Proportional response

Here is a perfect example of what I was musing about in my last post. The writer of this piece is Michael Byers, a far left, and in my opinion, a hair short of being classified as a wingnut, university professor from lotusland (B.C.). Maybe it's something in the water on the west coast.

He writes often on the subject of war and what I have gleaned from reading him is that his operational bias (we all have one) is that war itself is a crime. He sent a letter to the International Court in the Hague asking that Canada be investigated for war crimes in Afghanistan.

Now war is a terrible thing and ought not to be initiated lightly. As one famous American General put it, "It is a good thing war is so terrible, else we may become overly fond of it." But the action is not itself a crime.

We find Byers waxing on about "proportionality" and how Israel is not practicing that because: the IDF is shelling and bombing in densely populated districts; the IDF is using white phosphorus shells; the IDF has hit deliberately U.N. assets; the IDF does not consider the possibility of civilian casulties when it strikes. He also dismisses the years of rocketing of Israel, contenting himself with only the attacks that have occurred since the end of the ceasefire.

If Byers wrote the rules of war in accordance with foregoing, Israel would have no defence.

What Byers doesn't say is that there is no evidence that white phosphorus has been used on human targets -- believe me, if it had, we would certainly have heard about it by now. Israel says it uses it to illuminate targets. One would think that a guy who is passionate about proportionality would endorse such a use rather than decry it, since accurate targeting would clearly reduce the possibility of civilian casulties.

Byers does not consider the new, smart weaponry used by Israel, that can look through walls of buildings and that can take out a building without seriously damaging the nearby structures. He sucks and blows at the same time: the IDF is so good at targeting that it can murder U.N. personnel; and, at the same time they are so careless with their bombing and shelling that they kill civilians indiscriminately. Well, which is it?

Byers might be surprised to learn that soldiers die from something called "friendly fire", an accident of war in which your own troops are killed by you. The fact is that once a war is launched people who ought not to get killed will. Some factors simply cannot be controlled to the precision that Byers advocates -- war is not a video game.

George Jonas says proportionality means what it takes to stop the rockets and mortars falling on Israel. In short, the right to self-defence means the right to stop the enemy from attacking you and if that proves to be bloody rather than neat and precise, then so be it.

Anything less is not a right of self-defence.

Given the population density of Gaza, it is remarkable that the death toll for Gazas after more then 3 weeks of sustained fighting is only about 1,000. By comparison, the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 and the campaign took 19 days. In that period, 9,200 combatants were killed and 7,300 civilians lost their lives.

I don't believe Israel is going over the top here and if the U.N. doesn't want to risk its personnel, it should get the hell out of Gaza until the shooting stops. It does that in other hotspots in the world.

A few thoughts relative to Israel and Hamas and why Israeli tactics work

Israel hinted this morning that its military action against Hamas may soon be winding down. So, before it fades from the headlines, I thought I would venture a few thoughts and questions.

Smuggling tunnels

These seem to be as much a focus of Israeli military action as rocket sites and individual Hamas leaders. Since the only other country bordering Gaza is Egypt one must assume these tunnels go under the wall that Egypt built to keep out the Palestinians. The treaty between Israel and Egypt requires Egypt to patrol and keep that border secure, specifically to prevent weapons from entering Gaza. Clearly, either Egyptian officials are incompetent, or are being bribed to look the other way, or they are actively complicit in aiding the Palestinians in acquiring rockets and other munitions. Why does no one ever point a finger at Egypt and its responsibiities?

Proportional response

This hoary proposition raised its head during the Hezbollah battle in 2006 and we have heard it occasionally in this one. The allegation is that Israel is over the top in responding to Hamas's repeated rocket barrages. These have been going on for years and I have heard various figures, 5,500 or 6,500 such attacks. I wish someone making this accusation would actually follow it up with examples of what would be considered a proportional response: an equal number of killings, an equal number of rocket attacks (with appropriate pro rata adjustments for the accuracy of the Israeli rockets), or what. People should be banned from using this expression until they can explain clearly what it means in reference to Israel's wars.

Collective punishment

We are repeatedly assured that Israel is guilty of collectively punishing the Palestinians for the sins of Hamas. Without getting into the obvious issues of an enemy that hides itself amongst the non-combatants and the problem posed by considering the election results that brought Hamas to power (80% voted for Hamas), one wonders why no reflection is ever made of the impact of terrorist activity perpetrated by organizations like Hamas, aided and abetted by those who support them, but are not of them.

When suicide bombers blow themselves up on buses, subways, aircraft, and in buildings, shopping areas, restaurants, night clubs, etc., they are inflicting collective punishment on the larger society that is victimized by such activity. Airline travel is a horror show today mainly because of Palestinian collective punishment (highjackings) in the 1970s. The cost of the Olympic games is about double because of the requirement to keep Israeli atheletes safe so that there are no repeats of the collective punishment dished out by Palestinians at the 1972 games in Munich. When the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress decrees that every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 is a legitimate target for murder by Palestinians he is talking about collective punishment.

Hezbollah's so-called victory

The conventional wisdom is that Hezbollah came out the winner in the 33 day war with Israel in 2006. It won only in the sense that it was not destroyed. Israel lost only because it set unwinnable goals for itself at the beginning and had to change course part way through. The fact is that Hezbollah was handed a terrible beating by Israel. It lost about one-third of its trained fighters.

What military organization in the world could effectively carry on a war with losses of 33% of its soldiers in the first 30 days? That would would be the equivalent of the United States losing 500,000 soldiers in its invasion of Iraq (it only committed 150,000 to that venture). Total U.S. losses in three and one-half years of combat in WWII amounted to 400,000.

This is why we have only seen a couple feeble attempts by perhaps rogue elements in Hezbollah to attack Israel this time out. Hezbollah certainly has the fire power, but it doesn't have the will.

Some of my friends like to argue with me that Israel's tactic don't work. Well, they worked to forge peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and they have now caused Hezbollah to have second thoughts about taking on the Jewish state.

Within the limiting context of what peace is achievable in the Middle East, I would say they work.