Israel must be tough on terrorists
Letter
Eytan Morgenstern
Issue date: 3/6/08 Section: Opinions
During the past week or two of escalation of the conflict in Gaza, many in the media and international community began to grumble about Israel's "disproportionate" response to "harmless" rockets being fired upon Sderot and Ashkelon, two cities in Israel.
To understand why this is an untenable argument requires some history on the region. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew all settlements from the Gaza strip and ceded control of the strip to the Palestinian Authority. As a result, more than 2,000 rockets and 1,000 mortar shells have been fired from Gaza into Israel in the past two and half years. These rockets are shot from anywhere and particularly from within population centers. Keep in mind this happens between three and 40 times a day. It is important to note the areas under attack are outside of Gaza and are in internationally recognized as Israeli territory.
It is true that only a small number of people - fewer than 10 - have been killed. But an appalling 260 people have been injured. Furthermore, how many people get hurt makes absolutely no difference under international law. The cities being attacked lie in Israeli sovereign territory, making these attacks completely illegal. Israel is permitted under international law and required as the government of its people to respond effectively to these attacks and prevent them if necessary.
Here are the main examples of what a "proportional" response would be. One, the Israeli army could walk into Gaza, target 10 civilians, shoot them dead and then maim over 260 more civilians to correspond to the Israeli casualties. It is doubtful that even the most cynical observer would consider that a fair, proportional response. Two, Israel could launch over 2,000 rockets and over 1,000 mortar shells indiscriminately aimed at population centers, just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad do to Israel. Again, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who takes that suggestion seriously.
So what is left? Both options seem fairly immoral, although they are absolutely proportional. Maybe Israel should kill and wound the same number of terrorists as Israeli civilians. But that doesn't seem right because clearly there is a difference between Hamas targeting civilians (also called murder) and Israel targeting combatants (also called war), and it also doesn't prevent further attacks.
The only realistic and moral answer of course is to wage an aggressive, offensive war against Hamas and its terrorist buddies who are not only attacking Israeli sovereign territory but also bringing the collateral damage that is an unavoidable consequence of Israeli response upon its own people. Israel should and does do this, not by carpet-bombing Gaza, but rather by using exorbitantly expensive manpower and technology to pinpoint terrorists and destroy them while attempting to minimize civilian casualties. Collateral damage will still occur, and sadly, innocents on both sides will die. But that concept doesn't stop police officers on the street from using lethal force when necessary against those who harm the public, and neither should it stop Israel.
Eytan Morgenstern is a Rutgers College senior.
To understand why this is an untenable argument requires some history on the region. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew all settlements from the Gaza strip and ceded control of the strip to the Palestinian Authority. As a result, more than 2,000 rockets and 1,000 mortar shells have been fired from Gaza into Israel in the past two and half years. These rockets are shot from anywhere and particularly from within population centers. Keep in mind this happens between three and 40 times a day. It is important to note the areas under attack are outside of Gaza and are in internationally recognized as Israeli territory.
It is true that only a small number of people - fewer than 10 - have been killed. But an appalling 260 people have been injured. Furthermore, how many people get hurt makes absolutely no difference under international law. The cities being attacked lie in Israeli sovereign territory, making these attacks completely illegal. Israel is permitted under international law and required as the government of its people to respond effectively to these attacks and prevent them if necessary.
Here are the main examples of what a "proportional" response would be. One, the Israeli army could walk into Gaza, target 10 civilians, shoot them dead and then maim over 260 more civilians to correspond to the Israeli casualties. It is doubtful that even the most cynical observer would consider that a fair, proportional response. Two, Israel could launch over 2,000 rockets and over 1,000 mortar shells indiscriminately aimed at population centers, just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad do to Israel. Again, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who takes that suggestion seriously.
So what is left? Both options seem fairly immoral, although they are absolutely proportional. Maybe Israel should kill and wound the same number of terrorists as Israeli civilians. But that doesn't seem right because clearly there is a difference between Hamas targeting civilians (also called murder) and Israel targeting combatants (also called war), and it also doesn't prevent further attacks.
The only realistic and moral answer of course is to wage an aggressive, offensive war against Hamas and its terrorist buddies who are not only attacking Israeli sovereign territory but also bringing the collateral damage that is an unavoidable consequence of Israeli response upon its own people. Israel should and does do this, not by carpet-bombing Gaza, but rather by using exorbitantly expensive manpower and technology to pinpoint terrorists and destroy them while attempting to minimize civilian casualties. Collateral damage will still occur, and sadly, innocents on both sides will die. But that concept doesn't stop police officers on the street from using lethal force when necessary against those who harm the public, and neither should it stop Israel.
Eytan Morgenstern is a Rutgers College senior.