Proportionality in war is a synonym for lethal stalemate if not defeat.
When two sides go at it with roughly equal forces, weapons, and
strategies, the result is often a horrific deadlock — like the four
years of toxic trench warfare on the Western Front of World War I that
resulted in 12 million fatalities.
The purpose of war is to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible with
the least number of causalities, thereby achieving political ends.
So, every side aims to find superior strategies, tactics, weapons,
and manpower to ensure as great a disproportionate advantage as
possible.
Hamas is no exception.
Its savage pre-civilizational strategy to defeat Israel hinged on
doing disproportionate things Israel either cannot or will not do.
First, Hamas spent a year planning a preemptive butchery spree inside
Israel. Its ruthless murdering focused on “soft targets” like unarmed
elderly women, children, and infants, mostly asleep at a time of peace
and holiday.
Second, it sought to collectively shock Israel into paralysis by the
sheer horror of decapitating civilians, burning babies, mass raping, and
mutilating bodies.
Another apparent aim of such premodern barbarity was to blame
Israel’s “occupation” for turning Gazans into veritable monsters, with
hopes of derailing the renewed Abraham Accords.
Third, the gunmen took more than 240 hostages back with them to Gaza.
Again, that was a disproportionate tactic designed to meter out the
release of captives in exchange for “pauses” and “cease-fires” to save
Hamas.
Additionally, Hamas made implicit threats of gruesome executions of
captives unless Israel ceased their retaliation on October 7.
Fourth, all the while, Hamas shot rockets into Israel, more than 7,000 in total, and all aimed at civilians.
Not one launch was preceded by dropping leaflets or sending text
messages to Israeli civilians to vacate the intended target areas — a
protocol often used by the Israel Defense Forces.
The unapologetic aim was to kill thousands of Israelis at random and disproportionately.
In fact, in just the last four weeks, Hamas has launched more than
twice as many rockets into Israel as Nazi Germany managed to launch V-2s
into Britain in five months.
Fifth, Hamas sought to create a multibillion-dollar tunnel city
beneath Gaza. The labyrinth’s sole purpose was to stockpile weapons and
ensure safe havens for terrorists to shoot rockets and regroup after
their terrorist missions.
Sixth, the subterranean headquarters of Hamas elites, along with
weapons depots, were strategically placed under hospitals, mosques, and
schools to “shield” them from Israeli attacks.
The expectation was that the IDF would be hesitant to target such
“civilian” and “humanitarian” areas in a way Hamas never would.
Seventh, Hamas forced the civilians of Gaza to remain in the street fighting. They often shot those who resisted.
They also killed Gazans who fled the city. Hamas sought to increase
civilian fodder as collateral damage from Israeli attacks. Such deaths
were to be broadcast worldwide to win sympathy for Hamas terrorists and
force a cease-fire.
Eighth, Hamas bragged that it could repeat strategies 1-7 endlessly
on the supposition Israel would tire, the world would turn against the
Jewish state, and it, at last, could murder enough Jews to end Israel
altogether.
Israel, in turn, seeks its own disproportionate response to defeat Hamas.
First, it seeks to single out and kill the actual Hamas terrorists, and especially the 2,000 or so killers of October 7.
Second, it tries to warn civilians to flee anywhere that Hamas
masses. Just as Hamas wants its own civilians killed for propaganda
purposes, so Israel seeks to avoid killing them.
Third, by targeting Hamas and warning civilians to keep their
distance, Israel does not deny that there will be collateral damage.
But it hopes to convince the world that any civilian deaths are mostly the fault of Hamas and not the IDF.
And to the degree that Gaza City is left in rubble, Israel wishes to
remind its enemies that the wages of murdering Jewish infants,
unfortunately, will be a disproportionate response, whose full effects
will deter any future attack.
Fourth, Israel understands that a country of 9-10 million is facing a
virulently hostile 500 million-person Arab Middle East. The United
Nations is on the side of Hamas. Immigrants from the Middle East have
hijacked a now antisemitic Europe. Israel’s sole patron, the United
States, is buffeted by a hard-left new Democratic Party that is not a
reliable partner.
The result is that Israel still cannot conduct a fully
disproportionate war without endangering its source of military resupply
in the United States and a wider conflict with the Islamic world.
And so, the war continues.
Hamas strives for a more disproportionate terrorist agenda to prolong
the war. And Israel strives for a more disproportionate retaliation to
end it.
The anger arises at Israel mostly because it is Jewish, and thus far,
its conventional disproportionality is proving more effective than the
terrorist disproportionality of Hamas.
