As Israel fights, the West dissembles

On July 13, one day after Israel began its assault on Hezbollah’s south Lebanon stronghold, the European Union denounced what it called Israel’s “disproportionate use of force.” France and Russia both issued statements to the same effect. This was, I repeat, one day into the campaign, when the civilian death toll was in double digits.

I do not recall any of those parties issuing statements denouncing Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Haifa, but let that pass: clearly, the “disproportionate” aspect of the Israeli response was unrelated to the number of civilian dead. It was followed not long after by demands for a ceasefire, and for the intercession of an international peacekeeping force of some kind to patrol the Lebanon border.

Well, we expect that from Europe, where public opinion has long tilted against Israel. As for the spectacle of Russia and France giving lectures on proportionate reponses, that can be explained in terms of their historic interests in the region, now that their former client-state of Iraq is no longer taking their calls.

In this country, however, the message must be conveyed in a little more, how shall I say, nuanced fashion. To be sure, the NDP was quick to demand an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, meaning that Israel should stop firing. The party leader, Jack Layton, was adamant this was the “top priority,” something Canada should embrace “enthusiastically, right off the start.” The party’s foreign affairs critic, Alexa McDonough, issued an open letter venting her outrage at Israel’s “disproportionate response.” A caucus mate, Paul Dewar, MP for Ottawa-Centre, went further. In a letter to a constituent, he denounced Israel’s “warlike act,” condemning it for “directing its rage at civilians and tourists.”

But if you’re a Liberal, you’re all about balance, a word we’ve heard much of this week. Having attacked the Prime Minister’s robust defence of the Jewish state (“Israel has a right to defend itself”) as a departure from Canada’s traditionally “even-handed” position, the party could hardly issue an equally one-sided position of its own. With the leadership race in full swing, it fell to the party’s interim leader, Bill Graham, to set the tone.

After a cautious initial statement calling for “a dialogue based on … respect and responsibility,” the former Foreign Affairs minister hit on the formula. Israel, he said, had a right to defend itself. But it should cease firing immediately.

The brilliance of this formula may be measured by the speed with which it was adopted. Within hours, a number of leadership candidates were mouthing variations on the same theme. Even the MP for Ottawa-Centre, having presumably been bound and gagged by party HQ, retracted his previous statement, dutifully affirming his “unwavering support for the right for Israel to defend itself as a sovereign democratic state,” before again demanding a ceasefire.

So. Israel has a right to defend itself, so long as it does not use its army. In the face of an unprovoked rocket attack from an enemy parked on its doorstep, with thousands more where those came from, its only appropriate response is to call in the UN. The “disproportionate” use of force is the use of force.

Remember that all of this was taking place before the death toll had mounted as “high” as it is now: about 300, military and civilian combined, on both sides. How “high” is that? Consider that in the Six Day War and its aftermath the civilian death toll is estimated to have been about 50,000. You can look through all the bloody history of warfare and not find a conflict with fewer civilian casualties.

Granted, that’s to date: the coming ground war may be much worse. But the premise of the critics appears to be that any civilian casualties are too many -- too many, not in the sense that any loss of innocent life is always a tragedy, but in the sense that Israel bears a special moral responsibility for their loss; that, indeed, it is guilty of war crimes, as the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Canada’s own Louise Arbour, was moved to pronounce.

But the laws of war do not prohibit any loss of civilian life. They do forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians, but no one has presented any evidence that that is what Israel has done. And while the situation with regard to Hezbollah, an enemy that does not hesitate to station its weaponry in the middle of densely populated areas, may seem to present Israeli bombers with a peculiar conundrum, in fact the laws of war are quite clear on that, too.

The First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions reads in part: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.... The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”

If you attempt to use civilians as human shields, you are yourself guilty of war crimes. What is more, the responsibility for any civilian deaths that occur as a result falls on you, not the attacking party. Ms Arbour would do well to read the conventions she cites.