[GeneticKiss]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed. (The universal must be stressed, since often in war states only tally their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the enemy and to any innocent third parties.)



"Jus in bello refers to justice in war, to right conduct in the midst of battle. Responsibility for state adherence to jus in bello norms falls primarily on the shoulders of those military commanders, officers and soldiers who formulate and execute the war policy of a particular state. They are to be held responsible for any breach of the principles which follow below. Such accountability may involve being put on trial for war crimes, whether by one's own national military justice system or perhaps by the newly-formed International Criminal Court (created by the 1998 Treaty of Rome).

We need to distinguish between external and internal jus in bello. External, or traditional, jus in bello concerns the rules a state should observe regarding the enemy and its armed forces. Internal jus in bello concerns the rules a state must follow in connection with its own people as it fights war against an external enemy.
There are several rules of external jus in bello:


3. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. They must restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends."

6. No reprisals. A reprisal is when country A violates jus in bello in war with country B. Country B then retaliates with its own violation of jus in bello, seeking to chasten A into obeying the rules. There are strong moral and evidentiary reasons to believe that reprisals don't work, and they instead serve to escalate death and make the destruction of war increasingly indiscriminate. Winning well is the best revenge.

from the

 

The issue with Israel is that they consistently use excessive military force, defying the just war principle of proportionality. This is wrong, regardless of how many palestinians blow themselves up on buses or how many scattered amateurs fire rockets with blow up some fields and occasionally kill or hurt an Israeli, Israel is NEVER justified in its outrageous military responses.

Interestly enough, I knew someone named Justin Bello when I was in school. I couldn't help but think about him as I read this.

As for the topic at hand...a bit back I saw a documentary on HBO about a suicide bombing in Jerusalem involving two teenage girls-one the victim, the other the bomber. They were around the same age and looked so alike that, when the father of the Palestinian girl pointed to his daughter on the cover of a magazine, he ended up accidently pointing at the Israeli girl at first. The primary "plot" of the documentary revolved around the mother of the Israeli girl wanting to meet with the mother of the Palestinian girl, who was understandably not pleased with her daughter's actions even though she knew where she was coming from. To make a long story short, when they finally did end up talking via closed circuit TV, they were able to agree that they were both victims. Unfortunately, the Israeli mother wanted the Palentinian mother to stand up and say what her daughter did was wrong and help her bascially start some sort of movement against suicide bombings (they refer to them as "martyrdoms") within the Palestinian community, and she would not. She said words that could be summed up sorta like this:

"We both want peace, but you are suggesting is surrender, and I cannot support that."

And that, my friends, is the biggest problem with the whole thing. Both sides think they are right. (way to state the obvious) But, the reality of the situation is that more people would benefit if Israel were the one to give. They are in the position to provide housing, jobs, health care, etc. to people of both races. Unfortunately, Israel the country was founded on the idea that it is Israel the homeland spoken of in the Torah, and that no one but the Israelites (Jews, Zionists, whatever) should be allowed to live there, and anyone who tries to interfere is messing with Jehovah's people, and that they should be destroyed and subsequently damned. As long as this attitude persists, the circle of terrorism will continue on both sides.