If this idea carried sway in WWII...we would still be at war!
**...disproportionate response.**
Only if Israel Keeps firing when shown that there are NO SURVIVORS... that’s a ...disproportionate response.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
My understanding of the word “disproportionate” is “excessive compared to the goal to be achieved”. Hamas is still lobbing missiles, so the response is not disproportionate. If anything, it’s inadequate.
Agreed. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Here is a quote from Alan Dershowitz article in the Jersualem Post:
“There are some who claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality by killing so many more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets. That is an absurd misapplication of the concept of proportionality for at least two reasons.
First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.
Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk of civilian death and the intentions of those targeting civilians. Hamas seeks to kill as many civilians as it can. It aims its rockets in the general direction of schools, hospitals, playgrounds and other entirely civilian targets. The fact that it has not killed as many civilians as it would have liked to is a tribute to Israel’s enormous devotion of resources to the building of shelters and to the construction of early warning systems.
Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to build shelters, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions. It knows, from experience, that when it forces Israel to take military actions that result in the deaths of even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians, many in the international community will condemn Israel. Israel understands this sad reality as well, and goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties, even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilian areas. Accordingly, Israel’s actions satisfy the principle of proportionality as well as the principle of self-defense against armed attack. “
here is link to the whole fantastic article:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_are_lawful
If this idea carried sway in WWII...we would still be at war!
Robert McNamara, for one (see Fog of War). Based much, apparently, on what he participated in during WWII.
I heard John Bolton on Fox News this morning and both Michael Lerner and Pat Buchanan are mistating the concept.
Proportionate response means using enough force to end the problem agression before you -- not the tit for tat nonsense implicitely argued for by Michael Lerner.
John Bolton says the real meaning of proportionality is included in the Christan concept of a just war.
I'm sure it was a liberal. And Hamas counts on them to ensure its survival.
The idiot that was losing of course.
It seems to me that the “proportionate” response would be the one most likely to silence Hamas for good. Why peck and peck and hope for a victory? Just get it done. More innocent humans living in peace will be the ultimate result. Dragging out warfare just prolongs everyone’s suffering.
Hamas needs to get to the point where they resolve not to attack Israel any more. Just like Islam needs to get to that point with the western civilizations.
It seems to be the bastard son of LBJ's "escalation" strategy for VietNam. That didn't work out too well either.
The enemies of Israel, the U.S., the UK and Canada invent these lexicons politically correct sounding terms so that they can have them available to sound highminded in their sigle-minded plans to destroy the West. Most people think the lexicons must be just; they’re past of the propaganda machine of Marxism.
St. Augustine
But the issue of proportional response is misused here. Hamas seeks the annaihilation of Jews. The fact that they are incompetent to achieve that objective as things currently stand does not mean Israel must pretend they (Israel) are no more competent than Hamas. Because Hamas seeks to destroy Israel, the destruction of Hamas is a fully proportionate response.
If proportionate means simply numerical equivalences, where are the outraged leftists complaining about the disproportionate response when Israel releases 500 Islamofascists for 1 Jew?
What “proportionate response” means is this: if your rival’s armies raid some nomads crossing into your territory, you can’t claim a moral right to destroy their capital. If they claim a small, rural valley on the borders is historically their possession, you can’t mass an army to slaughter 500,000 peasants. If they sink a merchant vessel, you can’t burn all of their port cities to the ground.
None of these represents a certain, existential threat, even though kings may suppose each is a harbinger of such a threat. Each may seem to one nation to be an act of outroght war, but the other nation may see itself as partly justified: Were the raiders chasing off what they perceived to be an invasion of their own lands? Did the navy suspect the merchant vessel was aiding pirates? Are some residents of that small valley ethnic members of the invader’s nation, who are being gravely abused?
It’s a geopolitical update of the biblical maxim, “an eye for an eye,” which means, “no more than an eye for an eye.” It’s a maxim which is intended to prevent the escalation of hostilities.
Like the issue an “imminent threat,” though, modern technology complicates the definition of “proportionate response.” If your enemy is building a nuclear weapon, is that the same as massing an army at your border?