Disproportionate Force?

One of the complaints often made about the Israeli strikes against Hamas is that they represent a “disproportionate” response. In other words, the commentator recognizes the reasons for the Israeli decision to use force, but disagrees with the degree to which force is used.

Western Just War theory does, in fact, view the use of “disproportionate force” as un-just, or immoral if one prefers. But the commentators who throw the term around do not understand the concept underlying the use of “disproportionate force.” They compare the severity of the Israeli airstrikes—about 400 Palestinian dead—to the death toll wrought by the Hamas rocket attacks—four dead, as I write, and see disproportionality.

But under Just War theory one does not determine proportionality by measuring the use of force by one side not to the level employed by the other. The proportionality, or dis-proportionality, of the use of force is determined by comparing the degree of force used to the level necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

What is the Israeli objective, and is it legitimate? While I have no doubt that ideally the Israelis would like to destroy Hamas militarily and politically, that is highly unlikely given the international reality. The more likely and achievable goal for the IDF is to punish Hamas sufficiently that it halts the rocket attacks under some international accord akin to that reached in 2006 during the fighting with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Many commentators, myself included, considered that outcome a defeat for Israel. Nevertheless, Hezbollah has not been rocketing northern Israel over the past two years. Israel, as a sovereign state (something Hamas is not), has a right to defend itself from attack, even from an entity that considers the existence of Israel illegitimate.

For example, at the end of World War II the Soviet Union annexed much of what had been German East Prussia, renaming Konigsberg Kaliningrad. Other than the right of conquest, the Russians had no claim to that territory. If Germany suddenly decided that it wanted the territory returned and started firing surface-to-surface conventional missiles into Russia, Moscow would still have the right to defend itself, no matter the circumstances that had given it control of Kaliningrad. (I might add that the former German inhabitants of East Prussia and their descendants are not still living in refugee camps.)

Israel has a right to defend itself and the goal of halting the Hamas rocket strikes is legitimate. But does the Israeli operation represent a disproportionate use of force, given the disparity in casualty lists? Not at all. The determination of the proportionality of the use of force is reached by comparing the application of Israeli military force to the requirements to achieve the objective, namely getting Hamas to stop its barrage. The fact that five days of attacks have yet to convince Hamas to stop firing its rockets is prima facie evidence that the IDF is NOT using disproportionate force. Clearly, to achieve their objective the Israelis need either to apply more force or to sustain the current level of airstrikes for a longer period. A disproportionate use of force by the Israelis would have been some massively destructive attack--e.g., a nuclear strike against Gaza--involving a use of force greater than necessary to convince Hamas to halt the rocket strikes. By Just War definitions, if the IDF had truly employed disproportionate force Hamas would have caved at the end of the first day.