otra perspectiva

There is no democracy in the world

that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking

every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by

Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The

answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to

attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce

civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some

civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian

casualties that would be prevented by the military action.





This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately

locate their military bases away from civilian population centers.

Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in

locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible

for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without

inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah

and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of

densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-

bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian

casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians.

If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians,

the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking

civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian

casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international

community pounces on Israel for its "dispropo

rtionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages

the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.





While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian

casualties — not always with success — Hezbollah and Hamas want to

maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a

diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of

pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli

casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children

to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he

is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a

parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a

bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was

foiled.)





This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment

of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians —

easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on

battlefields distant from civilian centers — is more difficult in the

present context. Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near

the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents —

babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more

combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide

material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those

who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.





The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these

realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank

robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his

human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the

robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should

be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom

they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and

morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the

direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting

Israeli citizens.





Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah

started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A

democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over

the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter

group contains many who are complicit in terrorism. Israel will — and

should — take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties on the

other side. On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah,

announced there will be new "surprises," and the Aska Martyrs Brigade

said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could

be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt

their use?





Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. These are not "occupied"

territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli

civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism

seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent

terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must

ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.