Disproportionate force?
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has complained that the IDF is using "disproportionate force" in its incursion into Gaza. What does this mean, in the course of a war one is only supposed to use the same weapons that one's enemy is using? Should Israel set up a bank of home-made rockets on the Gaza border and shoot them into Gaza City? Would that be proportionate?
Should the IDF capture Hamas terrorists and hold them hostage? All the prisoners that Israel holds in its jails (ca. 6,500 total, of which ca. 1,000 are women and under-18s) have been taken to court, have been charged with crimes, tried and found guilty. There are no irregular imprisonments in Israel as there are in the US (in Guantanamo) and as there are in the PA and most of the Muslim world, where anybody can be arrested without due process.
If the IDF has to go into northern Gaza to try to stop the rocket barrage (and they have already withdrawn from there!), doesn't it make sense that they should use armoured vehicles to protect their soldiers, and shouldn't they use superior weapons if they have them, such as tanks and rockets fired from helicopters. Certainly these weapons cause more damage, death and destruction, but that's the whole point, destroying the enemy and winning the battle. So far in Gaza it has been reported that there have been 20 Palestinian deaths and 1 Israeli killed in Beit Lahiya (by friendly fire). Since there have been many wars in human history and they have been studied by experts, the usual ratio of deaths to ensure victory is calculated as approximately 10:1.
This was the case at the last Battle fought on British soil, the Battle of Culloden in 1746, where the mainly Scottish highlander Jacobite supporters (of Bonnie Price Charlie) were defeated by the English. Once the battle was won, and in order to ensure no repetition, the English went through the battlefield bayonetting the survivors. I am sure the English would like to give us advice on how the IDF should behave in a civilized manner in battle.
Can you think of any other country that has been accused of using "disproportionate force" except Israel. Did the US use disproportionate force against the Indians? Maybe, but no international agency existed then to criticize them. Did NATO use excessive force when confronting the Serbians in Kossovo? They certainly bombed many civilian targets, including the Belgrade Radio station (that had broadcasters in it at the time), the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and many Bridges (one with a passenger train on it). I don't remember anyone criticizing NATO for using "disproportionate force," even though Serbia had no airforce and no air defences. But then disporportionate force was the NATO strategy to pressure Milosevich to quit Kossovo, and it worked.
I could go on giving examples (what about the Russians decimating Grozny, twice), but the point has been made, only Israel is singled out for this particular criticism, and it's another of the pro-Palestinian PR catch phrases, like "indiscriminate killing" and "humanitarian crisis" that are thrown around without consideration for the actual factual situation.
For example, although many spokesmen have gone to the media claiming a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, Israel in the past five days let over 100 truckloads of medical, food and energy supplies into Gaza. While fighting the Palestinian terrorist organizations and the PA security forces, Israel is at the same time supplying the PA with electricity, water, and fuel. Has any other country done this within living memory? If so please let me know. So tehre is in fact no "humanitarina crisis" in Gaza. Yet even though the IRC and Food Aid thanked Israel for its cooperation, no private aid organization changed its opinion that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza!
Meanwhile, since the Palestinians are throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF, they are training Israeli soldiers to do the same, to avoid the criticism of "disproportionate force." What's next, bows and arrows?
Should the IDF capture Hamas terrorists and hold them hostage? All the prisoners that Israel holds in its jails (ca. 6,500 total, of which ca. 1,000 are women and under-18s) have been taken to court, have been charged with crimes, tried and found guilty. There are no irregular imprisonments in Israel as there are in the US (in Guantanamo) and as there are in the PA and most of the Muslim world, where anybody can be arrested without due process.
If the IDF has to go into northern Gaza to try to stop the rocket barrage (and they have already withdrawn from there!), doesn't it make sense that they should use armoured vehicles to protect their soldiers, and shouldn't they use superior weapons if they have them, such as tanks and rockets fired from helicopters. Certainly these weapons cause more damage, death and destruction, but that's the whole point, destroying the enemy and winning the battle. So far in Gaza it has been reported that there have been 20 Palestinian deaths and 1 Israeli killed in Beit Lahiya (by friendly fire). Since there have been many wars in human history and they have been studied by experts, the usual ratio of deaths to ensure victory is calculated as approximately 10:1.
This was the case at the last Battle fought on British soil, the Battle of Culloden in 1746, where the mainly Scottish highlander Jacobite supporters (of Bonnie Price Charlie) were defeated by the English. Once the battle was won, and in order to ensure no repetition, the English went through the battlefield bayonetting the survivors. I am sure the English would like to give us advice on how the IDF should behave in a civilized manner in battle.
Can you think of any other country that has been accused of using "disproportionate force" except Israel. Did the US use disproportionate force against the Indians? Maybe, but no international agency existed then to criticize them. Did NATO use excessive force when confronting the Serbians in Kossovo? They certainly bombed many civilian targets, including the Belgrade Radio station (that had broadcasters in it at the time), the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and many Bridges (one with a passenger train on it). I don't remember anyone criticizing NATO for using "disproportionate force," even though Serbia had no airforce and no air defences. But then disporportionate force was the NATO strategy to pressure Milosevich to quit Kossovo, and it worked.
I could go on giving examples (what about the Russians decimating Grozny, twice), but the point has been made, only Israel is singled out for this particular criticism, and it's another of the pro-Palestinian PR catch phrases, like "indiscriminate killing" and "humanitarian crisis" that are thrown around without consideration for the actual factual situation.
For example, although many spokesmen have gone to the media claiming a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, Israel in the past five days let over 100 truckloads of medical, food and energy supplies into Gaza. While fighting the Palestinian terrorist organizations and the PA security forces, Israel is at the same time supplying the PA with electricity, water, and fuel. Has any other country done this within living memory? If so please let me know. So tehre is in fact no "humanitarina crisis" in Gaza. Yet even though the IRC and Food Aid thanked Israel for its cooperation, no private aid organization changed its opinion that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza!
Meanwhile, since the Palestinians are throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF, they are training Israeli soldiers to do the same, to avoid the criticism of "disproportionate force." What's next, bows and arrows?
posted by Jack Cohen at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home