by Rabbi Bob Orkand, President of ARZA
As we approach the new year we are focused, once again, on the violence in Gaza. We pray for a quick end to the military action launched by Israel against Hamas and we agonize over the death of innocent civilians on both sides of the border.

As usual, Israel's critics are quick to denounce the Jewish state for its actions. How easy it is for critics to ignore what led to the current military action: Population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod took place on December 28. There had been no formal cease fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull) during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel. On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the lull had ended.

On December 27, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon's spokesman issued a statement saying that while the Secretary-General recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights laws." The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians (emphasis added). French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel. Brazil also joined the chorus, using the same language. Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large newspaper headlines describing massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza without any explanation of Israel's reasons for such actions.

There are several ways to respond to this criticism. While one must always be sensitive to the deaths of innocent civilians, one must also ask what any civilized nation would and must do to defend its citizens from missile and rocket attacks. One can only wonder what the United States would do, for example, if terrorists in Mexico indiscriminately fired missiles toward cities in Texas. The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetuate. Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced." Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children" (Alan Dershowitz, "The Hamas Government has Declared War Against Israel: How Should Israel Respond?" Huffington Post, March 14, 2008).

Abraham Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs reminds us that "if the attempt has been made to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage--but is directed at a target with very large military value--would be lawful" (Abraham Bell, "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29, January 28, 2008, Institute for Contemporary Affairs/Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs). The fact that the number of civilian deaths, as tragic as they are, have been minimal, attests to Israel's care in striking only Hamas military targets.

One must also take into account the fact that most armies seek to achieve military victory by the defeating the military capacity of an enemy. That is what Israel is now doing. The targets thus far have been training facilities, bomb depots, and Hamas military headquarters.

Again, any loss of civilian life is regrettable. No one in Israel rejoices when such casualties occur. In fact, Israel has in the past cancelled military operations over concern for the loss of civilian lives. However, when an operation is legitimate and there are civilian casualties despite best efforts to avoid them, the ultimate responsibility lies with Hamas. As Michael Walzer said in 2006, "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counter fire" (Michael Walzer, "How Aggressive Should Israel Be? War Fair," The New Republic Online, July 31, 2006).

Over the coming days we will see attempts at fairness--to place the blame on both Israel and Hamas. Our approach must be to express sorrow for any loss of life, but to do all we can to help others understand that once again Hamas is clearly the aggressor in this conflict and that Israel has no choice but to respond in such a way as to defeat those who would benefit from an ongoing conflict. Enough is enough.

Print

Email

Comment

Comments

Post a comment