Unocal & Israel

In business, when a company is being threatened by a hostile takeover, they are allowed to take defensive measures to safeguard their company and shareholders. The defensive measures must meet the standard test set forth in the Unocal case: 1. The company must believe there is a legitimate threat and 2. The defensive measures must be reasonable and proportional to the threat being imposed.

We set such strict guidelines and rules for companies so that we can protect shareholders and give them the best possible deal. Why is the law black and white when it comes to protecting corporate rights, but so gray when it comes to human rights?

This test seems to be a very simple concept and easily applicable when reviewing a nation’s defensive measures. Even if there is no independent board reviewing a country’s decision to attack, each country can use their own standard to make an objective decision as to whether this particular defensive measure was proportional and reasonable to the threat being imposed.  The only additional factor I would include is whether this attack of self defense are beneficial to the particular country’s citizens  as well as your particular country. Nation’s do not conduct affairs in a vacuum and their actions have an effect on the entire world stage. For example it may promote terrorism worldwide or harm your economies.

If America were to use this standard, the question would be posed as such: Did Israel believe there was a legitimate threat from Hamas? If they did, are 4 days of airstrikes on a strip a little larger than D.C. a reasonable and proportional defensive measure to the threat imposed? Finally, will these airstrikes benefit  Israeli, Palestinian, and American citizens?

I don’t know the answer. Every part of my being says No to every part of that question, but I am not a world leader and do not have the necessary information to make that kind of decision. But here are some factors that need to be considered:

1. Negotiations with Hamas prior to air strikes
2. The effect on Palestinian citizens: food, medical supplies
3. The effect on Israeli citizens: potential of additional attacks
4. America: potential of additional attacks, ostracizing citizens by not keeping a balanced act in the territory
5. Economic factors: possible boycotts, money invested into airstrikes, foreign investment used in airstrikes

The list goes on and on, but the point is the same. Let’s keep an objective eye on Israel and then make a decision whether we support its defensive measures. This has nothing to do with taking sides. We won’t be in Ahmedinejad’s corner if we decide these attacks are not reasonable or proportional. We would be using an objective test and taking the reasonable actions to either condone or reject the defensive measures.