Israel’s strategy in Lebanon, the extensive use of aerial bombing, has proven both ineffective and immoral when compared to the alternatives. It inevitably requires the endangerment of civilians and the disproportionate and unwieldly use of force against innocent people. Peter Hitchens writes:
I hate to agree with the liberals and the creepy foes of Israel who say that this war is ‘disproportionate’, but the fact that these people are what they are, doesn’t mean they are wrong. I was against the bombing of Belgrade, and the bombing of Baghdad (unlike Jack Straw, who managed to stay in the government drawing a cabinet salary while these things were going on, and whose objections to Israeli bombing are therefore worthless whining).
I was against them because I have in recent years found out what aerial bombing actually does. I grew up in a Britain which cheerfully accepted that it was right to bomb Germany to rubble, because they had started it. I entirely agreed with this view for many years. Then I began to read the full details of what happened when our bombs fell. I was particularly struck by the repeated accounts of the mad women, made insane by the loss of their homes and families, who roamed about Germany carrying their dead babies in suitcases; also by the reports of adult human figures, baked in airless cellars for so long during the Dresden firestorm that they were shrunk to the size of children; and of the great clouds of bluebottles gathered over the ruins of Hamburg after an RAF raid, so devastating that there was nobody to clear the wreckage or bury the huge numbers of civilian dead beneath the rubble. We may not have known then. We certainly know now. This is not a form of warfare that a Christian country can use. By the way this does not even slightly reduce my admiration for the courage of the bomber crews, who were not responsible for the policy of area bombing, or aware of its true effects, and who faced (as most modern bomber pilots don’t) serious opposition.
Our ancestors, my grandfather’s generation, who grew up before 1914, would have regarded this sort of thing as barbaric and unthinkable. Genuine, terrible shock ran through the country when German warships bombarded Scarborough and Hartlepool, and when German airships and planes dropped bombs in British civilians. Quite right too. We should, in 1918, have banned aerial bombing of civilian areas by treaty and declared it a war crime. Instead, we began to do it ourselves notably in Iraq, because it was cheaper and easier than sending soldiers.
So if Israel wishes to go after targets in Lebanon, it must use soldiers to do so – something it is increasingly doing but which I don’t think Mr Benn will support. Yes, this will lead to painful casualties among those soldiers, but – if you must have war – it is better that soldiers die than that women or children do. I might add that such operations will also be far more effective and accurate than the lazy and (these days) rather cowardly method of dropping high-explosive from the sky, while sitting in a near-invulnerable aeroplane.
Hitchens’ humanity stands in stark contrast to the syllogistic reasoning of the neoconservatives and neoimperialists in both parties who are so cavalier and indifferent to civlian suffering in wars that are anything but wars where national existence is genuinely threatened. The use of this tactic is simply not the way a Christian society behaves. And this is not the type of behavior that a Christian society should countenance in its allies–Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.
Lest I be accused by some ghoul of anti-semitism, I wrote something very similar regarding the Western Allies’ strategic bombing of Germany during World War II: “There is no need to adopt a consequentialist morality that says for any good goal, any means may be pursued. The distinction between civilians and combatants is an essential Western concept. It’s the basis for our condemnation of terrorism. It’s regrettable that the strategic bombing of WWII did much to erase that distinction in our own behavior.”
In short, in the course of its operations against the worthless Hezbollah organization, Israel must accept risk to its combatants to protect the lives of Lebanese noncombatants. These people are innocent. It does not matter tha they’re Muslims, that they don’t like Israel, or that they have voted for Hezbollah political candidates. So long as they are bona fide noncombatants, their lives must be spared and their suffering alleviated. Israel chose to follow the popular, but entirely cynical and unmanly use of aerial bombardment as the US did in Kosovo. In both cases, the terrible results for civilians were entirely forseeable and indefensible.
Subscribe To This Feed
I worry, Chris, that this is not a Dresden or Hamburg situation. From what I have read of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, they are targeting actual centers of Hezbollah activity and locations whence rockets and other attacks have originated. This is not the wholesale obliteration of cities that was justified in earlier wars as necessary to cripple morale or industrial production; Israel is targeting the “military” assets of a group of illegal combatants that have deliberately embedded themselves amongst a civilian population.
Now, in the particulars, it may in fact be the case that the known (or predicted) infliction of civilian casualties is so high in proportion to the expected Hezbollah casualties that the Israeli response is, in fact, disproportionate. But I find it hard to accept the near-blanket rule that you and Hitchens seem to support, which would bar strategic bombing in all but the most total of campaigns. I accept that nations that hold themselves to higher standards – the U.S., the U.K., Israel, Australia – should not generally be in the business of targeting civilians and that our high standards should – and do – translate into a willingness to accept higher military casualties to preserve our national characters. But it can’t possibly be right to deny ourselves the ability to use effective strategic bombing campaigns against those who flout the laws of war in a deliberate attempt to handcuff our capabilities.
I agree in principle that not all strategic bombing or air campaigns are inappropriate or “disproporitionate” by necessity. That said, when the enemy is a widely dispersed infantry force with a few mobile Katuyshas, I think it more likely is. You are certainly correct to say this is not a Dresden or Hamberg situation.
That said, judging with the information at our disposal, it appears at least part of the Israeli intention is to (a) depopulate Southern Lebanon by making it unlivable, chiefly by attacking key infrastructure (b) make other parts of Lebanon unlivable and (c) create limited harm to the Christian and non-Shia peoples of Lebanon to impel them to take on Hezbollah. The whole principle is one of broad-based collective punishment even though, unlike say a single town or village, it can be hardly said the Lebanese population as a whole is complicit with or even supporting Hezbollah. Indeed, Hezbollah is a minority voice in their government.
I also think the question of whether strategic bombing generally should be considered inhernetly unjust depends on what we mean by strategic bombing. If it means bombing supply depots, key infrastructure, and military-related industrial sources, then I don’t think it’s wrong, either generally or in the case of “total war.” But if it means wiping out entire swaths of peopple, cities, etc. to make them incapable of supporting the military (or living) then I oppose it. That at least is arguably what was done in WWII.
I do agree with you that Israel generally has a right to do what it must to defend itself, and that it can’t adopt so stringent a concept of the “law of war” or “proportionality” that it can do nothing. That said, this campaign suffers from the double problem of being both ineffective and disproportionate and indeed ineffective because it is disproportionate and anything but “surgical” in nature.
Leif: “…they (IDF)are targeting actual centers of Hezbollah activity and locations whence rockets and other attacks have originated. This is not the wholesale obliteration of cities that was justified in earlier wars as necessary to cripple morale or industrial production; Israel is targeting the “military” assets of a group of illegal combatants that have deliberately embedded themselves amongst a civilian population.”
Roach seems to be overly polite to the nonsense you post Leif. Look, all this “disproportionate” nonsense is the “politically correct” way of saying indirectly that Israel pursues a policy of collective punishment of civilian populations in all of it’s military activities.
Since Roach is too polite to explain the obvious to you, then I’ll bluntly explain to you the facts of life.
First of all, Israel targeted civilian infrastructure, destroying water, sewage, transportation, power generation…on and on. What does destroying sewage treatment plans or targeting oil dumps have to do with guerilla warfare?
Secondly, no one on the ground believes this “collateral damage” nonsense except perhaps you and the Likkudniks in the War Party. There were just too many incidents of Israeli attacking humnnitarian relief columns and civilian motorcades for anyone to believe this.
Consider this, Leif! The civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is in ruins, and civilians are taking the brunt of the suffering. Yet Hezbollah was hardly damaged as a fighting force! Go figure!
Hey! What was the purpose of all those “precision bombs” the US delivered to Israel? Wasn’t the purpose of precision bombing to sparing civilian lives? The technological advancement of precision bombs was supposed to make WWII style carpet bombing obsolete! Yet look at all the civilan casualties Israel is responsible for inflicting!
Finally, Israel had little justification for invading Lebanon in the first place! The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers did not justify a full scale invasion of Lebanon. Israel has on many occasions engaged in prisoner exchange negociations. From the beginning Hezbollah was willing to return the 2 Israeli soldiers in exchange for Lebanese & Palestinan civilians held in Israili prisions.
It’s also important to remember that Hezbollah’s actions were in retaliation for the Israeli attacks on civilans in Gaza for guess-what—the capture by Palestinan militia of an Israeli soldier! Again I might remind you, the Palestinans were willing to exchange this Israel prisioner of war for Palestinan women and children held by Israel!
Chris, we are in agreement as to the definition and purpose of strategic bombing.
I admit to not following the particulars of this too closely, which may be why I’m not able to meet you on the particulars. But I was not under the impression that Israel was trying to depopulate southern Lebanon; I was under the impression that they were, in fact, trying to make incursion to and excursion from that area more difficult so that Hezbollah could neither retreat to regroup nor receive reinforcements of men or materiel.
Too, based on my information, the “strategic” bombing portion of the Israeli campaign is now over, and they have moved to tactical bombing – attempting to hit rocket launch sites before the launch equipment and personnel can mobilize to new locations. I don’t know what Israel’s artillery emplacements or capabilities are, but it’s quite possible that air power is the only way to destroy a firing position fast enough once it’s been identified as a rocket launch site. As Hezbollah has been conducting its indiscrimiate rocket attack campaign largely from residential areas, I’m not surprised that civilians are bearing the brunt of the collateral damage. Of course, that’s why we have the Geneva Conventions, about which these criminals care nothing except for their use in undermining Western effectiveness and morale.
Leif, you are exactly right! Look how how noxious anti-semitites and traitors like Roach and Pat Buchanan are trying to make excuses for terrorism by distracting us with nonsense about civilians caught in the crossfire?!
Leif, you like myself are enlightened by God Himself, and your words are the holy messenge of Democracy and Goodness that God has ordained the United States to achieve in our lifetimes! You know as I do that the civilian population is better off even though they are suffering because we are bring God’s justice to them, and they will get their reward in Heaven.
This is a holy war of Good against evil! You cannot negociate with terrorists, all you can do is kill them evildoers! It is Us versus Them! We are on God’s side, and God is telling us to kill Them. They must either accept Democracy or we must kill Them! If civilians get hurt, then it’s God’s will. God has given us the superior weapons, and the reason God gave us these high tech weapons is to use them on the evil-doers.
In the real world, 45 million-plus Islamic fundamentalists want to annihilate Israel and America.
In the real world, they will not stop killing us until we kill them. This is not about some short-term geographical or political agenda; this is about a world religion gone mad in the minds of 10 percent of its adherents and their apocalyptic vision for the overthrow of all governments, religions and peoples to usher in a new world of Islamic conquest.
They do not want land, freedom, political power, money or rights. What they want is simple: Your soul ââ¬Â¦ or your blood.
How do you negotiate with an Islamic radical who has only one goal:
Total world domination resulting in the conversion, or destruction, of every human being on earth.
Do you offer to convert or murder half the world if they will delay their attacks?
Do you suggest that they should be happy with Eastern World domination instead of total world domination?
Do you ask them to give the Western nations a little respite from their homemade bombs while we consider the claims of Islam and see if there are reasons to consider converting?
Do you give them the opportunity to build madrasas in Western nations to preach Islamic violence and conquest, if they will just allow us to continue our present way of life for a little while longer?
Just how do you negotiate with a terrorist who wants to kill himself, and you, rather than to let you live as a non-Muslim?
After we kill all the evil-doers, the civilians can enjoy the benefits of American way of doing things like the flat tax, being an entreprenuer, and not letting the government take from one to give to another. Except that is, the taxes for our Government to kill evil-doers.
Yeah for Leif when he said: “…(the Israelis were) trying to make incursion to and excursion from that area more difficult so that Hezbollah could neither retreat to regroup nor receive reinforcements of men or materiel.”
He is exactly right! If anyone gets killed, it’s their fault for being in the way!
Why should Israel risk the lives of it’s soldiers in hand to hand fighting on the ground, when we’ve got the F-16 jets that can just blow up everything in the general vicinity of where we suspect the Hezbollah is holed up?
In other words, what do we have the F-16 for, if not to use them to conserve the lives of Israeli soldiers!!! We are talking about Israel here, and the lives of Jewish people, and the safety of Israel!
This is the most courageous nation on earth, born out of the fires of the Holocaust, the one that has survived every attack against it, everyday, since its birth in the fires of war in May of 1948 to do what lazy, fat, over-comfortable and over-prosperous, opinionated but spineless Americans like Pat Buchanan and Chris Roach no longer have the gumption, spiritual will or moral clarity to do.
Israel is taking on the greatest threat to American and Western freedom that we have experienced since World War II. Israel is doing what America ââ¬â for fear of disapproval of liberals like Barbra Streisand—are too frightened to do!
We must wage war against an intractable enemy until they either lay down their weapons and surrender unconditionally, or are laid down by the righteous retribution of honorable men who will not allow their criminal acts to continue!
I believe we have now jumped the shark in the comments section.
James, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I see two comments by me, one by Chris, and then these last two between you and I. If anything, the comments have been surprisingly terse.
Strategic bombing involves leveling things like, oh, say, Dresden. Israeli bombing in Lebanon involves hitting a specific truck or a bridge or a high rise where Hizb’Allah stationed a headquarters in cynical violation of Article III of the Geneva Conventions. No warring power has much of a legal or perhaps even moral obligation to spend it’s lives to protect civilians on the other side who have been intentionally endangered by the other side.
On the other hand, tactics like blockades (and unlike Britain in the Wars of the French Revolution, the Entente in WWI and the Allies in WWII, Israel let food through) and taking out road networks, however, can backfire and punish the wrong people in counter-productive ways. That said, to seriously compare Hamburg to, say, Qana (or Jenin!! – remember the “massacre at Jenin!! – yeah, you didn’t, but that’ll always stik in my head), is lose all sense of proportion. If Hamas had built bomb shelters for people instead of Katyushas, the civilian deaths would have been significantly lower, quite likely lower than Israeli civilian deaths.
No, no one writing in supports Hamas or prays for the murder of the Jews, but whyn not try to put on our serious hats when discussing such things?