Empty ethical arguments
By David Navon Haaretz July 26, 2006
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742759.html

As time goes by, world protest against the IDF offensive operation in
Lebanon becomes more widespread. Not all protesters do so on ethical
grounds, but most use ethical arguments. Yet further exploration of these
arguments might show most of them to be mostly empty, or at least they don't
come to terms with what we learn from war ethics literature. Following are
four of these arguments.

Hezbollah's provocation constituted a reasonable use of force. Untrue.

The shooting on the patrol and the kidnapping were aimed at military forces,
but this act was not executed in a fighting context. After IDF forces
withdrew behind the international border as part of a settlement validated
by UN resolutions, all use of force against them, including the killing and
kidnapping of soldiers, is not legitimate.

Also, there is no doubt the Katyusha firings along the border prior to the
kidnapping where illegitimate, since they were aimed at a civilian
population, an act that is prohibited also in a time of war. The fact that
it was a limited action does not make it reasonable. Hezbollah's interest is
to keep the conflict on a low level, since in that sort of warfare it has a
relative advantage. Furthermore, since the act took place as part of an
ongoing attrition strategy, Israel holds the right to respond not only to
that one act, but to all acts that result from practicing such a strategy.

IDF reaction is not a measured one. Untrue.

It is a common error to assume the principle of proportionality relates to
the proportion between the scale of damage and the scale of retribution.
This argument might have been in order if it regarded a scuffle of two sides
that agree to do so within known rules of engagement. But war is seldom like
that. War is fought to try and obtain an objective. When the objective is
legitimate it is referred to as a necessity. The principle of
proportionality relates to the proportion between the amount of force used
to the amount required to achieve the same necessity. When one side
routinely attacks the other with no legitimate cause over years, and the
other side has an interest to stop the aggression, it is allowed to use the
required force to achieve that objective. In our case, we can see that a
little force will not be enough, since all the force used so far is not sure
to be enough.

Harming the civilian population in Lebanon constitutes a war crime. Untrue.

War ethics calls for abstention from an intentional harm of non-combatant
populations, and to prevent as much as possible unintentional harm to those
populations. But it is not always possible to prevent all unintentional
harm. It is much harder when enemy troops systematically use the cover of a
civilian population, in order to put the opposing side in a cruel dilemma
between the achievement of its goals and an attempt to abstain as much as
possible from violating war ethics. In our case, Hezbollah intentionally
operates from within a civilian population, often from house terraces and
mosque courts. Furthermore, most of the civilians used for these ends do so
in full consent and thus they cross the line from non-combatant to
combatant.

Aiming for civilian infrastructure is a war crime as it is intentional.
Untrue.

When a sovereign state makes no attempt to enforce its rule, and knowingly
permits an armed force to operate from it against another state,
responsibility lies on it. The government of Lebanon holds responsibility,
since for the last six years it has done nothing to maintain the UN 1559
resolution that obligates it to practice its sovereignty also over
Hezbollah.

Its weakness is no excuse since it is a result of a conscious decision not
to maintain a force that can enforce a rule. An attempt to force it to
follow its duties is therefore not unreasonable. In view of this, a measured
attack on infrastructure is not illegitimate, more so when it is known that
Hezbollah makes use of this infrastructure (i.e transportation routes to the
south) for its hostile operations; the only option is to attack these
infrastructures in the required measure. It therefore seems that while the
wisdom and effectiveness of IDF operations is debatable, the "ethical
fervor" should be chilled.
===

The writer is a professor of psychology at the Haifa University.