More From Dershowitz On Israel vs Iran

Alan Dershoweitz has a new essay on Substack that is a condensed version of yesterday's YouTube post linked above. He makes several points that I think clarify the legal and moral background for potential reprisals by Israel against Iran. First, as I more or less intuited from the start, Iran's drone and missile attack on Israel over the weekewnd was an act of war, defined in Wiktionary as "An action that would justify the initiation of hostilities against the perpetrator; an action that by its nature comprises a cessation of peace." Dershowitz says,

As a matter of law and morality, Israel is entitled to respond to this act of war by overwhelming, even disproportionate, force against Iranian military targets.

Iran declared war on Israel by sending more than 300 bombs in Israel’s direction, aimed at civilian as well as military targets in Jerusalem and other locations. As a matter of law and morality, Israel is entitled to respond to this act of war by overwhelming, even disproportionate, force against Iranian military targets.

In the YouTube presentation, he goes into the question of proportionality, which he raises above, at greater length, arguing that there is no moral requirement that the Israeli response be in some way "proportionate" to the Iranian act of war. Dershowitz is, as far as I can determine, a not fully observant Jew, and he makes no reference to specific moral guidance on proportionality. But this sent me to the Roman Catholic definition of just war doctrine in CCC 2309:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The specific initial damage in this case, inflicted by the Iranian proxy Hamas in an invasion of Israeli territory on October 7, 2023, was over 1000 civilian deaths, often accompanied by torture and rape, and the seizure of hundreds of hostages, many of which haven't been released and appear to have been tortured, raped, and killed in captivity. Every indication is that given the opportunity, Hamas would repeat this act, and demonstrators on Hamas's behalf frequently repeat the motto "death to Israel", which in light of historical records like the Holocaust appears to be a statement of ultimate intent.

Israel's ultimate aim in response, at least as interpreted by Dershowitz, should be an elimination of this threat to Israel and the community of nations:

Even if Israel were to respond moderately, Iran would continue to wage war against Israel. As long as the Mullahs run Iran, the Mideast will remain in turmoil from Iranian aggression, either direct or through its terrorist surrogates.

A new Holocaust would certainly be lasting, grave, and certain damage to Israel and the community of nations. Even piecemeal attacks like October 7, intended to kill over a thousand Jewish civilians, are unacceptable especially insofar as they're intended as partial steps toward the overall goal. Dershowitz sees only one practical solution to the problem:

Accordingly, the ultimate goal of any Israeli retaliation should be regime change. The means can include destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which would considerably weaken the regime. . . . if the majority of Iranians support regime change, it is simply a matter of time before it occurs. This is unlikely to occur if the regime develops a nuclear arsenal which can shield it from outside pressures.

But this brings up the question of whether there are serious prospects for success. Dershowitz makes no specific argument in this direction, and this may be a weakness in his position -- we may agree, as I did at the start of the Russo-Ukraine war, that it's desirable to evict Russia from Ukraine's legal boundaries, but as experience has shown, this isn't proving practical given the level of resources the US and NATO are able to comnmit to do this.

Dershowitz himself acknowledges that he doesn't know what specific measures Israel plans for its retaliation; considering how close he is to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog, this may not be entirely ingenuous, but there can be no question that feckless macho gestures like Iran's drone attack over the weekend would be insuficient to achieve any serious goal. But it's also clear that Israel would not deliberately inflict damage on civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians.

All we can be fairly certain about is that President Biden is not on board with any of Dershowitz's arguments, which strikes me as yet another indication of his overall deep moral confusion.