Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'
Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict.
Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.
Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.
When Barack Obama visited Sderot this summer and saw the remnants of these rockets, he reacted by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their home, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. He understands how the terrorists exploit the morality of democracies.
In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.
Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.
These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.
The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.

Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children's lives.
While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel's military actions. Hamas knows from experience that even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed inadvertently will result in bitter condemnation of Israel by many in the international community.
Israel understands this as well. It goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties -- even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians.
Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes -- targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085925621747981.html

BorisR - Do you have any original thoughts or are you just a secretary passing along memos. The canard that the forward article posits: "And we are certain that if rockets were being launched from Canada into our own homes in Michigan or Maine, we would demand immediate action, and our government would quickly oblige." is a strawman argument. In such as situation of course we would respond BUT if we had a total embargo on Canada or refused to let them have access to the outside world and held them stateless, I would at least understand their anger and would be working on solving the root problem - namely statelessness and blockade.

Remember, Irgun, Stern Gang etc were once terrorists and when they got a state they reformed and became leaders of the new state. My grandfather once told me that Begin was the most vicious man he ever met in his life. Are you absolutely convinced that Mashaal and Haniyeh are worse and cannot become responsible leaders of Palestinians?

As a non-Jewish American, for me the most pertinent question is: How long can the U.S. continue to enable Israel's brutal hegemony? That's what this massacre is all about - not Israel's security. In the first years of Israel's existence, war was necessary for its survival. But since the last great Arab/Israeli war in 1973, Israel's rampages have established for it unilateral strategic summons of its immediate geographical neighborhood. The constant, chronic "crises" also have drawn political and financial largesse from a guilty Europe and an indulgent U.S. During this period, for Israel, military violence simply has worked. Americans must decide, soberly and dispassionately (we are different nations, after all), whether we can go on supporting what has become cynical, disgraceful helotry.

Any country has the right, even the obligation, to respond militarily to thugs who rain down thousands of rockets on its people, leaving its children quaking in terror.

Doesn't this logic also justify the Hamas rocket attacks? Hasn't Israel dropped many bombs on Gazans? Hasn't Israel for decades assassinated numerous Palestinian leaders with missle strikes, often killing civilians in the process? Why is it that the Hamas militants are "thugs" while the Israeli militants are just fulfilling their obligations?

Partisans for the two sides seem to take the following as given:

1. Israel's current campaign is justified because Israel has to "defend itself" from the Qassam rockets, civilian casualties or no, and the campaign is its best and only option.

2. Hamas is justified in firing its rockets at Israeli towns because the the Palestinians have to "defend themselves" from the IDF, and launching the rockets is its best and only option.

If so, then I have to ask each side, is this the sorry best that you can do in the name of self-defense?

- Granted, the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. However, if Israel really wanted to stop the rockets, why didn't they close down the smuggling tunnels a long time ago? Yesterday's NYTimes reports on the smuggling economy in Rafah, noting that there are "hundreds" of tunnels, some used for military material, and others for consumer goods, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/world/middleeast/01rafah.html

The IDF is selectively bombing the ones which are known to be used for military purposes, meaning that the IDF knows where the tunnels are, and how they are used. If the IDF has such detailed information about the tunnels and how they are used, why didn't they close them off a long time ago?

Or better yet, if Israel can build hundreds of kilometers worth of concrete wall through the West Bank and along the border of the Strip, couldn't they build a subterranean barrier along the Egypt-Gaza border? In other words, why not just dug a big trench down to the bedrock and fill it with concrete? Maybe embed seismic sensors in the concrete to detect attempts to penetrate the barrier. Or dig a canal 20m deep and let in the sea water so there's a moat, which should also hinder or prevent tunneling at deeper levels.

In short, if Israel was really serious about stopping the rockets and defending its citizens in Sderot, Ashdod, etc., couldn't it already have done so without killing so many civilians and doing so much damage to the civilian infrastructure in Gaza?

Or even better, why not admit that Hamas won fair and square in elections that were promoted by Israel and the US, and treat with them accordingly? Have you no appreciation for the amount of cynicism this engenders with regard to nice talk about "promoting democracy" in the region?

Isn't it clear that massive bombing isn't going to put an end to a political movement, and that these attacks actually re-legitimizing Hamas at a time when it's support was starting to flag among the Palestinian population? If Israel wants to be rid of Hamas, why not let Hamas hang itself with its own rope, which it seems perfectly capable of doing?

Or could it be that the attacks are for the cameras, because Olmert is facing a humiliating end to an incompetent and corrupt government? Could it be that the Israeli government actually likes to have Hamas around as a punching bag, to distract and amuse Israeli voters who might otherwise pay more attention to its political and economic failures? Could it be that having rockets falling on Sderot and Ashdod is actually helpful from time to time in political terms?

- Likewise, Hamas or any Palestinian government, has a responsibility to defend its population, where I understand "defend" to mean "act to prevent harm to."

However, if Hamas really wants to "defend" the population of Gaza from the IDF, why do they shoot off these stupid rockets at civilian population centers? I can see no benefit from either a military or political standpoint that the ordinary Palestinians enjoy from this. For example, why don't they shoot the rockets at IDF targets, even if doing so would be completely ineffectual? Wouldn't doing so deprive the Israeli government of one of its major claims to the moral high ground?

Or why don't Hamas stockpile the rockets for defensive use next time the IDF comes knocking? I'm inclined to think that a rocket shot down a narrow alley into an on-coming column of troops would accomplish more militarily than one shot into a school or community center.

Furthermore, the more rockets they shoot off, the more information they give the IDF about how many rockets they are able to acquire, and hence more information about their smuggling activities. If they stockpile the rockets, then the IDF will have less of an idea about how many Hamas have, and about how it's getting them.

In short, if Hamas were really serious about defending the people in Gaza - i.e., preventing them from harm - wouldn't they quit with the rockets?

Indeed, instead of smuggling in or building rockets, why don't they smuggle in more food, medical supplies, fuel? Clearly, the IDF is in the habit of turning a blind eye to smuggling of non-military goods, since it knows were the tunnels are and is not bombing some of them.

Or, if Hamas or its affiliates have the resources to tunnel under the border at the depth of 20 meters, don't they also have the resources to build civilian bomb shelters?

Some Hamas supporters I have spoken with say that the rockets are "a legitimate expression of rage." Well, the Palestinians are absolutely entitled to their rage, but why express it in a way that directly leads to the situation becoming worse? Mahmoud Darwish has probably done more for the Palestinians by expressing his rage with a pen than Hamas will ever do with its rockets.

Or, maybe is it that the rockets - and the dead children - are for the cameras? If children aren't being killed by IDF bombing, then aren't the cameras focused more on how ineffectual, incompetent, and corrupt the Hamas government has been? Could it be that by launching the rockets, Hamas' leaders get to thump their chests on al-Jazeera and claim that they are "doing something," while the civilian casualties conveniently change the subject?

- In sum, the action of both sides seem reflexive, stupid and against their own interests, and therefore undeserving of moral approbation.

"At a time when all 22 Arab states have offered Israel peace and normalization in exchange for the '67 territories, this war could destroy that possibility once and for all."

Your entire argument is based on an assumption that people always keep their word. Not only that, but you ignore the fact that Israel's acceptance by other nations is irrelevant to Israel's safety.
It should also be painfully obvious that giving up territory has not made Israel any safer. But hey, don't let the facts get in your way!

"The question is not whether Israel has the right , but whether exercising it this way is right."

Again, two huge assumptions. First war is not civilized, and I don't know where in the world you get the idea that it is. It probably hasn't been since the time when generals would settle the score with a 1 on 1 duel. Second you suggest nothing but an immediate ceasefire. But you don't demonstrate how that would change the status quo. Yes the angry demonstrations would stop and Israel might get some brownie points with other nations, but Hamas wouldn't go anywhere. Get it?!

"But, Israel is incapable of even dealing with its own crazies."

Israel seems to have bigger priorities at the moment, like I don't know... insuring the security of it's citizens. Now if Hamas laid down their arms, stopped talking about the irradication of Israel among other things, and the "crazies" still kept doing their thing then you'd have a point.

"But one thing is certain--this war is unlikely to bring peace any closer."

Your alternative is capitulation. You just refuse to call a spade a spade. You'd have India give up Kashmir to Pakistan in the hope that it would bring lasting peace, and when terrorist strikes continue you'd have the same lame "but it must be those radicals living on the border!" excuse.

"Might it not have been better to induce Hamas to stop the shelling by ending the blockade Israel imposed back when Hamas won the Palestinian election?"

Might it not be better to release a murderer from a maximum security prison because he supposedly learned his lesson, and supposedly will become a normal member of society now? You can't be that naive Rosenberg.

You say: "But MJ's asking the important question -- not what rights does Israel have but what is the right thing for Israel, long term?"

Good question. To which I add this question, "What rights do the Palestinians have to oppose the Occupation?" Notice how in the MSM resistance is always characterized as "terrorism."

Right now, they only have the right to resist ineffectively.

Mythbuster, it's fun isn't it? It's so 1984, all these automatons.
Too bad people are dying.
But those hasbara points keep coming.

Hamas is a canard, serving the useful purpose for the Israeli right-wing to continue its land grab and ethnic cleansing. After all, the elephant in the room that the Israelis don't want to confront is the settler movement, who are as murderous and ideologically crazy as anybody in Hamas. The IDF really ought to be called the ZDF, due to the well-known fact that they are in place in the Cleansing Territories in order to protect the settlers. Leave aside the IDF's body count, and I would be willing to bet that the settlers themselves have killed more Palestinians than all the Qassam rockets fired by the Pal militants.

The settlements have long been proclaimed illegal, and the Israeli government keeps making empty promises to dismantle them, yet they continue to grow, and settler crimes continue apace. This is the broken promise that continues to fuel the Palestinian resistance, yet, it is somehow logical to punish all Palestinians for the actions of a radical subset of their population, while the radical subset of the Israeli population has been allowed to carry on, with the Israeli government held unaccountable for allowing widespread criminal actions against an ethnic subset of its population. Until this imbalance is addressed, the Palestinian resistance will never go away.

According to MJ Rosenberg, the Muslim world is eager - EVEN DESPERATE - to embrace the Jewish state...if only the malevolent Hebrews would cease their depravity.

And you actually believe the sewage you vomit forth?

Poor, hapless little gerbil.

eds wrote:

>...but I think you misunderstand with #2. Nobody considers the Hamas rockets as defense.

I lived in Jordan for 9 months in 2007-2008, and discussed this and related topics more times than I care to remember, and I over and over again heard people say that Hamas has a right to fire the rockets "because the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves," and I see the same over and over again as I read post on the current round in the cycle.

So I think that you mistaken: many many people who support Hamas' position consider the rockets to be self-defense.

Of course, we might need to look carefully at what we mean by "defense." The Arabic word that I heard was , which is translated as "defend," but also as "resist, push back."

So when I assume that defense means acting in a way that prevents harm, I may be imposing my understanding of the English word and hence giving Hamas too much credit for their motives. My impression is certainly that in middle eastern culture, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is considered a heroic act.

Either way, it might be worth challenges those who claim that the rockets are self-defense to spell out what they mean by "defense."

There are times when the "rightness" of one's position is not all that matters. I hate it that we are the ones that often have to step in and say "enough, already!" but here we are. If we don't, who will?

This killing has got to stop. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, we have got to find a way to mediate these messes w/o loss of life. Children should not have to grow up in constant fear. Families should not have to bury innocent children. It is despicable that in this century we still behave like the animals we claim to be so much better than...

Uri Avnery
"As a matter of fact, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.

Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions.

That is the main thing. Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react. After several months, in which hardly any Qassam rockets were launched, an army unit was sent into the Strip “in order to destroy a tunnel that came close to the border fence”. From a purely military point of view, it would have made more sense to lay an ambush on our side of the fence. But the aim was to find a pretext for the termination of the cease-fire, in a way that made it plausible to put the blame on the Palestinians. And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the cease-fire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas.

These are the facts.

Thanks for these necessary words of reason, MJ.
Please keep them coming.

"Any country has the right, even the obligation, to respond militarily to thugs who rain down thousands of rockets on its people, leaving its children quaking in terror."

And any population, living in endless slums and witnessing their mothers giving birth in the dirt at checkpoints and their children being gunned down in the streets for throwing rocks at Israeli tanks, has a right to be outraged. There are thugs on both sides of this battle. In America we hear the American side of the story, which is the Israeli side of the story. This is a disaster, and if it happened anywhere else in the world, the battle lines would be far less clear than they appear to us here.

M.J., I am in complete agreement: this action will bring peace neither to the Middle East nor to Israel. To achieve peace, you must start with peace. Hamas is not the problem. The problem is vengeance. Endless, stupid vengeance.

"it's an analogy. and it is apt when people blame the oppressed for their oppression. south african apartheid is an even more apt analogy."

For your analogy to work Hamas would have to be completely out of the picture. The Palestinians would not have a government of any kind. They would also receive absolutely no aid from anyone, and Egypt and Jordan would not be involved in any way. (Well and the obvious part about them not being Israeli citizens, but that has no bearing on the situation in this case).

"so, if Hamas has so much control, is it they who choose to deny Gaza 24-hours a day electricity?"

I know you're familiar with cause and effect. Are you saying that Israel just shut down the electricity for kicks? Because they felt like it? The actions of Hamas had nothing at all to do with this?
Better yet, even if you were right you would think the Palestinians would revolt against a government who has been unable to attend to their basic needs. But they haven't kicked out Hamas. Is that also Israel's fault?

"a civilian population which has no control of its borders, and no access to outside help."

Oh really? So do they have a government or don't they? Are they a state or aren't they? Do they receive foreign aid or not? Clearly their status seems to be different every day, depending on what's convenient.

"There is no "proportional" response when attacking a civilian population"

You lost your credibility from that first statement. When the military starts indiscriminately shooting anything that moves then you can make your case. Until then stop lying.

The bad news for MJ Rosenberg and the anti-"Zionists" is that the next two weeks are going to feature the Diabolical Zionist Entity despicably defending itself by killing the terrorists sworn to destroy it.

The good news for the Hate Israel crowd is that once Obama takes power, the American government will switch its allegiance to Hamas. There will be a "cease fire", which as all good liberals know means that Israel will cease firing as Hamas continues to launch rockets.

Once the historical status quo has been restored and it is only Jews who are dying, the crisis will be declared ended and MJ Rosenberg will refocus his attention on condemning those he considers the most evil people in the world: Hebrews who do not support the annihilation of Israel.

Brace yourself, Martin Peretz.

At a time when all 22 Arab states have offered Israel peace and normalization in exchange for the '67 territories...

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? None of those 22 states is ready, willing, or able to stop Hamas.

Westphalia is long past. Being at peace with states means little when being warred upon by non-state actors.

Don't look now, MJ, but the latest to join the Evil Zionist Conspiracy you so despise is...

...FATAH!

Fatah officials in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post that Hamas militiamen had been assaulting many Fatah activists since the beginning of the operation last Saturday. They said at least 75 activists were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken. ...

Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.

The sources quoted Hamas officials as saying that the decision to kill the suspected collaborators was taken out of fear that Israel might try to rescue them during a ground offensive. ...

The Hamas official said that his security forces had launched a massive "preemptive" campaign aimed at thwarting Fatah's attempts to "spread anarchy and chaos." He confirmed that many Fatah operatives had been shot in the legs over the past few days by Hamas "to make sure that they don't help Israel."

Fahmi Za'arir, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, accused Hamas of "executing" a number of Fatah detainees. ... Za'arir [also] said that several Fatah members who attended funerals of victims of the IAF strikes were severely beaten by Hamas militiamen who accused them of collaboration with Israel.

Poor MJ. You hate the Israelis and love the Palestinians, but now Fatah Palestinians are cooperating with the Eeeeeevil Joos against Hamas Palestinians.

What a conundrum for a pseudo Hebrew such as you!

It would be enough to make you pull your hair out, MJ...if only you had hair.

trafik ceza sorgulama

Thank you for sharing with us,I too always learn something new from your post!
Great article. I wish I could write so well.
araç sorgulama