Since the unprovoked savage attack by Hamas terrorists on October 7, and the declaration of war on Hamas by Benjamin Netanyahu that evening, the free world and, in particular, the Western media, has been fixated on proportionality. Given this fact, one might question the legal and moral definitions of proportionality.
In the strictest and most straightforward terms, the principle of proportionality involves weighing of contemplated actions against the justification for taking such actions. In responding to aggression or perceived aggression, military forces are not free to ignore rules of conduct. Collateral damage to non-combatant civilians would only be justified in war when the action would eliminate a direct threat to the army or to the citizens of that army’s country. The action of Hamas in the Gaza envelope directly targeted civilians; of the 1,200 murdered and 240 hostages, more than 75 percent were noncombatants. Moreover, Hamas gained no military benefit from this action. Within 24 hours, none of the sites originally conquered by Hamas remained in their hands, and their brutal and savage attack resulted in a strong Israel. Hamas supporters argue that their action reflected their rightful resistance against the Israeli occupation. However, Hamas targeted the Gaza envelope, whose residents were mainly left-wing Israeli citizens who supported the peace movement. They indiscriminately killed infants, children, women, and the elderly, who had no role in any martial activity of Israel. Thus, the Hamas attack was a planned massacre without any true military goal.
In contrast, the Israeli military has not targeted any civilians in Gaza. Indeed, before attacking a specific region or area known to house Hamas butchers, the IDF warned Palestinian civilians and asked them to move South. This prewarning was an attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Not surprisingly, there is documentation that Hamas terrorists physically prevented their own people from moving South, beating and shooting those who wouldn’t obey. Moreover, by creating a humanitarian corridor to move Palestinians out of harm’s way, Israel seems to have allowed [Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar to escape from the North to the South. Under the rules of law, Israel as a State responding to military aggression is required to follow international norms in conducting its martial response and not harm civilians unless there is a direct military objective.
In the present conflict, the United Nations aside, the United States, the European Union, and most of the free world consider Hamas as a terrorist organization. The elected leaders of the UK, France, Germany, and the US have all stated that Hamas must be destroyed and cease to exist. Hamas hides in civilian houses, schools, mosques, and hospitals. Thus, attacking such facilities is warranted and justified if Israel is to protect its citizens. On this basis, Israel’s response to the October 7 massacre is proportionate.
In their frenzy to kill Jews, Hamas and Islamic Jihad savages recorded their actions on October 7. These self-recordings were broadcast by Hamas and their Islamic Jihad colleagues. Hamas leaders and even Mahmoud Abbas, a reputed Palestinian moderate, deny that October 7 even occurred, and have gone so far as to even claim that it was Israel who killed the youngsters at the music festival in Kibbutz Re’im. This cynical lie is disputed by eyewitnesses, forensic evidence, and the butchers’ own videos. There was no proportionality when Hamas killed their civilian captives and shot others in their hiding places. There was no proportionality when a young mother, her nine-month-old baby, and her three-month-old toddler were dragged from their home on a Moshav and carted off to an uncertain future in Gaza. There was no proportionality when Hamas beheaded and mutilated its victims after repeatedly raping some of them.
After the ceasefire was broken by Hamas rocket fire, a senior Hamas spokesperson Ghazi Hamad stated that “the number of hostages still alive is not that important” and that Hamas had kidnapped the ten-month-old and four-year-old Bibas babies to force them to impose pressure on the Israeli government. Aside from the calloused absurdity of this statement, one wonders what action the Israeli government could take that would be proportionate to the atrocities that Hamas has perpetrated. Under the edicts of jus in bello and jus ad bello, Israel cannot be forbidden to hunt down and eliminate these murderers.
The fact is that terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran do not see themselves bound by international law. In their perverted minds they are allowed to do anything to achieve their goals. Western democracies need to understand the mentality of these enemies. They, like ISIS, will not be satisfied until they achieve world domination. They are fanatics who do not believe that corporeal existence in this world has eternal meaning. They are willing to die as Shaheeds for their cause, and there is no compromise that will satisfy their bloodlust. Even in the middle of a war for their existence in Gaza, they target noncombatants like a 72-year-old rabbi in Jerusalem on his way to a religious court. They take oxygen from a sickly 77-year-old woman hostage. When it comes to fighting Hamas and their supporters, there is no disproportionate response.
Ultimately, as the war grinds on, it is apparent that the West is becoming impatient at the slow pace of the conquest and destruction of Hamas. Such impatience, if allowed to be implemented, will be extremely costly for both Israel and the West. If Hamas is allowed to survive, then Iranian co-proxies such as Hezbollah, the Syrians, the Houthis, and all Jihadists including Iran will become emboldened. US allies including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco will be weakened and will question American determination.
The notion that Iran, the PA, and Hamas will be content with a two-state solution is misguided. As Einat Wilf has eloquently argued, if the Palestinians really wanted a State of their own, we would have had peace from the time of the 2000 Camp David summit. Instead, the outcome was the Second Intifada and the death of 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians. Wilf, a former left-leaning Israeli politician and member of the Labor Party, submits that rather than really wanting their own State, the Palestinians do not accept the existence of a Jewish State. This viewpoint leads to a steadfast clinging to the right of return, the chant of from the River to the Sea and the support for Jewish genocide. When Mahmoud Abbas stated in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists, “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” he was articulating his deeply held philosophy as a terrorist and a Holocaust denier.
Those in the West who support a ceasefire and who vociferously and often violently protest the response of Israel to the atrocities of October 7 need to take a step back and ask themselves several questions. Would you be allowed to conduct your protests for the rights of Palestinians to have freedom of speech and assembly in Khan Yunis? Would you, as a woman, be allowed to dress as you please with your hair uncovered at such a protest? Would you be able to bring your LGBTQ friend to your rally in Gaza City? Do you stand for the rape and mutilation of women? Is it okay for families to be tied together and burned beyond recognition? Do you support kidnapping infants, children, and the aged? If you wish to impose a ceasefire before Hamas has been eliminated as a sovereign power in Gaza, you must ponder the above questions. No one wants to see noncombatants killed; even one innocent Palestinian that is wounded or killed is one too many. However, it is Hamas that uses these innocents as human shields and seeks to harm them – not the IDF. To end this carnage, Hamas fighters and leaders must surrender, lay down their arms, and submit to a proportionate justice for their crimes.
The writer is a distinguished emeritus professor of biochemistry and chemistry at the City University of New York. He lives in Rehovot and has two grandsons in the IDF. The opinions in this article are his own.
