Proportionality: Doing what it takes to win
Last Thursday, four days after a new government in Israel was formed, Hamas launched incendiary balloons into Israel causing multiple crop and forest fires. The IDF responded with airstrikes on empty lots and offices in the Gaza Strip causing minimal damage to infrastructure. That marked the first time the Hamas and the IDF exchanged blows since the sides agreed on a long-lasting truce after an 11-day cycle of carnage a month earlier.
Such tit for tat cycles of clashes have been periodic since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip including Gush Katif in August 2005, and no end of Palestinian terrorism is in sight.
Acclaimed security strategists, seasoned statesmen, popular politicians and most of the mainstream media view this to be inevitable and proportional use of force in an asymmetric armed conflict.
They are wrong. Proportionality does not mean an “eye for an eye” and the IDF does not need to limit itself to attacks that inflict comparable damage to that caused by Hamas attacks. America was not limited to killing 2,403 enemy soldiers in response to Pearl Harbor. Its response, with the goal of bringing down fascism, was legitimate and proportional. Similarly, there was no logic in the response to 9/11 being limited to killing 2,996 al Qaeda terrorists. The US response, with the goal of bringing down fascism and terrorism, was legitimate and proportional. Imagine what the response to arson balloons from Tijuana to San Diego would be.
Distinction between civilian and military targets while refraining from causing unnecessary suffering to your enemy are relatively clear legal principles to which law-abiding countries should be accountable. The principle of proportionality is more ambiguous and often misinterpreted. In a nutshell, it means – doing what it takes to achieve a legitimate military objective. Not more than what it takes but not necessarily less either. Doing less, often invites more terrorism, more bloodshed and unnecessarily prolongs combat.
A blatant example of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the principle of proportionality was presented on May 28 by The New York Times. Their front page was covered with photos of Palestinian
children, who purportedly lost their lives during the last escalation of violence between Hamas and Israel. It was insinuated that the children’s death was a result of Israeli war crimes.
The loss of innocent lives, especially young lives is heartbreaking. All reasonable efforts should be made in combat to minimize civilian casualties, but the paper’s distortion of facts was made while disregarding that, a) approximately one-third of the children were directly killed by Hamas rockets that fell short of their target; b) over 4000 additional Hamas rockets were launched at Israeli civilians; c) the children were in essence held hostage by Hamas and used as their human shields while the Hamas hitmen launched rockets at Israeli city centers. By doing so, the Hamas committed a double war crime, firing at Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians.
According to international law (Additional Protocol 1, 51(5)(b) to the Geneva Conventions), proportional military attacks are considered as such if they
are of military necessity and do not go beyond the direct military advantage anticipated.
In other words, proportionality means doing what it takes – no more and not necessarily less than what is needed to obtain a legitimate goal. Israel wants quiet and security for its citizens. That is legitimate and its leaders are obliged to do what is needed to obtain that basic goal.
During the first decade of the 21st century, Israel faced a seemingly endless wave of Palestinian suicide bombings and eventually chose targeted killing as the best tool to confront that terror. Israel proved that targeted killing, while minimizing unintended civilian deaths, is not only ethical but also effective counterterrorism.
By using surgical targeted killings, Israel was able to stop suicide bombings. After all these years, a similar policy needs to be adopted against arson balloons and missile capability of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All launchers, rocket depots and those who harbor
them should know that they will be targeted – during missile attacks, immediately afterward, or before the next attempt. That is the requirement needed to achieve quiet and security for Israelis and that is proportional.
Israel is fully entitled to apply the military force necessary to achieve the objective of securing its land and people. The IDF does not need to limit itself to attacks that are comparable to the damage caused by Hamas attacks. It needs to do what it takes to restore quiet and security for the foreseeable future.
At the end of the day, whether it’s in this round of violence, the next, or the one after that, dismantling Hamas in Gaza will probably be the only means to achieve Israel’s legitimate goal.
Israel can achieve this far-reaching but legitimate goal by applying the proportional force at its disposal.
The writer is a research fellow at the International Counterterrorism Institute (ICT) and the author, most recently, of