Published in Houston Herald-Voice.   September 28, 2006

MUSINGS #16

By EMIL STEINBERGER

‘Proportionality’ in War.

After the faithful date of an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on the members of IDF in Israel resulting in murder of three and seizure of two who are still kept as hostages by the terrorists, and following Israel’s response to this attack--- the world exploded. Some of the American and the European media as well as the hallow halls of the U.N. started bandying instantly the term proportionality over the oceans of news media orgies played for the eager ears of a large part of the Moslem world and for the non-Moslem anti Israelis and the anti- Semites. Playing for, what could be considered, the ears of anti Jews.

Most encyclopedias offer a relatively extensive discussion of the words proportion and proportionality as well as their applications in a variety of specific areas of use, as for example mathematics, physics, studies of the body, arts, architecture, etc. However, I am interested here only in its use in politics and particularly in the war theories and their legalities.  

Recently William Safire in his weekly newspaper column “On Language” tackles the word “proportion” from linguistic, political and legalistic viewpoints, and brings up its usage by the various “World Personalities”. He quotes Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations characterizing Israeli strikes against Hezbollah infrastructure as “a disproportionate use of force.” He mentions the Washington Post’s columnist, Eugene Robinson who under a headline: “It’s disproportionate”, wrote, “of course Israel has the right to defend itself… But how can this utterly disproportionate, seemingly indiscriminate carnage be anything but counterproductive?” Most articles on this topic express similar sentiments. Safire, however, after weaving between words like balance, symmetry, correspondence, etc., concludes in his  article that proportionality, “As used in today’s headlines and polemics, it carries a special sense of not excessive”.

Who determines what is “excessive”? Since “excessive” is a relative term, Safire brings into the discussion some aspects of the legal/diplomatic context in order to deal with this subjective word. He quotes Lionel Beehner, a writer of the Council on Foreign Affairs, on the doctrine of proportionality, “A state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered……expert say the proportionality principle is open to interpretation and depends on context.” Safire then quotes Michael Newton, professor of law at Vanderbilt University:”The doctrine of proportionality for conducting war--- the so-called jus in Bello (“law in war”) ---is one of the cornerstones of military professionalism… Israel in general is very clear in its targeting decisions and seeks to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. So long as the attempt is to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes a large amount of damage---but is directed at a target with a very large military value---would be lawful.” Well, this is a ‘mouthful’, but it says a ‘mouthful’! How does one define “a very large military value?” I think that this is intellectual ‘nose picking’.

In the course of millennia entire forests of trees had to be cut down to produce sufficient quantity of paper necessary to print articles and books dealing with “Just War” and “proportionality” as its essential ingredient. The concept of “Just War” had been discussed intensely by philosophers, historians and politicians. Already the bible hints at the ethics of wars and their “just cause”. During Roman era, Cicero discussed “Rules of War” and St. Augustine in the fourth century later St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century provided a systematic philosophical in depth analysis dealing with these concepts. Their writings became a model for subsequent analyses and discussions. Grotius (1583-1645), actually codified a set of rules for “Just War”, which served to a considerable extend until now.

Apparently, the “Just War” theory and the concept of proportionality “served as some of the keystones of the constitution of European Union established in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). The theory promulgates the idea that war could be “just” when it satisfies appropriate conditions, as for example proportionality. Thus, proportionality is essential for the concept of “Just War” theory. Since conditions during a war are variable, open to interpretation, and frequently to political influence, the concept of “Just War” remains highly controversial.

I lived through the WW II in Europe, read the newspapers, and experienced the war there. Subsequently I lived in the U.S.A., and read the papers here during the time of various wars including the Iran vs. Iraq war, the USSR vs. Afghanistan war, etc. At no time did I observe a wild media circus in Europe or in the United States dealing with alleged disproportional military reactions comparable to that resulting from the recent Israeli – Hezbollah military clash.

The many-year long history of random bombardments of civilian population in northern Israel by Hezbollah terrorist groups from the adjacent areas of “Southern Lebanon elicited little or no western media indignation or even attention, despite repeated admonishments of Hezbollah by the U.N. to cease these attacks. However, the response of Israel in the past several weeks to these bombardments resulted in an instant barrage of indignations from as far up as the hallow halls of the United Nations and down to the lonely midnight news commentators. The military response of Israel to the indiscriminate and wanton murder of their citizens and destruction of property by Hezbollah, triggered demonstrations in some of our cities and in many cities in Europe directed against Israel and in support of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that clearly and publicly proclaims its goals --- the murder of the Jews. Hezbollah cannot claim territorial injustices or “revenge for Israeli attacks” on their people as the cause of the murderous attempts since neither had occurred.

Let us examine the appropriateness on the part of the ‘World’ and the United Nations to bash Israel on the issue of the “Just War” aspects of proportionality. The theory to apply, the war must have just authority! One of the conditions for rules of just authority to apply is the requirement that legitimate governments be engaged in the warfare. Israel did not attack the legitimate government of Lebanon. It made every attempt to use ‘surgical precision’ in an attempt to destroy Hezbollah cowardly embedded into civilian Lebanese sites. The goal was clear--- destruction of Hezbollah’s military interests and supply lines. The attack was targeted narrowly at Hezbollah, a criminal terrorist organization operating unlawfully against Israel from Lebanon’s territory. Hezbollah is an organization that the lawful government of Lebanon is unable to control. Thus, the media and some of the world organizations could have spared wasting their bellicosity on Israel in the name of the proportionality issue since in this case l it did not legally apply.

However, I probably could had spared you reading the details of the intricacies of Jus ad bellum and arguments re proportionality.  I could had simply concluded, at the begin of this article, that reviewing the news media accounts of past wars I failed to notice a great desire on the part of the various countries or their military establishments to proffer the concepts of proportionality when engaged in their military responses. Most frequently, they preferred the concept of victory achieved at any material or human cost. This much for the recent media avalanche on proportionality and Israel’s response.

The Author may be reached at: esteinberger1@comcast.net