Should Israel's response to the Iranian attack be proportional?

Too often, human rights activists, diplomats and journalists misunderstand the notion of proportionality as it relates to land warfare laws and the Geneva Conventions. These and other relevant sources of international law do not state or imply that a party must respond to an attack with force proportional to that used against it; rather, the force used should be proportional to the objective.

For example, if sniper fire from a house pins down a military unit, that unit could legally call in artillery fire to destroy the house and neutralize that threat. Artillery and sniper rifles may not represent equivalent firepower, but the amount of force would be proportional to the legitimate military objective of preventing troop deaths. However, there is no carte blanche; it would not be proportionate to launch an airstrike to wipe out an entire city block and kill a sniper in a single house.

The misconception that a party responding to an attack can only respond in a way that would cause the same amount of damage is widespread. Fareed Zakaria, for example, wrote in the Washington PostIt has now been almost three months since Benjamin Netanyahu's government launched its land invasion of Gazaand it's time to ask some tough questions: Was this proportional to the damage Hamas inflicted on Israel?

The appropriate measure for Israel's response requires Jerusalem to examine what is the legitimate military objective of the war in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen or perhaps even Iran. In Gaza, for example, Israel's stated objective is the destruction of Hamas's military capabilities and the end of its control over Gaza. This allows for a far greater use of force than the violence perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Diplomats may not like Israel's objective and may themselves favor a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to reconstitute its weapons and governance, but this does not affect the legality of Israeli policy. objective and methods. Israeli strategists rightly consider decades of deadly Hamas attacks and the likelihood that they will continue. The Israel Defense Forces therefore have every right to wage war in Gaza until Hamas surrenders or is destroyed.

Like Zakaria, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch for nearly three decades until his resignation in 2022, stumbled on proportionality. Roth argued that Israel violated proportionality by rescuing three hostages held by Hamas because, in its view, too many Hamas fighters and civilians died. He is wrong, however, because if Israel had used less suppressive fire, Israel's likelihood of rescuing the hostages and protecting the rescuers would decrease. (Roth also plays fast and loose with who he defines as a civilian.)

President Joe Biden also erred in referring to proportionality. After Iran launched more than 100 ballistic missiles at Israel, it of opinionIsrael has the right to respond. It should be a proportional response and warned Jerusalem not to target Iranian nuclear facilities. The decision on how Israel will respond, however, depends on whether Israel is willing to tolerate a cycle of repeated missile attacks by Iran, or whether it wants to end the multi-front war that Iran imposes it. Jerusalem could also envisage that the Islamic Republic will now accelerate its efforts to build an operational nuclear device, a goal it must anticipate.

Israel therefore has a menu of legitimate options, ranging from limited strikes to an effort to entirely destroy Iran's nuclear program and/or eliminate the regime's leaders. To be legal, Israel's efforts should be proportional to these goals, not an arbitrary or political notion limited to emulating attacks on Israel, the standard now mocked by pundits or politicians.