A reader responds

A reader writes in response to my post here and here, among others-

A policy of disproportionate response to attack works well for corporate firewalls. Of course, for some, that is the equivalent of an atomic response to a punch in the nose, which may not be so acceptable when people die, rather than data. I do not think that Israel has over-stepped the boundary of reason, though -- especially when it is surrounded by nations whose stated goals are to destroy it.

There is a key point here, one difficult for Americans to fully grasp, I think, and a point that cannot be dismissed or discounted- that Israel is surrounded by nations and groups that, with varying degrees of intensity, wish to see the nation of Israel eliminated. Israel walks the razor's edge, and must be more prepared to defend itself that the US must be- even in the post-9/11 world.

That said, each action still must be judged on its own merits and according to its own implications. Israel rightly went after the aggressor in this case- Hezbollah. The military wing of Hezbollah is almost entirely based in the south of Lebanon, by all the reports I have read. Attacks on these outposts and the weapons contained therein was justified, in my view.

It is the attacks on Lebanese infrastructure further north that I believe crossed the line. First, in terms of motivations. The attacks on Beruit by Israel were clearly intended to cause the Lebanese government to do something about Hezbollah. I have heard no analysts discussing the conflict who believe that the Lebanese government has this power. The Lebanese government is a fragile one- only recently becoming democratic with much applause from the Bush Administration. In its weakness, the Lebanese government cannot control Hezbollah. Iran, primarily, and Syria, secondarily, are the nations that have influence. Deaths in and around Beruit, therefore, that resulted from Israeli attacks were without merit, bringing suffering and death to people who do not have control over the situation- namely Lebanese civilians. To cause death without merit crosses the moral line.

Secondly, in terms of effects, reports from numerous sources are now indicating that Lebanon may face a humanitarian crisis in the next couple of weeks. This is due to the destruction of infrastructure in and around Beruit and other locations. People lack food- staples such as rice and lentils, which make up a substantial portion of the Lebanese diet- electricity, and fresh water. The ability of anyone to get these basic needs met in the current environment is seriously in doubt. The practice of taking war to the civilian populations like this is morally questionable under any circumstances, but when war is visited upon civilians when it will not achieve any positive result (as discussed above), the question is removed. It is wrong.

In the Christian tradition there exists a theory of just war. This tradition dates back to at least St. Augustine (354-430 c.e.), and has been reconsidered by others over the years. One of the basic tenets of just war theory is that a war must be undertaken proportionately- which is primarily to say limited to the war's aims. If Israel's aim is to remove the threat from Hezbollah, it does not seem logical that an attack on infrastructure in northern sections of Lebanon will help, therefore, such attacks are not proportionate. Another basic tenet is that a war must be waged with all possible moderation. In a just war international conventions should be obeyed, excessive destruction should be avoided, and particular care must be taken to avoid the death and injury of non-combatants. It appears that Israel's actions- which have already killed hundreds of civilians- violate just war theory here as well, especially if one takes into account the looming humanitarian crisis.

While the reader makes an important point about Israel being surrounded by enemies- and is the second reader to send this type of comment to me in an email- I don't believe this point rules the day, as it does not overcome other ethical and moral limitations that should be rightly placed on the conduct of war.

GP