Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

July 26, 2002, 9:00 a.m. War & Responsibility Who is to blame for the deaths of innocents in Gaza. By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

any people, in Israel and abroad, have said that the Israeli strike in Gaza against the number-two man in the terrorist Hamas organization, Salah Shehadeh, was mistaken on several levels. One criticism focuses on the large number of Arabs killed, including children, in the Gaza raid against the terrorist leader. Another criticism focuses on the policy of assassinating terrorist leaders in general, saying that, in fact, such raids do not prevent terrorism, rather they encourage retaliation by the organization thus struck. And a final criticism relates to the timing of the Shehadeh assassination specifically, claiming that the Hamas was on the verge of agreeing to a ceasefire with Israel.

Echoes of all of the foregoing criticisms could be heard in Tuesday's press briefing with White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. According to Fleischer, "Israel needs to be mindful of the consequences of its actions in order to preserve the path to peace in the Middle East. The president views this as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to peace in the Middle East." When a journalist challenged Fleischer to differentiate between Israel's bombing of the Gaza home of Shehadeh and the American bombings in Afghani cities, the press secretary replied, "It is inaccurate to compare the two. And the crucial difference here being that in this instance, in Gaza, this was a deliberate attack against a building in which civilians were known to be located. What's always important is in pursuit of the military objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of life. But in this case, what happened in Gaza was a knowing attack against a building in which innocents were found."

The criticism that focuses on the noncombatant Arab deaths in the Gaza raid contains within it a moral posturing that asserts that Israel was wrong to endanger Arab noncombatants in its strike against Shehadeh. On the contrary, I suggest that it would have been supremely immoral to have allowed an opportunity to eliminate one of the heads of the Hamas to pass by, even if he attempted to use his family and other noncombatants as human shields. Any decision to forego the strike because of the fear of killing noncombatant neighbors of the enemy leader would have been tantamount to sacrificing Israeli civilians for the sake of Arab civilians. Israeli defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer revealed today that Shehadeh was in the process of planning a mega-terror attack. The strike against the Hamas leader, therefore, was timed to prevent that eventuality, with the understanding that hesitation may have cost many Israeli lives. Clearly, the potential Israeli victims of Shehadeh-masterminded terrorism are, properly, the priority of the Israeli government, not the Arab lives that PLO and Hamas terrorists endanger by their choice of headquarters.

This understanding of the Israeli raid is not just the province of Israelis. International law, according to Professor Louis Rene Beres of Purdue University, supports the right of a state to strike its enemies, even as they hide among noncombatants. In an article entitled, "Atrocities, Retaliations and the Laws of War," Prof. Beres explains, "The Hague Regulations in the Laws of War allow 'ruses,' but disallow treachery or perfidy." What is "perfidy" in war? "Perfidy." the professor writes, "includes such treacherous practices as improper use of the white flag, feigned surrender or pretending to have civilian status. It especially constitutes perfidy to shield military targets from attack by placing or moving them into densely populated areas or to purposely move civilians near military targets." The result of the act of "perfidy" on the part of the PLO and Hamas is "[e]xemption (in this case, for Israel) from the normally operative rules on targets." In short, Professor Beres concludes, "the legal responsibility for this tragedy lies entirely with those whose perfidious conduct brought about such harms. [While] Israel has the right and the obligation under national and international law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism."

The other criticism of the elimination of the Hamas leader is that it will lead to "retaliation" or "revenge" attacks by the Hamas. What form would the Hamas "revenge" take, one wonders. Suicide bombings, perhaps? Shootings? Isn't that what the Hamas has been engaged in for the past eight years, while Shehadeh was alive and well? In the past two years alone, the Hamas has been responsible for some of the worst attacks on Israeli civilians, including the gruesome suicide bombing at the Dolphinarium seaside discotheque, which killed 21 teenagers, the Sbarro's pizzeria bombing in Jerusalem, which killed 15 men, women, and children, and the infamous Netanya hotel bombing, which killed 29 Jews attending a Passover meal, and many other terrorist attacks taking the lives of dozens of Israeli civilians. What makes a potential suicide-bombing attempt next week different from last week's suicide bombing, which killed four people in Tel Aviv? In any event, a bit of research in the Israeli press reveals that the Hamas threatens "retaliation" and "revenge" about once every two weeks. All that can be said for certain regarding future Hamas activity is that Salah Shehadeh will never again plan another suicide bombing.

Lastly, some commentators claimed that the Hamas was on the verge of agreeing to a ceasefire with Israel. The unasked question is what is Israel's interest in a ceasefire with the Hamas? The Hamas covenant explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel and the mass killing of Jews. They have pursued that policy doggedly, as their bloody record shows. On the contrary, if the Hamas really was seeking a ceasefire, that is a sure sign that the current Israeli policy of targeted killings has been working and it should be pursued with increased vigor. According to Israeli secret-service reports, the Hamas has already lost its entire leadership infrastructure in Judea and Samaria thanks to Israeli counterterror activities there. Ultimately, a "ceasefire" will be obtained by virtue of the fact that there will remain no Hamas leaders alive or freely roaming the cities of Gaza, either.

One final point. The criticisms leveled by Western states against Israel for the Gaza operation ring particularly hollow when examined in light of the wartime behavior of those very nations themselves. Yoram Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the United States Congress, speaking with the Arutz Sheva Israeli radio station this week, pointed out that "[I]n 1989, the US invaded Panama City in order to extract [the ruling strongman Manuel] Noriega, using jets and helicopters. Six hundred civilians were killed in that raid, according to American estimates, and thousands were wounded. Then [U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,] whose name was Colin Powell, said at the time that the appropriate amount of force was used 'and we have no need to apologize.' The Attorney General at the time, Dick Thornburg, said that the U.S. was operating according to the U.N.'s clause 51 allowing self-defense.. In 1993, in response to the killing and mutilation of 15 U.S. soldiers, the U.S. Air Force bombed Somalia, turning an entire area basically into a parking lot, killing over 1,000 citizens. Again the US said that it was self-defense." Ettinger reminded listeners of the comments by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in reply to critics citing the numbers of civilians killed in the American assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan: "This is a war that has been forced upon us by terrorists. We are making great efforts not to hurt civilians, but if civilians are hurt, the entire responsibility for such is upon the terrorists who use them as cover," said Rumsfeld.

Exactly right.

— Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is opinion editor at www.IsraelNationalNews.com