As Israel struggles to protect its citizens from the deadly rain of thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza bringing death and destruction to Ashkelon and Sderot, we are once again hearing cries around the world that Israel should exercise “caution” and react “proportionately”.
Israeli lives are once again being valued cheaper than others. The Mid-East’s sole bastion of democracy is once again being held to an impossible and unjustifiable double standard by sister democracies.
It is bad enough to hear such comments from Condoleeza Rice, it is thoroughly disheartening when echoes of it are heard in Ottawa. The Harper government has given this nation a new pride and purpose in world affairs. Loyal to liberty, and its advocates and allies. Strong in resolve. Free of the chains of moral relativism and political equivalency. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask who advised Foreign Minister Bernier to issue a stern note of caution to Israel to temper its operations in Gaza meant to ferret out and destroy those responsible for the attacks.
Bernier’s statement was particularly perplexing because he acknowledged that “…Hamas and other groups responsible for the growing number of rockets fired on Israel are determined to target civilians and create even more instability and misery.” And while calling on these groups to stop, he called on Israel “…to consider the impact of its response…” and to “…take better measures to protect civilians…“ His implication that Israel does not is as best egregiously naïve and at worst a throwback to the pandering of this government’s predecessors.
One of this government’s bravest moments came some 18 months ago on the last day of “la Francophonie” summit in Bucharest. The summit was thrown into a tizzy when Mr. Harper refrained from taking his seat at what was supposed to be the closing news conference because of his opposition to an Egyptian-led, and French supported, resolution expressing concern and sympathy for Lebanese civilian victims of the recent Middle East war, without mentioning Israeli civilian victims of the naked aggression launched from Lebanese soil that precipitated the conflict.
The Prime Minister announced that “the Francophonie cannot recognize victims according to their nationality. Recognize the victims of Lebanon and the victims of Israel.” Remarkable. No double-talk. No diplomatic babble-squawk. No eye on focus groups. And fully in line with Harper’s rejection of the position that Israel’s response against Hezbollah had been “disproportionate”.
So let’s give Bernier the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this column and assume his comments did not reflect the views of this government, but those of Department of Foreign Affairs diplomats who stuck a position paper in his hands to read. It is all the more necessary to address this question of proportionality that underlines his remarks and those of previous Canadian administrations’ views on the Middle East.
Proportionality is not an encoded doctrine in international law. It is a notion that has a very broad range of definitions. International law has grappled with it for a long time. It has been viewed through many prisms and applied with many nuances.
Falk’s “Law of Retaliation” took the traditional view that armed response should not inflict more damage than was inflicted during the initial injury. Venezia, in “La Notion de Represenailles en Droit International Publique”, broadened that position by adding that reprisals should not offend norms of civilized conduct and regard for human life and that the retaliating state must avoid a use of force which would risk a full scale war or jeopardize world peace. Colbert, adding yet another dimension, understood proportionality to mean that a state not employ force beyond the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the reprisal.
The parameters defining proportionality share one thing in common. They are inherently contradictory. Israel does not engage in armed response for sport or shooting practice. Israel launched this campaign to prevent as many future rocket attacks as possible. The purpose of Israel’s armed response is to destroy the hosts and bases of the violators of its sovereignty which it is fully entitled to do under customary and normative international law. If Hamas killed two Israelis it would make no sense for Israel to launch a retaliation simply to kill two Hamas members. This would be a punitive rather than a preventive action and would be the subject of even more condemnations.
Israel does not need to address the question of offending “norms of civilized conduct and regard for human life.” Those that should be held to account for this are the true offenders — the murdering Jihadists who are defended by so many appeasers and apologists in the West. Israel has been repeatedly criticized for carrying out reprisals that, as in every act in war including Canadian ones, bear some consequent collateral damage with the deaths of some civilians. Yet collateral damage is not intentional homicide and cannot be judged on the same basis, nor is it by international legal norms. Hamas cells are the launchpads for murder and Israel is fully justified in attacking the perpetrators with all necessary force. Hamas is hiding among civilians in Gaza just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon.It establishes and encourages homicide camps in the heart of the refugees. Human shields once again.
Proportionality does not abort nor abridge the right of a state to exercise armed response in order to protect its citizens and sovereignty. Israel’s patience and restraint before taking military action is beyond proportionate. The inherent contradiction which exists between proportionality and the right of armed response might be resolved if we use proportionality as a tool to define the farthest frontier of where a state may go after it accomplishes its military goals in eliminating the perpetrators of international delinquencies, rather than as a constraint to prejudice the victim and appease the victimizer. Especially if, as Minister Bernier admits, Hamas and its fellow travelers are intent on creating even more instability and misery.
