I find this to be a very logical dissertation on the subject. Since this may be the precursor to WW III, it would behoove reading in its entirety so we might have a better understanding of the pain.

Arithmetic of Pain

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall Street Journal
July 19, 2006; Page A12

There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets,
so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate"
response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.

While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.)

This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians -- easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battlefields distant from civilian centers -- is more difficult in the present context. Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents -- babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.

The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens.

Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism. Israel will -- and should -- take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties on the other side. On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new "surprises," and the Aska Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. These are not "occupied" territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

 

I think that's probably right and I agree with you, my point was really that the positive points you highlight about the UN have come about because of the general good intentions and goodwill surounding the organization - and despite the problems I alluded to. I think I'm primarily not convinced by Annan - and I shouldn't let that cloud my judgement of the organization as a whole.

 

I understand this, but the lines that were drawn in those days died when each of those empires died. Perhaps not entirely, but surely more so than the last couple centuries. Also, the problem isn't so much that there are lines, because no one really pays attention to them. It's that in colonial times, we moved people around and said, "you go over here and you go over here, and we'll take this, and you can have that stuff that no one really wants, and when we leave we'll let you buy our old guns so that you can shoot each other over the land that we split up between you." Back with the Romans, and the Mongols, and the Ottoman Empire they simple occupied the land and said this is all ours and you're our slaves. Once they crumbled there really weren't too many new lines and no one was placed on top of anyone else. But I agree, there is definitely enough blame to go around.

 

JDN,

I really liked that dissertation on the arithmetic of pain. Excellent find.

 

I definitely see where you are coming from, I mean, there have been more than enough controversies to begin questioning who we have in charge. Such as Commission membership of Sudan and Libya and the Oil-for-Food Scandal. But I think before you just drop somebody based on the actions of a few people below them you have to give that person a chance to correct those actions. In March the General Assembly passed a resolution to replace the Commission with the Human Rights Council and enforce much stricter rules on membership. I don't know, maybe I have too much faith in the views of Wilson and Roosevelt, but it just seems like the UN is a better path to take then to just blow everyone up.

 

Sorry, I didn't respond to the first part of your post. And the response is... I agree, but the UN doesn't have any power to impose consequences, that's why it's a nobel system. The best that the UN can do is lead by example and support and encourage those that follow. That's why there is talk of favoritism and the UN not being able to do anything. We help those that follow along, and we can't do anything to those that don't. But what would you have the UN do? Bomb them. The UN tries to encourage people to make the right choice based on the good of man, but sometimes that choice isn't so easy when neither side is listening.

 

In an international arena this logic is utterly flawed. A bank robber is NOT guity of the murder of a human shield if that person is shot dead by the police. He is guity of kidnapping and bank robbery, but the police are guilty of killing the hostage. They DECIDED to pull the trigger the bank robber did not make them do it.

In his analogy - the police are innocent if the hostage dies - so they don't need to take any care to protect him and can shoot indiscriminately.

Perhaps this principle is legally correct in the USA - but it is NOT correct in the UK - and that is something I am VERY grateful for.

Israel have a RIGHT to defend themselves and a RESPONSIBILITY for the deaths of any innocent people that they kill in the process.

Hezbullah have placed the lives of ordinary Lebanese in danger by hiding amongst civillians - but if civillians are killed in an Israeli attack the blame rests with Israel.

 

So Israel should just constrain itself and watch Hezbollah and Hamas kill its civilians. Are you sure that's what the UK should do, too? Remember the Nazi V2 bombardment of London in WW II? Some similarity to a Katyusha. V2 Experience

 

they saaid he is too drunk just kidding

 

This is not true. The police are not responsible for the death of the hostage. And no one said that they are allowed to just shoot indiscriminately. There are very strict procedures that they must follow, however no guilt is placed on the police in either the US or the UK if a hostage is shot and killed by the police.

In 1980, British police in Bermingham accidentally shot and killed a pregnant girl, Gail Kinshen, who had been taken hostage. Although this led to the public expressing doubt about how the police officer acted, he was not considered guilty of killing the hostage.

Also, in 1983 and 1985 there were three other deaths, Stephen Waldorf, John Shorthouse, and Cherry Groce. These deaths were not so much hostage situations as cases where the deceased were actually thought to be the criminal. In every case the police officers were found not guilty. The jury commented that although the police had made a mistake, the did not act unreasonably given the circumstances.

All of these incedents happened in the UK and I think the last three pertain even more to the current state in the Middle East. They also further support the points made by Prof. Dershowitz that Israel is not acting unreasobaly given the current circumstances.

Edit: I should also point out that in 2001 a man was shot by Metropolitan Police officers when his gun-shaped cigarette lighter was mistaken for a real gun. The police were not found guilty of murder, but were once again criticised.