David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy absolutely annihilated the sock puppet, aka Glenn Greenwald, in this post. Glenn was whining, as most of the pro-terrorist left is, that Israel is being mean and not playing by the rules when they attack hundreds of targets because Hamas sent a few rockets in:
I can ask, rhetorically (though Greenwald is free to answer): when a terrorist entity controls territory bordering that of a sovereign nation, and indiscriminately lobs rockets into that nation’s territory, terrifying the civilian population and making normal life unlivable, what is a proportionate response?
Israel has engaged in pinpoint targeting of military facilities operated by said terrorist entities, and has gone so far as to send messages in Arabic to residents of Gaza, warning them that if they allow their homes or businesses are sheltering Hamas weaponry, they will be destroyed. Even according to Palestinian sources, the overwhelming majority of victims of Israeli bombs thus far have been Hamas fighters. This is perhaps the least extreme response that any sovereign nation faced with an analogous situation has ever engaged in. Cf. Russia in Chechnya.
Greenwald’s real problem, I surmise, is that he thinks that Israel’s response is “disproportionate” not because its disproportionate relative to Hamas’s military actions and Israel’s military objectives compared to the civilian damaged inflicted (more or less the international law definition of proportionality), but because he believes that Israel is primarily to blame for the situation in Gaza, and therefore any suffering inflicted on Gaza’s civilians is primarily Israel’s fault. Hence his observation about Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which is not at all relevant to whether Israel’s response to the rocket fire is “proportionate,” but rather to whether Israel is morally at fault in general.
But by putting the issue in terms of the “proportionality” of Israel’s response, Greenwald (and others) are obscuring their real argument, which is that Israel is not entitled to act in self-defense because no matter how many rockets are launched into Israeli territory, Israel is ultimately the aggressor in the Gaza situation.
I find that argument hopeless naive, and, in fact, counterfactual. Let’s start with the fact that the blockade was a response to Hamas’s actions against Israel, not vice versa. (If Hamas had been a peace-loving entity, and Israel had nevertheless blockaded its territory, and I had attacked Hamas’s military response as “wildly disproportionate”, then Greenwald’s counter-offer of a trip to Gaza would make sense). Now imagine for a moment that Hamas announced, sincerely, that its goal was no longer to annihilate Israel, but to establish a peaceful Islamic democracy that was willing to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to achieve a lasting agreement with Israel, and then acted on that announcement by ceasing all violence aimed at Israel and offering to commence negotiations immediately. Is there any doubt that the blockade would end forthwith? And, for that matter, that Israel would happily cooperate with a peaceful Hamas and the international community to return Gaza to the incredible rates of economic growth (and beyond) it achieved under the first 20 years of the “brutal occupation”? Hamas, however, is not interested in a peaceful settlement with Israel, and, while its leaders hide in underground bunkers, is perfectly willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian civilian.
So, to sum up, let’s rephrase Greenwald’s position: “I think that Israel is not entitled to cause any casualties, civilian or otherwise, in Gaza, because Israel bears the primary, indeed, almost the entire, responsibility for the conflict it is facing with Hamas. Therefore, Israeli civilians living in the range of Hamas rockets must simply bear with it until their government adopts more enlightened policies that will magically lead Hamas to prefer to live in peace with Israel.
To people like Greenwald Israel has no right to protect their nation because hell, they shouldn’t have a nation anyways. If Israel would just do the world a favor and cease to exist then we could get back to flying kites and dancing in the streets.
As far as this proportional crapola goes, since when did the warfare rulebook come out saying that any attack must be proportional in size? If a nation is justified in using violence, as Israel most certainly is, then you don’t send in a few missile strikes ala Bill Clinton, but send in as much firepower as possible to end the conflict quickly. To do anything else is just ineffective, as we found out during the 90’s and Clinton’s useless attacks that made us look more like a paper tiger then anything else.
Hamas proclaims daily that they will use violence to ensure the destruction of Israel, and lobs rocket after rocket into the nation that they border, and Israel is just supposed to send in a few missiles in return?
Puhlease.
Wordsmith quoted Bruce Lee in a comment which quickly and efficiently spells out what the reality of warfare really is:
“Let your opponent graze your skin as you smash into his flesh. Let him smash into your flesh while you break his bones. Let him break your bones as you take his life.”
But to Greenwald and the left Israel should play pattycake with Hamas as Hamas works to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
See author page