The Sderot Problem

Global View - WSJ.com

This is a pretty good article on the vexed issue of Israel and the appropriate way it should respond to the never ending attack on Sderot.

The constant criticism is that the response of Israel is not proportionate, but it is very unclear what critics think would be proportionate in these circumstances:

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?

This is a good point. I would like to know what critics could say if Israel did the literally proportionate thing - an eye for an eye response in the number of unguided rockets. (I don't know that artillery shells really are the same as the Hamas rockets which - I thought - often didn't have much in the way of explosives in them.

Still, as I take it that densely populated areas of Gaza are within easy reach of Sderot, random firings of dumb missiles with no accuracy into Gaza would surely cause more random death and destruction on their side. Would that have any effect on the population at large insisting on Hamas stopping its own rockets? You would have to optimistic to think that it would, but when current targetted tactics are not working, things really are getting desperate.

In everyday conduct, of course, an eye for an eye is hardly a principle that can be universally endorsed by any ethicist no matter what ethical theory they subscribe to. But when it comes to warfare, there is still clear allowance made for a side to lose "normal" protections if they abuse it as a deliberate warfare tactic. Have a look at this article for an interesting discussion as to whether terrorism requires a re-think of the protection issue:

But non-reciprocity is not and should not be all-encompassing. First, current IHL does not preclude reprisals during combat against combatants that might violate IHL. Second, even the bans on reprisals in Protocol I have their detractors, such as the United Kingdom, which issued a reservation to that treaty allowing for the possibility of measured reprisals against civilians if the opposing party itself engaged in serious, deliberate attacks on civilians.

Interesting.