Antony Blinken, Secretary of State for the senile joke that currently occupies the Bully Pulpit, asked during a meeting with Israel’s war cabinet in November, 2023, “What is your system of operation?” IDF Chief Herzi Halevi responded: “We follow a number of principles — proportionality, distinction, and the laws of war. There were instances where we attacked on the basis of those principles, and instances where we decided not to attack, because we waited for a better opportunity.”
Proportionality is a principle of the laws of war that seeks to limit damage caused by military operations. It requires that a combatant balance the harm it expects to inflict upon its enemy against the harm it expects to prevent by reducing its enemy’s capability of inflicting harm. It also applies to military targets located within the vicinity of civilians and civilian structures. Proportionality aims to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure from unnecessary suffering and destruction.
The problem is there has never been (nor will there ever be) an unambiguous definition of ‘proportionality.’ Proportionality is not defined in the provisions of international law. What would or would not be a proportional response can only be determined by courts that take all aspects into account. This leaves the concept open to interpretation, provides Israel’s detractors (such as the International Criminal Court) the freedom to interpret proportionality as they wish — to Israel’s detriment.
From where did the concept of proportionality arise? Victor Davis Hanson, in his book, The Second World War, wrote, “Later, self-critical, affluent, and leisured citizens of the democracies asked why their fathers had killed more German and Japanese civilians than the latter had killed noncombatant British and Americans. A new postmodern idea of ‘proportionality’ arose in the West (but certainly not in China and Russia), suggesting that in war the defender should seek to pay back aggressors with no more lethal force than was originally used against it… The old unapologetic classical defenses of disproportionality — ‘they started it; we finished it’… seemed vacuous to generations that had not survived a torpedoed Liberty ship in the icy Atlantic, parachuted out from a flaming B-17 over Schweinfurt, seen the ovens at Buchenwald, or fought at Sugar Loaf Hill on Okinawa.”
The concept of proportionality isn’t new to Israel. Lionel Beehner, wrote in a 2006 Council on Foreign Relations article, “Israel’s offensive into Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, in response to the abductions of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah and one by Hamas militants, raises a number of difficult legal questions. Among them: Did the Israeli response violate the principle of proportionality?”
A 2016 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article accused Israel of “the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians.”
Regarding the current war: In no wars other than those involving Israel does the world impose a standard of civilian-death ‘proportionality.’ In other words, “Israel is the only nation on earth that is tasked with protecting its own people and its enemies.
Israel must be doing a lousy job because as of June 9, over 37,000 Palestinians have been killed (according to the Gaza health ministry which does not count Hamas fighters separately from civilians — how convenient!), as compared to 660 IDF soldiers. The number dead, more than in any previous Gaza conflict, raises questions about whether Israel’s concept of proportionality has changed in this war. In his November 7 article ‘The real reason for Biden’s visit,’ Leland Vittert wrote, “We predicted the turn in public opinion against Israel and demands for proportionality and restraint that only apply to Israel. Nobody has called for Ukrainian restraint.”
consider proportionality in its attacks, advocated a higher priority on avoiding civilian deaths. Even the United Nations has gotten in on the absurd circus. A UN Human Rights Office spokesman said, “Parties to the conflict must take all precautions to avoid or minimise the loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. This includes… suspending an attack if it becomes apparent that it does not any longer respect the principles of necessity, distinction and proportionality.” Even the UN concept of self-defense allows only military measures that are ‘proportional’ to the attack and necessary to respond to it.
However, Douglas Murray, in an interview with Sharona Mazalian, “illustrated the absurdity of touting this [proportionality] law-of-war principle as if it meant that Israel should limit itself to raping the precise number of women as Hamas did, while similarly killing precisely the same number of babies, elderly non-combatants, and young peace-concert revelers.”
As Andrew McCarthy wrote, “The proportionality twaddle is a hobby horse of anti-western leftists — ever ready to rationalize the barbarity of jihadists who recognize no constraints on their tactics.”
The concept of proportionality matters for two reasons.
First, the IDF surrounded the Hamas HQ in Gaza City, also known as al-Shifa Hospital (Biden confirmed this fact). Proportionality requirements are especially strict when a hospital is considered. Even if the hospital becomes a military target, the civilians occupying it are still protected by proportionality: If the civilian harm caused by an attack is disproportionate to the military advantage it confers, then it’s illegal. Got that? Gazans in the hospital that voted for Hamas are still protected by proportionality. The situation is a “Catch-22” for Israel.
Second, Israel, after the horrific assaults of October 7, has now moved from the objective of managing its conflict with Hamas winning the war. “Hamas has proven itself to be so callous, hateful, and barbaric that nothing short of its complete annihilation is a fitting end to this battle. There will never be peace as long as Hamas rules Gaza.” Gaza will be a bastion of Islamist extremism, a cancer for which there is no cure short of excision as long as Hamas is in charge. Leland Vitters wrote about IDF goals, “The objectives have clearly changed from diminishing and wounding Hamas to destroying them.”
Israel doesn’t have to learn to live with Hamas. The experiment of the self-rule of Gaza that began in 2006 has been a costly one. A state of permanent conflict has existed with the Hamas faction since it took power. The IDF can completely destroy Hamas in a few days. There are, however, four factors wrong with that solution: 1): Biden’s precious Two-state solution, 2): Hezb’allah, 3): Iran, and 4): calls for ‘proportionality’ would again be heard when Israel fights Hezb’allah and Iran.
Israel can’t win the ‘we’re right’ argument, so it should, regardless what Biden and the rest of the world says, take action as it wishes and proportionality be damned.
Warren Beatty has created a web page that facilitates quick responses and/or comments to anything you consider outrageous: quick-rant.atwebpages.com
Image: IDF
Comments are closed.