It's true that 'proportionate' is not clear and completely defined. It isn't as fuzzy as you make out, though. So, for example, regarding civilian casualties...'Targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure os OK as long as there is no other way and as long as the military advantage to the attacker outweighs the suffering caused to the civilians being attacked'. The oweness is on the attacker - in this case, Israel - to show that their actions met those conditions.
Of course - they didn't. Trying to resuce a soldier is all well and good, but it doesn't justify (for example) destroying a power plant. That's disproportionate.
Nice site, by the way :)
Rogel
· 3 years ago
Thanks for your comment Jamie. My point wasn't so much about the fuzziness of the definition of proportionate response but more to the wisdom of operating according to it. If the response has to be proportionate it give the aggressor, Hezbolla in our case, full control of the escalation of crisis. Why would a country agree to give its enemy this advantage? As a bonus argument here is a little story: The French, that criticized Israel for attacking the Lebanese Air-ports, destroyed the Ivory coast air ports and air force when they arrive to "keep the peace" - so I am a little bit careful when listening to criticism from European... :)
Rogel
· 3 years ago
You raised valid concerns however you have to be more accurate. Firstly Lebanon is a sovereign country and therefore responsible for action of wars initiated from its territory. Lebanon refused to disarm the Hezbulla, from whatever reason, and is responsible for the results. Second, Hezbulla continued to attack Israel and threaten its civilians life for the last 6 years - Lebanon and the UN did not do anything to stop this attacks and to enforce the UN resolution 1995. My point was that it was for Hezbulla advantage to hold the Israeli north hostage for the last 6 years, keeping the fighting at the level comfortable for its goals. The demand from Israel not to use its own advantages to protect its citizens is immoral! Could Israel handle this war differently? maybe. But it is easy to demand from the comfort and safety of being in England, or the USA. And one last question- if it was your son that the Hezbulla took as hostage would you still think that his life isn't more than power plant? I doubt that very much.
Rogel
· 3 years ago
Thank you for your response. It seems that you insisting on blaming Israel regardless the actual reality. I will post my response as a separate post, as the material deserve it :)
All Comments
Of course - they didn't. Trying to resuce a soldier is all well and good, but it doesn't justify (for example) destroying a power plant. That's disproportionate.
Nice site, by the way :)
If the response has to be proportionate it give the aggressor, Hezbolla in our case, full control of the escalation of crisis. Why would a country agree to give its enemy this advantage?
As a bonus argument here is a little story:
The French, that criticized Israel for attacking the Lebanese Air-ports, destroyed the Ivory coast air ports and air force when they arrive to "keep the peace" - so I am a little bit careful when listening to criticism from European... :)
Second, Hezbulla continued to attack Israel and threaten its civilians life for the last 6 years - Lebanon and the UN did not do anything to stop this attacks and to enforce the UN resolution 1995.
My point was that it was for Hezbulla advantage to hold the Israeli north hostage for the last 6 years, keeping the fighting at the level comfortable for its goals. The demand from Israel not to use its own advantages to protect its citizens is immoral!
Could Israel handle this war differently? maybe. But it is easy to demand from the comfort and safety of being in England, or the USA.
And one last question- if it was your son that the Hezbulla took as hostage would you still think that his life isn't more than power plant? I doubt that very much.