![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
The concept of the proportionate response has assumed prominence in discussions and debates about the conflict between Israel and the Islamists. There is a clear acknowledgment that Israel is right to react to such acts of war as having missiles lobbed into her cities and the kidnapping of her citizens and soldiers. However, it is decried that there are surely limits, and that Israel has been easily surpassing those limits, as Lebanese casualty rates far outstrip those for the Israelis.
I believe that all reasonable people can agree that proportionate responses are at the heart of what we mean by justice. The disagreement lies in what we are comparing. I do not think that the ideal we should be seeking is a more or less even trade-off between casualties.
First, why are there more casualties in Lebanon? Is it because the bloodthirsty Jews are aiming at civilian centers wishing to kill as many innocent civilians as possible - the more women and babies the better?
That sort of murderousness rests more with the Islamists, who have hardly been quiet about their desire for a second Holocaust. President Ahmadinejad has spoken openly of the desire to wipe Israel off the map, and Hamas certainly does not drop the goal of ending the existence of Israel. The target of these jihadists is indeed to kill as many civilians as possible.
Moreover, when it comes to racking up civilian casualty counts, the jihadists are happy to have the casualty rates of their own people climb. This gives them more political clout as it gets the likes of France to back up their cause, not to mention the support of 'progressives' in general to favor the supposed underdog.
These Islamists certainly do not go to a lot of trouble in trying to spare their population. They purposely stage and hide their weaponry in civilian residences and centers. I do not suppose that they are necessarily heartless about their people, but only that they may see it as a worthy sacrifice to a greater goal, and that these 'martyrs' are amply rewarded in the afterlife for the fight against the satans of this evil world.
When it comes to a proportionate response, rather than focusing exclusively on a trade of casualties, we may do better to figure in the goals of the parties in our calculations. The goal of the jihadists is the liquidation of Israel. In light of that, it does not seem an unreasonable goal on the part of the Israelis to liquidate the jihadists.
To engage in a trade-off of casualties is to play into the jihadists' hands, as I have argued elsewhere. I think that time is working in their favor. In years to come, they will only acquire greater technological resources with which to wage their war against Israel. When the jihadists have nuclear weapons, we may no longer be able to exercise any control over their dark and wayward policies and goals, and I at least believe that this would be only a great detriment to the Muslim peoples of the region, as they will only be locked down further in medievalist oppression, not to mention what a life-threatening disaster that may be for Israel.
I am not arguing that this is an easy if ugly answer. I seriously doubt that Israel and the West can liquidate the jihadists. Some point out correctly that this sort of escalation only steps up recruitment as more moderate Muslims seek out the Islamist banner against Israel, which is another reason why the jihadists appreciate higher civilian casualties. But trading casualties is not the way either, and in the end, it is a game that may cost Israel and the West should the Islamists attain the power to pursue their objectives more aggressively. There is no clear and ideal answer. We do not know where this is going.
My point is that in seeking a proportionate response, the ideal should not be only in the exchange of casualties. I believe that the goals of the parties need to be calculated into the idea of a proportionate response. There is only one way to end a war, and that is to win it. If the Islamists insist on carrying out war against Israel, it is wrong to insist that Israel not wage war in return.
The Arabs and Islamists have only to stop the violence against Israel, and Israel shall then have no cause to use violence against them. Whatever righteous grievances the Palestinians may have against Israel may then be met with a true and earnest hearing from the international community. I believe that the Americans will also happily mediate those differences with real neutrality.
xXx
The concept of the proportionate response has assumed prominence in discussions and debates about the conflict between Israel and the Islamists. There is a clear acknowledgment that Israel is right to react to such acts of war as having missiles lobbed into her cities and the kidnapping of her citizens and soldiers. However, it is decried that there are surely limits, and that Israel has been easily surpassing those limits, as Lebanese casualty rates far outstrip those for the Israelis.
I believe that all reasonable people can agree that proportionate responses are at the heart of what we mean by justice. The disagreement lies in what we are comparing. I do not think that the ideal we should be seeking is a more or less even trade-off between casualties.
First, why are there more casualties in Lebanon? Is it because the bloodthirsty Jews are aiming at civilian centers wishing to kill as many innocent civilians as possible - the more women and babies the better?
That sort of murderousness rests more with the Islamists, who have hardly been quiet about their desire for a second Holocaust. President Ahmadinejad has spoken openly of the desire to wipe Israel off the map, and Hamas certainly does not drop the goal of ending the existence of Israel. The target of these jihadists is indeed to kill as many civilians as possible.
Moreover, when it comes to racking up civilian casualty counts, the jihadists are happy to have the casualty rates of their own people climb. This gives them more political clout as it gets the likes of France to back up their cause, not to mention the support of 'progressives' in general to favor the supposed underdog.
These Islamists certainly do not go to a lot of trouble in trying to spare their population. They purposely stage and hide their weaponry in civilian residences and centers. I do not suppose that they are necessarily heartless about their people, but only that they may see it as a worthy sacrifice to a greater goal, and that these 'martyrs' are amply rewarded in the afterlife for the fight against the satans of this evil world.
When it comes to a proportionate response, rather than focusing exclusively on a trade of casualties, we may do better to figure in the goals of the parties in our calculations. The goal of the jihadists is the liquidation of Israel. In light of that, it does not seem an unreasonable goal on the part of the Israelis to liquidate the jihadists.
To engage in a trade-off of casualties is to play into the jihadists' hands, as I have argued elsewhere. I think that time is working in their favor. In years to come, they will only acquire greater technological resources with which to wage their war against Israel. When the jihadists have nuclear weapons, we may no longer be able to exercise any control over their dark and wayward policies and goals, and I at least believe that this would be only a great detriment to the Muslim peoples of the region, as they will only be locked down further in medievalist oppression, not to mention what a life-threatening disaster that may be for Israel.
I am not arguing that this is an easy if ugly answer. I seriously doubt that Israel and the West can liquidate the jihadists. Some point out correctly that this sort of escalation only steps up recruitment as more moderate Muslims seek out the Islamist banner against Israel, which is another reason why the jihadists appreciate higher civilian casualties. But trading casualties is not the way either, and in the end, it is a game that may cost Israel and the West should the Islamists attain the power to pursue their objectives more aggressively. There is no clear and ideal answer. We do not know where this is going.
My point is that in seeking a proportionate response, the ideal should not be only in the exchange of casualties. I believe that the goals of the parties need to be calculated into the idea of a proportionate response. There is only one way to end a war, and that is to win it. If the Islamists insist on carrying out war against Israel, it is wrong to insist that Israel not wage war in return.
The Arabs and Islamists have only to stop the violence against Israel, and Israel shall then have no cause to use violence against them. Whatever righteous grievances the Palestinians may have against Israel may then be met with a true and earnest hearing from the international community. I believe that the Americans will also happily mediate those differences with real neutrality.
