Disproportionate?

A lot of media attention the past few weeks has been focused on the conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I wrote the following article in my high school newspaper in March 2008, after Israel conducted a short operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I think the arguments hold true in todays conflict as well:

Headline: Disproportionate?

Sub-head: The world condemns Israel for acting against terror that no other country would tolerate 

Imagine what our government would do if terrorists took over part of Mexico and started firing rockets into our sovereign borders – rockets that were aimed at our civilians, wreaked havoc upon our border towns and were gradually increasing in range. Obviously, America would rise up to defend itself against this terrorism – quite forcefully – and there would be no problem with this. No one in the in the world could expect us to tolerate such flagrant violations of our national sovereignty and security.

This situation has been happening in Israel. Over the past seven years, Hamas terrorists from the Gaza Strip have launched about 8,000 rockets into Israel's borders, killing, injuring and destroying. But there's one difference between the international community's treatment of Israel and its treatment of other countries: whenever Israel tries to defend its citizens from brutal terror, the world doesn't accept its actions, but in fact labels them as "disproportionate" responses.

Search "disproportionate force" on Google, and the vast majority of results that come up deal with the defensive, counterterrorist actions of this country about the size of New Jersey, nestled on the western edge of the Middle East. You'll find journalists, along with ostensibly credible sources like the United Nations or European Union, lamenting Israel's efforts to defend itself and blaming it for inadvertently killing civilians, even when those deaths are the direct result of terrorists' tactics. Governments that would do the utmost to protect their citizens if they were in a similar situation condemn Israel for exercising its moral responsibility to keep its people safe.

Let’s take what has happened this year. For years, Israel has been patient, sustaining daily rocket attacks aimed at civilian areas. Residents of communities bordering Gaza have lived in constant fear: according to a recent study by the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, up to 94 percent of children in Sderot, the border town that has borne the brunt of the attacks, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after experiences with rocket assaults. Israel has tolerated what no other democratic, sovereign nation would tolerate.

But after increasingly destructive rocket barrages in the beginning of 2008, after protests by citizens who felt as if their government had abandoned them, and after examining and attempting different options, in early March Israel decided to act against this incessant violation of its sovereignty and prevent future attacks. It launched a five-day operation to do what any responsible government would do: go after the terrorists.

Predictably, international condemnations ensued. Not significant condemnations of terrorism being inflicted upon Israeli civilians (after all, that had been happening for years and no one had spoken out), but condemnations of the “disproportionate force” that Israel was using in its fight against Hamas combatants. The Israeli Defense Forces had destroyed rocket storage sites and other terrorist infrastructure. Unfortunately, Hamas militants had used human shields during the fighting; therefore, there were also a number of Palestinian civilian casualties. And so the world, neglecting to dig beyond the surface of civilian deaths, defaulted to blaming Israel. "Disproportionate force" was in the news once again.

It seems not to matter that while Hamas terrorists aim to kill civilians, the Israeli military strategizes on how to cause the least civilian suffering while simultaneously hitting terrorist targets. This can be hard, seeing as Hamas and its allies use their own civilians as human shields. They fire rockets from civilian areas, such as residential buildings and even playgrounds, and they position themselves in civilian enclaves while in combat. But Israel’s critics seem to ignore these facts.

It seems not to matter to the international community that Israel is acting in self-defense, against military targets, while the thousands of rockets landing within its territory have been unprovoked attacks on civilians. Israel voluntarily gave up its occupation of the Gaza Strip over two years ago, so Hamas cannot claim "resistance" as a motive. Its terrorist actions are clear violations of international law. Or is international law only applicable to one side of the conflict?

One side bears responsibility for the most recent flare-up in this decades-long conflict: Hamas. It bears moral responsibility for recent Palestinian deaths and suffering in Gaza, as well as the death and suffering of Israelis. Hamas is not just some rogue splinter group – it is the official representative and governing body of the Palestinians in Gaza. It won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and just last summer violently seized complete power in Gaza from the more moderate and secular Fatah party. Gaining political power didn't do much to quell Hamas's militant ideology. It opposes the peace process, or even any recognition of Israel. It deliberately targets Israeli civilians just because they are Israeli. If Hamas stops firing rockets, the bloodshed ceases; if Israel does not defend itself, rockets keep falling onto its territory.

Meanwhile, Israel is blamed for unintentional civilian deaths, deaths that it mourns, but that are the result of actions taken in defense of its populace. And when there are intentional civilian deaths – then Israel's justice system prosecutes the perpetrators, quite the opposite of the terrorists it fights, who rejoice upon hearing of a child gunned down, or a home blown up.

Let’s get one thing straight: there is no “proportionate” response to terrorism. In fact, such a response would be completely immoral. Example: terrorists send a rocket over the border, striking an Israeli nursery school and killing a teacher and a two year-old girl (as happened on June 28, 2004). Does this mean that Israel must send a similar rocket targeting a Palestinian nursery school, trying to kill exactly the same number of innocent civilians and terrorize the neighborhood? This scenario is preposterous. Should Israel try such a “proportionate” response, I will be among the first to condemn it. Now, a “disproportionate” response – targeting more civilians – would understandably be even more terrible.

But targeting the terrorists who are responsible for making your children live in fear – that’s moral. That’s called self-defense, dignity and accountability.