Gaza and the Law of Armed Conflict (Proportionality of the Gaza Conflict)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

Gaza and the Law of Armed Conflict
Michael J. Totten - 01.03.2009 - 8:51 AM
While much of the world engages in hand-wringing, placard-waving, teeth-gnashing, and rocket-launching over Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hamas attacks from Gaza, it’s worth looking at what the doctrines of “proportionality” actually say.
.
.
.
Hamas is still firing rockets; therefore, the IDF is not using more force than necessary to disrupt the firing of rockets. Israel, arguably, is using less force than necessary. And the IDF, unlike Hamas, does what it can to minimize injury to civilians. “Militants often operate against Israel from civilian areas,” the Associated Press reported last week. “Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.” Israeli commanders are even warning individual Hamas leaders that their homes are on the target list so they can vacate the premises in advance

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/48801
=======================================
There has been a lot of hyperbole on all sides of the topic. Falk certainly thinks there is problem with the current actions. Here is another view.

My experience with International Law is that like most other law its behind the current reality. There are also enough therefores and whereas clauses to drive main battle tanks through, which is what often happens.

Again, a different view offered for discussion.

[ixion]

1. sorry... a week-long ariel bombardment that kills 400 is not 'defensive' and in no way

is that "less force" than Hamas is using. Firing rocket propelled grenades is simply not a full-on assault.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. This argument was unique since it made the argument that Israel was NOT using enough force

Not saying I agree, but it presents a different view than I had read elsewhere.

[David Ricardo]

2. International Law

Is often talked about, and I don't want to comment on my opinions of the negatives or benefits of it, but like with any other law, it's only as good as its means of enforcement. People respond to incentives and the only incentives on a global basis to work are through military force or economic force. I don't forsee that happening in the region anytime soon, so even if there is an international law covering this situation I doubt that it would be able to be applied.

[bemildred]

4. It's not correct that you can do whatever you like to solve a problem.

That is precisely what "proportionality" is all about. The "cure" ought not be worse then the "disease".

Of course, the question "worse for whom" then comes up, but then if you allow that, you wind up arguing about the relative values of lives depending on their geographic location, so the answer has to be "worse for anybody, anywhere".