Too Few Dead Jews
by Jonathan Rosenblum
July 29, 2006
European criticism of Israeli military responses to attacks upon Israel and its citizens has become so formulaic that the various EU officials and foreign ministers can probably recite it in their sleep.
First comes a ritualistic acknowledgement of Israel’s right to defend itself followed inevitably by the accusation that the particular Israeli response was disproportionate. So automatic is the second statement that it completely vitiates the first.
The Europeans never bother to explain what response they would consider proportionate or how those actions would obviate the threats to Israel’s civilian population. After the Sbarro bombing, for instance, would the proportionate response have been to send an Israeli suicide bomber into a Ramallah pizzeria?
How do the Europeans know that Israel’s actions are disproportionate? The "asymmetry in the reported death tolls," explains the New York Times’ Steven Erlanger, in a July 19 news story. In short, there are too few dead Jews.
The reliance on death tolls to determine the propriety of Israeli military action is more than a little problematic. First, it turns warfare into a weird kind of boxing match in which one can only hit one’s adversary as hard as he hit you. That is not how either boxers or nations fight. American U.N. ambassador John Bolton rightly ridiculed the European view of proportionality earlier this week. If Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers, he asked, does that mean that Israel can do nothing more in response than capture two Hezbollah operatives?
Something close to that view does, in fact, prevail among critics of Israeli military action. News stories denigrate the destructive capabilities of Palestinian weapons, for instance, and downplay the impact of those weapons on Jews living under their threat. Thus the Times’ Erlanger quotes a Gaza resident who characterizes Kassams as nothing more than "needle pricks," even as he insists on the Palestinians’ inalienable right to continue delivering those needle pricks.
To limit Israel’s response to such "needle pricks" – actually it is usually far less, since Israel would never fire Kassams into Beit Hanun – constitutes an open invitation to aggressors, since they know in advance that they will never pay a higher price than the damage they inflict.
A mere count of body bags further ignores the fact that those bags have a provenance. Many other questions have to be asked – e.g., are the bodies those of combatants or civilians? If the bodies are those of civilians, were they killed because the enemy embedded military targets among the civilian population? It is also relevant to know who started the fighting. How many Lebanese would have been killed by Israel in the last two weeks if Hezbollah had not attacked Israel within its internationally recognized border?
(Lebanon is not, incidentally, a completely innocent bystander to Hezbollah terrorism. For one thing, it is the internationally recognized sovereign in the area from which Hezbollah acts. In addition, at a recent Arab League gathering of foreign ministers, the Lebanese foreign minister introduced a resolution implicitly endorsing the pretexts with which Hezbollah justifies attacks on Israel – i.e., Israel’s retention of Sheba Farms and the holding prisoner of Lebanese nationals who have murdered Israeli citizens in terror attacks.)
Reliance on body bag counts is misplaced for another reason as well. Neither diplomats nor journalists have the ability or inclination to verify claimed body counts. Four years ago, the European press recited without challenge Palestinian claims of a cold-blooded massacre in Jenin of 500 or more civilians. The true number of Palestinian civilians killed in intense house-to-house fighting was less than 30.
WERE THE LAW TO PROCLAIM BODY COUNTS the standard of proportionality, the law would be, in Mr. Bumble’s words, "an ass." That, fortunately, is not international law. Luis Moreno, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has written, that "the death of civilians during armed combat does not itself constitute a war crime."
Nor is proportionality measured by how many casualties the enemy has inflicted. Rosalyn Higgins, the President of International Court of Justice, writes that proportionality is not judged "in relation to any specific prior injury, [but rather] in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression." Proportionality , then, is a function of the goal of thwarting aggression against a state’s territory or citizens. Where the aggressor, like Hezbollah will never surrender or lay down arms, and where its explicit goal is to kill every Israeli citizen, Israel is obviously entitled, under Higgins' standard, to respond with great force indeed.
Unfortunately, diplomats and journalists, for whom the term "proportionality" comes trippingly off the tongue, consistently overlook the fact that it is a legal term, with a specific (albeit not absolutely clear) meaning.
The reason that international law recognizes no such rule as, "Thou shall do to thine enemy no more than thine enemy has done to thee," is that no nation in the world has ever acted according to such a formula.
To bring about the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan in World War II, the Allies mercilessly bombed German cities, and dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The latter deaths were justified at the time as necessary to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a land assault on Japan. More recently, NATO bombers struck at Yugoslavia over 72-straight days, and killed approximately 500 civilians, even though Slobadan Milosevic did not threaten any NATO country. And many innocent civilians were killed by American bombers in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I mention these facts not so much to point out the hypocrisy of Israel’s critics (with the exception of the contemptible French, who flew 10% of the NATO missions against Milosevic and regularly vote for U.N. resolutions condemning Israel’s disproportionate responses), but rather to suggest the inevitability of error when the bombs start dropping, as in the case of Yugoslavia.
And Hiroshima proves the general rule that no nation ever values the lives of its citizens equally to the lives of enemy civilians. Israel, which has never deliberately targeted civilians, has neither the duty nor right to be the first.
Related Topics: War in Lebanon
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free jewish media resources mailing list