OPINIONHamas forces in Gaza are reeling as Israel pounds them. Some commentators accuse the Israeli military action of being disproportionate. That reaction expresses our civilised revulsion to violence. But is the accusation factually accurate?
Proportionality is a military law concept. If the incidental damage to civilians is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from an attack, it is disproportionate.
So what is Israel's strategic objective? Is the force used to achieve it no more than necessary? Is there a legitimate military advantage in each target? Is the civilian damage at any target point excessive?
The strategic objective for Israel is to protect its citizens from daily rocket and mortar attacks that emanate from Gaza and are controlled by Hamas.
Since 2005, about 6000 missiles have been fired at Israeli towns, and even during a six-month ''lull'' this year, about 10 were fired each week. Three-quarters of a million civilians in southern Israel are in jeopardy while the rocket crews expand their range and accuracy with Iranian equipment and training.
In November, Israel initiated negotiations to extend the six-month ''lull'' but failed. With a lame-duck Israeli prime minister and elections looming, Hamas refused an extension, probably calculating that it could increase the psychological pressure to its advantage. It increased firings to dozens each day. There is no doubt that efforts to avoid the use of force have failed and that Israel must defend its population. To do so, Israel needs to eliminate Hamas's capability to debilitate southern Israel.
That is simply the objective.
Is the military force used no more than necessary? The proper targets are Hamas military forces and infrastructure and these have been struck accurately.
The notion that, when attacked by a rocket, the proportionate response is to send back a similar rocket, understands neither that Hamas targets Israeli civilians, which is a war crime that Israel will not reciprocate, and that the rocket crews operate from within Gazan civilian populations where, if they cannot be distinguished, Israel will not target them. Nor does it understand the suffering caused by relentless battles of attrition nor Hamas's aim to demoralise and destroy Israel and its people.
The military advantage of each Hamas target has been confirmed by Hamas itself in the news from Gaza. Detailed intelligence was necessary for the successful pinpoint strikes on Hamas military training compounds, on security services headquarters in Gaza City, on police compounds in Rafah and Beit Hanoun, on 50 per cent of the ''missile pits'' that house automated firing missiles, and on 40 tunnels under the Philadelphi strip that smuggle and store explosive equipment. This demonstrates that the targets are Hamas military forces and infrastructure, the disabling of which confers on Israel a legitimate military advantage.
Civilian casualties, on the current information, are extraordinarily low.
The built infrastructure struck was distinguished as non-civilian. Israel broadcast Arabic messages warning the populace to keep away from Hamas sites. Although not all Hamas forces wear uniforms, the evidence on day two was that 90 per cent of Palestinian casualties were in Hamas uniform.
However, civilian casualties will climb if Israel follows through the campaign to eliminate Hamas's military capability by striking infrastructure shielded within civilian facilities or densely populated areas.
This includes weapons factories and underground bunkers, weapons dumps and up to 80km of tunnels that will need meticulous intelligence and careful assessment to determine whether civilian damage would be excessive.
Hamas will also mobilise its propaganda units to manipulate foreign public opinion with exaggerated civilian casualties to force Israel to desist. Thus the perception, even if not the military reality of civilian damage, will soon become that it is excessive.
In conclusion, Israel's strategic objective, use of military force, selection of targets and minimization of civilian damage, indicate that the accusation of disproportion is currently unfounded.
In a liberal democracy we reject political violence and embrace dialogue. However, if dialogue fails and we are attacked, we still defend ourselves.
Accordingly, the Israeli campaign is a proportional military response to the attacks by Hamas.
Gregory Rose is an associate professor of law at the University of Wollongong.