Proportionate to what?

Yesterday, Professor Bainbridge made the argument that Israel's retaliatory strikes in Lebanon violated the Cathloic "just war" doctrine. His clear and cogent argument presents the best academic case to be made against Israel's reaction. But it is wrong.

Professor Bainbridge's primary argument is that the Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the principle of proportionality, the fourth criteria for a "just war", because they inflict unnecessary damage on Lebanese civilians and the civilian infrastructure. But he overlooks or misvalues two key factors. First, he does not address the extent to which Hizballah relies on the civilian infrastructure to obtain its missles. Second, he does not address the question: to which attacks must the Israeli response must be proportionate?

According to the paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the just war doctrine requires four conditions to be met before a war is "just" and allowable in light of the fifth commandment against unjust killing:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Professor Bainbridge argues that the fourth prong is not met:

In fact, however, Israel clearly is targeting not just Hezbollah, but also Lebanon's official military, and, most important for our purposes, Lebanon's basic civilian infrastructure. The Beirut airport has been closed by Israeli attacks. Bridges, ports, roads, and power stations are all being targeted.

But we know that Hizballah relies on the civilian infrastructure to help carry out its attacks on Israel. Just yesterday, IDF air forces destroyed several trucks laden with missles being ferried, over civilian Lebanese roads, from Syria to resupply Hizballah. These trucks were carrying a variety of armaments, including more 220mm-diameter rockets of the type which hit a train depot in Haifa killing 8 Israeli civilians on Monday. It is hardly unjust for Israel to disrupt the supply lines relied upon by its enemy to obtain missles for use in truly indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

Professor Bainbridge's argument also does not adequately address the issue of to which attacks, precisely, the Israeli response must be proportionate. It appears that he considers the "damage inflicted by the aggressor" to be simply the kidnapping of the two soldiers. In allowing, for the sake of argument, that the first two prongs of the just war doctrine were met, Bainbridge says:

Kidnapping two soldiers arguably is not a sufficiently grave offense to satisfy the first prong. Likewise, Israel's immediate resort to force may not satisfy the second. Yet, as Morrissey points out, If Israel had not responded with force, we might well have seen an "unending tit-for-tat volley that favors the smaller forces; it's the perfect recipe for asymmetrical warfare. Instead of limiting the damage, it guarantees that low-level war will continue indefinitely, killing and maiming people for decades." Accordingly, for the sake of argument, I'll assume that the conditions set forth by just war doctrine for initiating combat are satisfied.

Even in the immediate history of these events, that's not the full picture. The Party of God invaded Israeli territory, killing 8 IDF soldiers and kidnapping 2 more on Wednesday, July 12. The Hizballah attack included unleashing short-range rockets on civilian targets in northern Israel:

The morning attack began at 8 AM, when Hizbullah launched a heavy barrage of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells at IDF positions and communities along the northern frontier.

As Israel began to respond to the unprovoked Hizballah attack on Thursday, Hizballah launched more missles against Israeli civilian targets, including two missles targeting the city of Haifa. By Tuesday, Hizballah was firing a rocket a minute at Israel. It is entirely proportionate for Israel to attack the infrastructure which allows the resupply of these missles. As for the civilian casualties, if Hizballah chooses to hide among its civilian sympathizers, then the responsibility for civilian casualties belongs to it, not Israel. If aggressors are allowed to escape retaliation by hiding among civilians, that merely encourages the use of human shields and allows evil to prosper.

But the larger point about proportionality is that the attacks by Hizballah on Israel cannot be viewed in isolation. They came just 13 days after Palestinian militants entered (pre-1967) Israeli territory and killed and kidnapped IDF soldiers. They came after years of suicide bombings. They came after years of Israel attempting to trade land for peace, including complete withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza much more recently. They came as Hizballah's sponsors, Iran and Syria, are engaged in quiet but massive conflicts with the U.S. and the rest of the world over Iraq and Iran's attempt to build nuclear weapons. Taken together, these aggressive actions are certainly at least equal to the Israeli response.

Proportionality must be measured by weighing the entire bale of hay, not just the last straw which broke the camel's back.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge is supported by Professor Anthony Arend, Director of the Institute for International Law and Politics at Georgetown University. I always say, if you're going to disagree with authority, disagree with the very best authority you can find...

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge has responded to critics making similar points as mine. I critique his response here.