The response to Hamas terrorism, the attempt to end rocket launches and offensive actions by Hamas against southern Israel's cities and towns, and the attempt to create a peaceful border with Gaza has resulted in an Israeli offensive which continues to escalate as this week comes to a close. But the issues of "what is a legitimate target" and "what is a proportionate response" seem to haunt the media, sometimes making it seem as if Israel is acting irresponsibly toward the Palestinians. That is diplomatic bombast! Nothing could be further from the truth.

A Path to Peace

January 2, 2009
Rabbi Seymour Rossel

If I were a congregant coming to synagogue tonight, I would expect the rabbi to speak about the current situation in Israel. At this very moment two of my children are in Israel and my wife will leave for Israel this month. So I have set aside the third of my three historical sermons on the six hundred years from 300 BCE to 300 CE, hoping that I will be able to return to that subject next week. In the meanwhile, I do have a few words about current events, not because I am an expert but because I believe this is the responsibility of a congregational rabbi.

    The current situation in Israel raises some essential questions that are often overlooked by the media, which mainly seeks good photographic opportunities. The first and most important question is "What precisely is a legitimate target in a military operation?" And the second, equally important issue is "How can we determine whether Israel's response is disproportionate?"

     What makes these issues so salient is that Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, is actively sponsoring rocket attacks on Israeli civilians while using their own civilian population as a shield. Clearly, Israel is in a conflict it tried to avoid. In fact, Israel withdrew every Israeli soldier and all 8000 Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in an attempt to disengage with the Palestinians and in response to several initiatives for peace in the region.

     Despite this, Hamas has continued to fire rockets into Israel. At this moment, the rockets have reached as far as Beersheva, so all school has been cancelled within a forty-kilometer distance around the Gaza borders and more than 400,000 Israeli citizens wake up each morning and go to bed each evening in constant danger. There are many who impute cynical reasons to Israel's decision to take action against Hamas at this moment. Some say that Israel is taking advantage of the last days of the Bush administration to avoid the possibility that the President-Elect will attempt to negotiate with Hamas. I am not inclined to that opinion. In my experience, Israel acts when a situation becomes intolerable, regardless of American politics; and almost always when Israel is in possession of good intelligence regarding the forces it is facing. We have seen this several times in our lifetime and, things being as they are, we are likely to see it again.

     Israel has no choice but to defend its citizens. And its citizens have been and continue to be deliberately targeted by Hamas which has chosen to act as a terrorist organization. At the same time, the State of Israel seeks to limit injury to civilians on both sides: not only to Israeli civilians but also to those Palestinian civilians within whose midst Hamas has chosen to stockpile and fire its rockets.

     As a responsible nation with no doctrine of terror, Israel is painfully aware that any flagrant violations of international law by Hamas do not absolve Israel of its responsibility to comply with legal principles in its response. Nevertheless, the established principles of international law do not always contain clear-cut answers. They can only provide some degree of guidance on the conduct of military operations.

     So we return to our questions: "What is a legitimate target?" and "What is a proportional response?"

     International law for the conduct of modern warfare is mainly found in what we call "the Geneva Conventions." These principles recognize that civilian deaths and injuries may occur in lawful military operations. For an operation to be lawful it must be directed at a "legitimate military objective." If a military objective -- a missile launcher or weapons stockpile -- is placed in the heart of a civilian area, it does not cease being a lawful military objective. The primary responsibility for civilian causalities arising from this kind of "shielding" lies with the party that deliberately places civilians at risk. Hamas chooses where it will place its weapons and where it will fight from, while Israel can only choose to respond where the adversary is operating. There is no truth to the notion that Hamas has no room to operate outside the civilian areas of Gaza. There is plenty of land outside the civilian areas but, as we see, Hamas has intentionally chosen to shield itself where women and children are inevitably bound to be injured. This choice is theirs. It is not in Israel's interest to harm women or children or, indeed, any innocent civilians.

     International law also requires that military operations be "proportionate" in the sense that expected collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. This is a complex and difficult calculation and international law is not more specific. The Geneva Conventions rely on the best determination of the commander in the field in the heat of the conflict to weigh all relevant considerations, including the security of his own forces.

     In this regard, the IDF (the Israel Defense Forces) have written their own doctrine, requiring commanders to refrain from any attack that is expected to inflict incidental harm on civilians excessive in proportion to the expected military gain. In practice, this requires the IDF and the commander in the field to constantly assess and reassess both the expected military gain and the potential of collateral injury. Whenever possible, the IDF also makes strenuous efforts to give advance notice to the civilian population in the vicinity of military targets, including places used by terrorists for storing weapons and launching attacks, so that they have an opportunity to leave the area. These warnings are carried out by dropping of leaflets in Arabic, through telephone calls, and in radio announcements.

     Israel is also making major efforts, right this minute, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip are met, by facilitating the transfer of essential supplies such as food, medicine and fuel. You can be sure that if Hamas were ever in a position where Israelis were in need of such supplies, the situation would not be a pleasant one. The stated intention of Hamas is the destruction of Israel and the destruction of Israel's civilian population -- nothing less. The intention of Israel is to protect its civilians and maintain its borders -- nothing more.

     As a rabbi, my sympathies are with the victims on both sides. It is inevitable because of the choices that Hamas is making that there will be more damage to the civilian population of Gaza than to the Israeli population that Hamas is targeting. This serves Hamas' political purposes and makes for obvious anti-Israel propaganda in the press, which is given every opportunity to see the wounded Palestinian women and children and the inadequate hospitals and medical facilities available to them.

     But this serves no real purpose for Israel. Israel has no reason to target innocent civilians except where it is forced to do so in order to reach a legitimate military target. This kind of policy does not make for good photo ops for journalists and it does not evoke sympathy for Israel. But Israel is a democracy and, as we are well aware, democracies are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. especially when they face an enemy who has no respect for human life. God has told us that we must choose life. As Jews, the Israelis are making every attempt to "choose life" in this conflict. They need our prayers for guidance and wisdom in making those choices, but they deserve little criticism even when they make a mistake. Their intention is the same as ours: To find a path to peace. And let us say: Amen.