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.
