In Proportion To What?

In The Sderot Calculus, Bret Stephens addresses the absurdity of some of the arguments made against Israel's attempts to defend Sderot.

There is the argument that no matter how unbearable life may be in Sderot, life in Gaza is worse, an argument that conveniently ignores the fact that to the degree that conditions in Gaza are caused by Israel--as opposed to Hamas misrule--it is a direct result of those Kassams launched against Sderot. Without these terrorist attacks, there would be no siege.

More common is the argument that any Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism much be 'proportionate'. When viewed objectively, this argument is just absurd, especially when we see that every attempt by Israel to comply with claims of humanitarian concerns is just met with new claims, while the most basic right of self-defense is ignored:

Does the "proportion" apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams -- to wit, indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a "proportionate" Israeli response would involve, perhaps, firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza. Or should proportion apply to the effects of the Kassams -- an exquisitely calibrated, eye-for-eye operation involving the killing of a dozen Palestinians and the deliberate maiming or traumatizing of several hundred more?

Surely this isn't what advocates of proportion have in mind. What they really mean is that Israel ought to respond with moderation. But the criteria for moderation are subjective. Should Israel pick off Hamas leaders who are ordering the rocket attacks? The European Parliament last week passed a resolution denouncing the practice of targeted assassinations. Should Israel adopt purely economic measures to punish Hamas for the Kassams? The same resolution denounced what it called Israel's "collective punishment" of Palestinians. Should Israel seek to dismantle the Kassams through limited military incursions? This, too, has the unpardonable effect of resulting in too many Palestinian casualties, which are said to be "disproportionate" to the number of Israelis injured by the Kassams.

By these lights, Israel's presumptive right to self-defense has no practical application as far as Gaza is concerned. Instead, Israel is counseled to allow goods to flow freely into the Strip, and to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

Compliance with international demands, with their limited concern for real human rights, will only continue to help Palestinian terrorists while tying the hands of Israel.

Stephens concludes with a precedent for Israel in American history. While Congressman Weldon compares Palestinian terrorists in Gaza with Japan in WWII, Stephens looks earlier:

On March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa attacked the border town of Columbus, N.M., killing 18 Americans. President Woodrow Wilson ordered Gen. John J. Pershing and 10,000 soldiers into Mexico for nearly a year to hunt Villa down, in what was explicitly called a "punitive expedition." Pershing never found Villa, making the effort something of a failure. Then again, Villa's raid would be the last significant foreign attack on continental U.S. soil for 85 years, six months and two days.

Once upon a time, countries did what they thought was necessary to protect their citizens from attacks. Today, we have to look in history books to find examples of countries that take who they are and what they stand for seriously.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel.