Israel's military on Gaza more punitive than necessary
Dick Behling
Issue date: 2/9/09 Section: Letters
In his well-written letter of Jan. 29 "Operation in Gaza justified," in the online edition of The Spectator, Mr. Yaron Fireizen, an Israeli exchange student, argues that Israel's incursion into Gaza was justified. That its use of military force was necessary, and that, regrettably, the suffering of Gaza's civilian population was unavoidable. All of this owes ultimately to war crimes committed by the military wing of Hamas against the people of Israel.
Well, yes, Mr. Fireizen, those of us who have paid the least little bit of attention to the goings-on in the Middle East over the past few years understand all of that.
Verily, verily, truth is on your side.
But you wrote: "You may well think that Israel overreacted and used disproportionate force." Well yes, again you are correct. Some of us think exactly that! Although, for my part, I would have inserted an adverb in your sentence: "obscenely disproportionate force." But, with or without the additional word, your sentence does have something more than panache. Given that more than 1,000 Palestinians have died in that three-week military operation and that more than 5,000 have been injured.
You have written - rather cavalierly, I think - of the 'aerial bombing' conducted by Israeli forces. Perhaps that's a good point of departure for an adequate response to your view.
Recent newsreel footage shows air bursts of white phosphorus bombs over Gaza. The use of this tactic by the Israeli Air Force demands attention and explanation.
When, in Vietnam, U.S. forces used "willy papa" artillery shells and the white smoke they emitted, it was for the sole purpose of tracking where those rounds landed. They were used as marking devices. The phosphorus substance was safely contained in small cans - "soup cans" - and these artillery rounds were never used so as to maim.
But, in the case of Israeli use, the burning phosphorus substance itself rained down in globs, indiscriminately, on Palestinian soil. And on buildings, on men, and women and children. Make no mistake about it - the effects of white-phosphorous-on-skin are not very pleasant. Again, to use my adverb, grotesque and permanent injuries result. Were these aerial bombs "target rounds," aimed at well-defined targets of opportunity? Aimed at suspected Hamas targets?
In sum, let's try to be clear about a couple of things. Nobody should doubt the legitimacy of Israel's recent use of strong military force in Gaza. Indeed, one should laud the Israelis for their extreme patience in not going in much earlier. But one has good reason to believe that Israel's use of military might was far more punitive than it was necessary. The specific tactics used by its military should not be glossed over with the facile rhetoric of "ground operations" and "aerial bombing."
Dick Behling
Emeritus professor of philosophy
Well, yes, Mr. Fireizen, those of us who have paid the least little bit of attention to the goings-on in the Middle East over the past few years understand all of that.
Verily, verily, truth is on your side.
But you wrote: "You may well think that Israel overreacted and used disproportionate force." Well yes, again you are correct. Some of us think exactly that! Although, for my part, I would have inserted an adverb in your sentence: "obscenely disproportionate force." But, with or without the additional word, your sentence does have something more than panache. Given that more than 1,000 Palestinians have died in that three-week military operation and that more than 5,000 have been injured.
You have written - rather cavalierly, I think - of the 'aerial bombing' conducted by Israeli forces. Perhaps that's a good point of departure for an adequate response to your view.
Recent newsreel footage shows air bursts of white phosphorus bombs over Gaza. The use of this tactic by the Israeli Air Force demands attention and explanation.
When, in Vietnam, U.S. forces used "willy papa" artillery shells and the white smoke they emitted, it was for the sole purpose of tracking where those rounds landed. They were used as marking devices. The phosphorus substance was safely contained in small cans - "soup cans" - and these artillery rounds were never used so as to maim.
But, in the case of Israeli use, the burning phosphorus substance itself rained down in globs, indiscriminately, on Palestinian soil. And on buildings, on men, and women and children. Make no mistake about it - the effects of white-phosphorous-on-skin are not very pleasant. Again, to use my adverb, grotesque and permanent injuries result. Were these aerial bombs "target rounds," aimed at well-defined targets of opportunity? Aimed at suspected Hamas targets?
In sum, let's try to be clear about a couple of things. Nobody should doubt the legitimacy of Israel's recent use of strong military force in Gaza. Indeed, one should laud the Israelis for their extreme patience in not going in much earlier. But one has good reason to believe that Israel's use of military might was far more punitive than it was necessary. The specific tactics used by its military should not be glossed over with the facile rhetoric of "ground operations" and "aerial bombing."
Dick Behling
Emeritus professor of philosophy
Be the first to comment on this story