MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion” (front page, July 19):

The topic of “disproportionate use of force” is being discussed in relation to Israel’s military action in Lebanon.

The justification for this accusation is that more Lebanese have died than Israelis. This bizarre calculus implies that if only more Israelis had been killed by Hezbollah rockets, there would be no moral quandary.

This argument distorts the real question. Israel should not be punished for having invested in bomb shelters and early-warning systems. These have cost the Israeli public dearly over the years.

The question is whether the goals of the military action are justified.

The goals of the present conflict are for Hezbollah to shoot as many rockets as possible into populated city centers to kill as many civilians as possible; and for Israel to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, missile launching pads and the terrorists themselves by using intelligence gathering and precise bombing.

Israel could easily root out Hezbollah by flattening all of Beirut, Tripoli, Tyre and Sidon, but it has declined to do so because this would clearly entail “excessive force.”

On the other hand, if Hezbollah had the military capability to flatten Tel Aviv, Haifa and Beer Sheva, it would do so without flinching.

Jonathan Weisberg
Jerusalem, July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

So after so many years of violating international law, humanitarian law and United Nations law, unfortunately with the help of the United States, Ari Shavit, a columnist for Haaretz, feels that Israel should take advantage of the “moral high ground” it now possesses because of the actions of Hezbollah (front page, July 19).

I think Mr. Shavit should examine the extreme treatment that Israel is showing toward the innocent civilians of Gaza and Lebanon before he starts bragging about Israel’s “moral high ground.”

Ahmad Ibrahim
San Diego, July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Questioning the “proportionality” of the Israeli response to attacks on its citizens mimics the absurd notion echoing in European capitals.

Would it satisfy the Europeans if more Jews were killed or wounded, thus making the casualty count more quantitatively symmetrical?

Have military victories historically been achieved when a country responds to aggression with only the exact measure of force leveled at it and no more?

Finally, if missiles and rockets were landing in your living room, just exactly how much force would you like to see directed at the bad guys to make them stop?

Daniel Adler
New York, July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Lest we forget, the current conflagration surrounding Israel was caused by Israel’s overreaction in Gaza to the capture of one Israeli soldier, which triggered attacks from Lebanon, followed by Israel’s disproportionate attack on Beirut — all with United States backing.

Underlying the mess is the United States’ and Israel’s refusal to honor the result of democratic elections in Palestine.

Tom Miller
Oakland, Calif., July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

While proportionality may be a relevant measure in some situations — baseball statistics and model cars come to mind — the appropriateness of Israel’s response to the Hezbollah attacks should not be measured by the number of people who are killed in Lebanon.

Rather than seeking “an eye for an eye” or retribution, Israel is seeking to eliminate the threat of future attacks on its cities.

This response will be successful not if it is proportional, but if it results in the elimination of this threat.

In December 1941, would anyone have suggested that the United States’ response was appropriately “proportional” and complete after the first 2,400 Japanese had been killed?

Jeffrey M. Stein
Atlanta, July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Re “Diplomacy’s Turn in Lebanon” (editorial, July 18) and “The Way We War,” by Etgar Keret (Op-Ed, July 18):

As an American citizen of Lebanese descent, I am tired of the media’s referring to “the havoc on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border,” as your editorial put it — as if there were anything approaching symmetry in this situation. There is not.

More than 10 times more civilians have been killed in Lebanon than in Israel.

Israelis will spend an uncomfortable week or two in bomb shelters, but thousands of Lebanese will return to homes reduced to rubble, and hundreds more will die from lack of clean water or medical supplies.

Despite Etgar Keret’s glib assertion, this is not a war. It is a massacre, plain and simple. If the world is not going to do anything to end Israel’s rampage, we can at the very least call it what it is.

Saladin Ahmed
Brooklyn, July 19, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Re “Israel Leaves the Scuds Behind” (Op-Ed, July 19):

Zev Chafets’s moving concern for his son’s loss of a Haifa summer camp that was shut down because of potential Hezbollah rocket attacks tragically contrasts with Israel’s killing of 300 Lebanese, most of them civilians (Israel has lost 13 civilians); with its total siege of Lebanon; killing of fleeing families; bombing of infrastructure like bridges, roads, airport and gas stations; and the lack of bread, water and medicines.

It is precisely America’s support of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Lebanese and Palestinian civilians that has further inflamed the world against America.

Military solutions have failed in Iraq, Afghanistan and previously in Lebanon. Both Hamas and Hezbollah were formed to oppose Israeli occupation.

It is outrageous that America is giving Israel more time to devastate Lebanon before negotiations to end the disproportionate conflict.

The historian Arnold Toynbee said: “What is peculiar about the Palestine conflict is that the world has listened to the party that has committed the offense and has turned a deaf ear to the victims.”

Mohamed Khodr
Winchester, Va., July 19, 2006