, Israel is well within its rights to treat Gaza as an enemy territory and impose an economic blockade.
Two additional points are relevant: First, Israel’s closure of Gaza’s borders was a response to, rather than a cause of, the rocket strikes, which began long before the blockade. Secondly, Israel's blockade is not quite so comprehensive as Smith supposes. For one thing, Israel has no control over the border between Gaza and Egypt. Egypt has closed that border for its own reasons. For another, Israel has allowed regular humanitarian shipments of food, medicine, and fuel. By contrast, during World War II, Britain refused to allow shipments of food to Jews in occupied Europe on the grounds that it would violate the allies blockade of Nazi Germany. I don't imagine that it occurred to the British to send fuel to Germany in return for the V-2 rockets.
A final comment on the moral equivalence posits between "the Hamas rocket fire and the Israeli military attacks". Firing rockets at civilian targets is a war crime. So what Hamas has been doing is indeed unjustified. But every state has an inherent right of self-defence. Accordingly, Israel is entitled to defend its citizens by destroying Hamas’s military capability.
Thankyou, I'm not happy reminding everyone that a double standard placed on Jews, is historical- Jews can only live in specific parts of the cities- early Poland, Jews paid twice the taxes, and were forbidden to own personal private property, couldn't attend public schools, throughout Europe Jews were restricted and thrown out of countries, everything taken away. They never had equal rights, read the History. Now the Jews are being harrassed in many parts of the world that have had a past reputation for hating Jews. It's common practice. Jews gave birth to Christianity and Islama, and for over 1000 years they have been trying to rid the world of Jews-the Arabs sided with Hitler, all over Ara ... view full comment
Thankyou, I'm not happy reminding everyone that a double standard placed on Jews, is historical- Jews can only live in specific parts of the cities- early Poland, Jews paid twice the taxes, and were forbidden to own personal private property, couldn't attend public schools, throughout Europe Jews were restricted and thrown out of countries, everything taken away. They never had equal rights, read the History. Now the Jews are being harrassed in many parts of the world that have had a past reputation for hating Jews. It's common practice. Jews gave birth to Christianity and Islama, and for over 1000 years they have been trying to rid the world of Jews-the Arabs sided with Hitler, all over Arabia they had large posters saying "Allah is the boss in Heaven, Hitler( a Christian) the boss on earth. By Hanging a Rabbi from Nazareth, on the Cross,stealing his identity, and make him the center piece of a Religion He knew nothing about.This Jewish Rabbi on the Cross became another weapon against Jews and created an endless War. Inquistion, Holocaust, Iran's Future Nukes, just to rid the world of Jews. Nothing New Here, double standard screaming loudly. Islama birthed by The Hebrew Abraham's son, and they too teach their youngest, "Kill a Jew and go to Paradise". Nothing has changed in 3000 years. Peter Knopfler
Walzer misses the whole point of the present incursion. Before we can get to the issue of proportionality, we must first find the war just. Before we can find it just we must find it necessary. In the case of Gaza, the Israeli invasion is completely unnecessary. They could have ended the rocket fire - the purported justification - by simply opening the Gaza borders and allowing the Gazans to live a normal life. The war is therefor completely unnecessary, completely unjust and absolutely disproportionate.
Walzer misses the whole point of the present incursion. Before we can get to the issue of proportionality, we must first find the war just. Before we can find it just we must find it necessary. In the case of Gaza, the Israeli invasion is completely unnecessary. They could have ended the rocket fire - the purported justification - by simply opening the Gaza borders and allowing the Gazans to live a normal life. The war is therefor completely unnecessary, completely unjust and absolutely disproportionate.
Walzer misses the whole point of the present incursion. Before we can get to the issue of proportionality, we must first find the war just. Before we can find it just we must find it necessary. In the case of Gaza, the Israeli invasion is completely unnecessary. They could have ended the rocket fire - the purported justification - by simply opening the Gaza borders and allowing the Gazans to live a normal life. The war is therefor completely unnecessary, completely unjust and absolutely disproportionate.
Walzer misses the whole point of the present incursion. Before we can get to the issue of proportionality, we must first find the war just. Before we can find it just we must find it necessary. In the case of Gaza, the Israeli invasion is completely unnecessary. They could have ended the rocket fire - the purported justification - by simply opening the Gaza borders and allowing the Gazans to live a normal life. The war is therefor completely unnecessary, completely unjust and absolutely disproportionate.
a very misleading concept. Proportionality is effective when both sides of the conflict abide to reason and basic human values. While Israel is definately attentive to critisizm (whether right or not), the Hammas could not care less. Hammas uses these times to secretly assassin their Fattah opponents, booby-trap houses (out-lawed since 1960), use paletinian children as shields to protect grown up "fighters", steal the humanitary supplies from their citizens, and keep ignoring any law or human behaviour.
in such a case, proportionality is a completly abstract and imaginative nonsense.
there is only one simple rule - when Hammas stops wanting Israel's complete distruction - Israel wi ... view full comment
a very misleading concept. Proportionality is effective when both sides of the conflict abide to reason and basic human values. While Israel is definately attentive to critisizm (whether right or not), the Hammas could not care less. Hammas uses these times to secretly assassin their Fattah opponents, booby-trap houses (out-lawed since 1960), use paletinian children as shields to protect grown up "fighters", steal the humanitary supplies from their citizens, and keep ignoring any law or human behaviour.
in such a case, proportionality is a completly abstract and imaginative nonsense.
there is only one simple rule - when Hammas stops wanting Israel's complete distruction - Israel will cease fighting them, and reach some kind of agreement.