Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (451463)	1/27/2009 11:45:19 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577842

How should israel have responded?

To: Alighieri who wrote (451463)	1/27/2009 11:59:22 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577842

Al, > The tone I have seen is one in which Israel is condemned not for responding, but responding disproportionally. I don't accept the notion that Israel should have responded "proportionately." They'd be blamed for "tit-for-tat" violence, and Hamas will be emboldened just like Hezbollah was a few years ago. In fact, I think Israel responded disproportionately specifically because they can't count on America to back them up anymore. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (451463)	1/27/2009 12:53:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577842

but responding disproportionally Every nation that's every won a war has responded disproportionately, if by "proportionately" you mean with no more force than the other side. If you limit yourself to attacks exactly equaling the other sides, than you let them control the tempo and scale of the conflict. If you much more powerful than the other side and you limit yourself to using no more power than they use, than your a fool. There proportionality requirement in international law, has nothing to do with not attacking any harder then your enemy attacks. It is rather a requirement that harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective. Hamas' attacks are the ones that fail this test, since most of them are not attacks on a military objective, and since they typically gain no military advantage, or even have much possibility of gaining any military advantage. Israel's attacks on the other hand are on military targets, and even if the Palestinians inflated civilian casualty numbers are to be believed (and they should be), are more proportional than has been the norm in warfare. ----------- Proportionality. Proportionality prohibits the use of any kind or degree of force that exceeds that needed to accomplish the military objective. Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target. usmilitary.about.com