Andrew Sullivan asks the following question:
How does just war theory defend the deaths of many innocent civilians as a means to increase “deterrent strength”?
The first answer is that Andrew is being coy; the ground operation is not only intended as a deterrent measure, it is intended to push Hamas off the territory it has been using near the Israeli border to launch rockets, and it is intended to kill important members of Hamas — its vanguard of fighters and leaders — and yes, it is also intended as a deterrent measure. If Andrew does not want to see the IDF either completely re-occupy Gaza or lay waste to ever-larger parts of the territory, he must allow the IDF a third way: create a new deterrence posture against Hamas so that the terror regime will be forced to make a new calculation about the value of its rocket war on Israeli civilians versus the destruction to its own infrastructure and lives that such attacks invite.
Increasing “deterrent strength” against an enemy is simply another way of saying that you intend to fight them until they stop attacking you. As far as just war theory is concerned, I invite Andrew to cite chapter and verse, or even vague tenets, which might guide us toward his claim of the illegitimacy of the ground operation.
Nobody knows at this moment whether Hamas is deterrable. The question depends on whether Hamas actually intends to fight to the last man and on the efficacy of the IDF’s ground war. But surely it is also true — according to just war theory, no less — that the sovereign state of Israel, in an attempt to protect its citizens, is allowed to discover whether deterrence is possible. I note that since August 2006, Hezbollah has been awfully quiet on Israel’s northern border; and that since 1973, so have Syria and Egypt.
UPDATE: Yaacov Lozowick: “Bye Andrew.”
There’s an “impartial third-party administrator” in southern Lebanon—the UN has allowed Hezbollah to acquire tens of thousands of rockets and missiles all aimed at Israel. There’s an “impartial third-party administrator” in Gaza–the UN runs the schools there indoctrinating kids in suicide bombing and causing other problems. Replace “impartial third-party administrator” with “Santa Claus,” “elf,” or your favorite imaginary character and your position is no different from that of Kurtzer and Bell.
i would like to comment rick for his fair and equitable criticism…i only regret that a neutral third party didn’t play an oversight role in assuring that his criticisms were, indeed, equitably fair and fairly equitable…
…of course, let’s not be too hard on messrs kurtzer & bell…maybe their editors insisted on the qualifiers on the chance that, you know, ignorant readers might presume their article championed unfair peace and inequitable processes…
But…as a Jew, that “fair and equitable” policy applied to the Temple Mount prohibits me praying, reciting psalms or performing any other devotional act anywhere within the confines of the Temple Mount precincts, not overground and not underground, although more equitable arrangements have been in place at the Machpela Tomb in Hebron for the two religions, nor the pursuit of scientific archeology excavations when, on the other hand, the Muslims have been enabled to construct two new mosques there, dump tons of dirt that is proving to contain First and Second Temple artifacts and, on occasion, launch rocks at Jewish worshipers below, in the Western Wall Plaza.
Fair?
The fair thing to do for peace is to squash all the terrorists as a first step. That, as opposed to increasing their power.
Do Kurtzer and Bell remember that the UN General Assembly recommended an international government for all of Jerusalem plus Bethlehem in its Partition Plan proposal of 11-29-1947? It seemed that nobody really wanted it but the outside major powers. Obviously Israel cannot trust any international control over Jerusalem to allow Jewish access to Jewish holy places. Medad is right to say that Israel’s govt has been too lenient in allowing the Muslim Waqf, which is the Muslim trust actually controlling the Temple Mount, to destroy part of the existing age-old structure, deny Jewish religious rights on the Mount which had been approved by the Israeli Supreme Court, etc. The problem that Kurtzer and Bell don’t want to talk about is the Islamic belief that the Muslims are allowed to take over the holy places of other religions and deny any rights to these other religions over their own holy sites. This has occurred not only with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem but in India at Ayodhya, in Constantinople at the Hagia Sophia church, and in Damascus at the `Umayyad Mosque, formerly a church [in this last mentioned case, the Muslims may allow some Christian prayer, although the waqf controls the place].