The current conflict between Israel and the Terrorist group Hezbollah has sparked an interesting question. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said about the conflict, "Both the deliberate targeting by Hezbollah of Israeli population centers with hundreds of indiscriminate weapons and Israel's disproportionate use of force and collective punishment of the Lebanese people must stop." I have seen the phrases "disproportionate use of force" and "excessive use of force" used a lot to describe Israel's response to the kidnapping of 2 soldiers, and rocket attacks from the terrorists. My question to you is, what is wrong with responding disproportionately?
Let's examine this question with a hypothetical situation. Say that you are mugged, and the guy robbing you threatens you with a knife. At your disposal are a knife of your own, and a pistol. What is the best way to defend yourself (for the sake of argument, giving up is not an option)? If you are to respond "proportionately," you would pull out just your knife. However, that would be stupid, and would most likely result in injury to yourself. A gun is certainly disproportionate to a knife, but it is the best means of defending yourself. Similarly, Israel has one of the strongest militarise in the world, when they are attacked by rockets, should they simply fire a few rockets back? That is the proportionate use of force, but would be one of the worst courses of action possible. Responding proportionately results in a stalemate.
Israel did, indeed respond to Hezbollah with a disproportionate use of force, but that is exactly how one should respond in war. Otherwise, you'll end up in a far worse situation than you were in to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment