Posted by Paul Cassell:
What Does "Proportionality" Mean In Gaza?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1232039052


   My colleague Amos Guiora has an interesting op-ed on the situation in
   Gaza, focusing on the question of how the concept of proportionality
   should apply in a situation where the combatants (Hamas and Israel)
   have disproportionate power. Here is the core of the argument:

     Israel and Hamas have disproportionate weapons available to them.
     The IDF has planes, helicopters, tanks, artillery and patrol boats.
     Hamas has Kassam and Grade missiles. What needs to be asked as a
     matter of international law is whether the available,
     disproportionate weapons are used proportionally. With regard to
     the current situation in Gaza, proportionality must be viewed from
     two perspectives: the threat posed and how is that threat posed.

     The threat posed is to a million innocent Israeli civilians - Jews
     and Arabs - living within a 40 km (25 mile) radius of the Gaza
     Strip. The threat is actual and has been realized. There have been
     fatalities, injuries, damage to property and general disruption of
     daily life within Israel. How this has occurred is critical in
     understanding Operation Cast Lead in the context of collateral
     damage. It has occurred because of a broadly-based Hamas
     infrastructure.

     In declaring war on Hamas, Israel has deliberately left undefined
     the degree to which an individual must be affiliated with Hamas in
     order to be categorized as a legitimate target. The consistent and
     constant bombing of southern Israel over a number of years required
     a broadly based and highly developed infrastructure. Such an
     infrastructure enabled the digging of many tunnels, the building of
     weapons and their storage and the firing of thousands of missiles.
     In contrast to the traditional model associated with the suicide
     bombing infrastructure predicated on the individual bomber, the
     planner, the driver and the financier, the Hamas rocket firing
     infrastructure is inherently broader.

     By expanding the definition of �legitimate target,� the IDF has
     narrowed the definition of �collateral damage.�

     This new paradigm presents enormous risk, for it invariably leads
     to the photographs that have caused Israel significant damage in
     the court of international opinion. The visual images from Gaza
     during the last two weeks are far more powerful than any
     spokesman�s words.

     However, Israel declared war on an organization, and by extension
     on all those involved in that organization � active and passive
     alike. That is precisely how Operation Cast Lead is different from
     all previous Israeli operations.

     While self-defense (in the classic model) is the legal basis for
     Cast Lead, the IDF�s re-articulation of proportionality and
     collateral damage is a new development in international law. How
     this new paradigm is implemented in the Gaza Strip is the essence
     of the issue. It means that the IDF is conducting an aggressive
     policy directed at Hamas. It suggests expanding the number of
     legitimate targets and broadening the definition of �military
     necessity�.

     It does not � and must not � mean that all Gazans are legitimate
     targets. Israel�s Defense Minister declared war on Hamas, not on
     Gaza. The IDF must minimize collateral damage; to do otherwise is a
     violation of international law.

     Further, Israel must not ignore its international humanitarian law
     obligations. To do otherwise is a violation of international law.
     The three-hour respites from aerial attacks to facilitate attending
     to humanitarian needs represent an attempt to balance between
     humanitarian obligations and operational necessities. However, the
     essence of the Israeli policy � the rightness or wrongness of which
     must be debated � is that declaring war on an organization that has
     fired more than 6,000 rockets into Israel since 2005 justifies
     enlarging the definition of legitimate targets and therefore
     narrowing the definition of what is considered collateral damage.

   You can read the whole piece [1]here.

References

   1. 
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/legal-aspects-of-operation-cast-lead-in.php

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to