Proportionate response

I see that the demands for Israel to restrict its response to Hamas's Kassam rocket attacks on Israeli towns to that which would be considered proportionate have started again. This time it is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calling for restraint. The same calls were flooding the airwaves and newspapers when Israel reacted to the capture of some of its soldiers and bombed Hezbollah targets in Southern Lebanon.

Maybe someone could let me know what the proportionate response would be?

Does the "proportion" apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams — indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a "proportionate" Israeli response might involve firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza.

Or should "proportion" apply to the effects of the Kassams — maybe a calibrated, eye-for-eye operation involving the killing of a dozen Palestinians and the deliberate maiming or traumatizing of several hundred more?

Somehow I don't think this is what the advocates of "proportion" have in mind. What they really mean is that Israel ought to respond with moderation. So let's examine the alternatives for a moderate response...

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 European Parliament 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.


So those options seem to be closed to Israel. Perhaps all Israel can do is to do what the UN and EU say which is to allow goods to flow freely into the Gaza and to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

But that's not as easy as it sounds.
First, Hamas was elected democratically and by overwhelming margins in Gaza. It has never once honoured a cease-fire with Israel. Following Israel's withdrawal of its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005 there was a six-fold increase in the number of Kassam strikes on Israel.

Second, Hamas has made no effort to rewrite its 1988 charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. The charter is explicitly anti-Semitic: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" (Article Seven) "In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad." (Article 15) etc. etc.


Maybe Israel should wait until a Kassam lands on a school or a school bus, killing and seriously injuring dozens of children before reacting. I wonder what sort of response would be considered "proportionate" by the UN then.


The bottom line is that Israel, the one Jewish state in the world, is considered my many to be at best an inconvenience to much of the world and for many more countries something that should not exist. I will examine this point in a future article.