What They Are Saying

July 27, 2006 - Jonathan S. Tobin, Executive Editor

Civilians as Shields and Swords: A New Kind of Warfare Author and Harvard Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz writes in The Wall Street Journal (www. opinionjournal.com) on July 19 that the "arithmetic of pain" does not obligate Israel to refrain from hitting Hamas and Hezbollah:

Alan M. Dershowitz

"There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is 'reasonable.'

"The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be 'proportional' to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

"This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting 'collateral damage' on its civilian population.

"Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its 'disproportionate' response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.

"While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties ... Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, 'have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor.'

"This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians -- easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battlefields distant from civilian centers -- is more difficult in the present context.

"The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens.

"Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism."

The Battle of Peace-Seeking Nations

Novelist Amos Oz writes in the Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) on July 19 why the Israeli left backs the country's offensive in Lebanon:

Amos Oz

"Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. This time, the battle is not over Israeli expansion and colonization. There is no Lebanese territory occupied by Israel. There are no territorial claims from either side.

"Hezbollah launched a vicious, unprovoked attack into Israeli territory. This was also an attack on the authority and integrity of the elected Lebanese government, as Hezbollah has ... hijacked the prerogative of the Lebanese government to control its territory and to make decisions on war and peace.

"Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of towns and villages by attempting to smash Hezbollah.

"The Israeli peace movement should support Israel's attempt at self-defense, pure and simple, as long as this operation targets mostly Hezbollah and spares, as much as possible, the lives of Lebanese civilians.

"There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah. Hezbollah's missiles are supplied by Iran and Syria, sworn enemies of all peace initiatives in the Middle East.

"The real battle raging these days is not at all between Beirut and Haifa but between a coalition of peace-seeking nations -- Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on the one hand -- and fanatic Islam, fueled by Iran and Syria, on the other."

The Real Enemies? Syria and Iran

Publisher William Kristol writes in The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com) on July 24 that the goal must be a change of regime in Syria and Iran:

William Kristol

"Why is this Arab-Israeli war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Most of Israel's traditional Arab enemies have checked out of the current conflict.

"What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. Better to say that what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.

"Here is one lesson that does seem to hold: States matter. Regimes matter. Ideological movements become dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations.

"No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria ... little state sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah.

"The war against radical Islamism is likely to be a long one. Radical Islamism isn't going away anytime soon. But it will make a big difference how strong the state sponsors, harborers and financiers of radical Islamism are. Thus, our focus should be less on Hamas and Hezbollah, and more on their paymasters and real commanders: Syria and Iran.

"While Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. The right response is renewed strength -- in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran.

"In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly ... to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too."