British author Douglas Murray: Only Israelis are asked to respond proportionately

Israel National News ^ | 10/13/2023 | Staff

[Jan_Sobieski]

Britain-based author and journalist Douglas Murray appeared on Talk TV and was asked whether Israel’s strikes in the Gaza Strip constitute a “reasonable, proportionate and moral response”.

Murray fired back, “There is some deep perversion in Britain whenever Israel is involved in a conflict, and it is the word you just used: Proportion, proportionate, proportionality. Only Britain is really obsessed with this. I’ve heard in for the last few days incessantly.”

“Proportionality in conflict rarely exists,” he stated, and then explained that insisting on a proportionate response “would mean that, in retaliation for what Hamas did in Israel on Saturday, Israel should try to locate a music festival in Gaza, for instance – and good luck with that – and rape precisely the number of women that Hamas raped on Saturday. Kill precisely the number of young people that Hamas killed on Saturday. They should find a town of exactly the same size as a town like Sderot, and make sure they go door-to-door and kill precisely the correct number of babies that Hamas killed in Sderot on Saturday, and shoot in the head precisely the same number of old age pensioners as were shot in Sderot on Saturday, just to choose one town…”

[Retain Mike]

At the end of WW II, the issue of terrorism was considered, and proportionality was defined. The Geneva Conventions decided these feral psychopaths never met criteria of civility requiring protection. They didn’t meet definitions for militia, armed force, or volunteer corps, but were so dissociated from country or culture, so committed to butchery that they best matched Webster’s definition for a virus. They were not insurgents or freedom fighters, and when captured, certainly not prisoners of war. These killers were not members of organized resistance movements carrying arms openly. They carried no distinctive identifier. The Geneva Conventions found no category for defining terrorists and left them in outer darkness and beyond the pale.

The Geneva Convention writers held powerful positions throughout the darkest times of our world. Their words synthesized a brutal, durable morality earned during the bloody deluges of the 20th century. They intended to isolate terrorist forces and allow destruction with any overwhelming furies needed to crush their abominations.

There is much misplaced anxiety for the loss of civilian lives in Gaza. The obvious reading of Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says Hamas is responsible for any civilian deaths in the areas they occupy. Those civilians qualify as Protected Persons within the terrorist’s physical control and cannot be used to render certain points and areas immune from military operations.

[SaveFerris]

We will no longer use “search and destroy” but instead “sweep and clear”.

[silent majority rising]

So they want proportional response? Really? Killing grandmothers, raping men and women over dead bodies, cutting the heads off of babies with shovels and garden hoses? Really? I don’t believe that the Israelis can be that sadistic..

[fhayek]

I look forward to the day when the Quran is only read in Hell.

It is my understanding that Satan owns the only first edition copy signed by the author....

[SauronOfMordor]

Your response to aggression should not be “proportionate”.

It should be sufficient that the aggressor will thereafter lose any interest in pissing you off again.

[Boogieman]

Yes, we have a name for those who respond proportionately in a war: losers.

[TonyM]

So if a Jew is shot in the leg by a terrorist he should only be allowed to respond with a shot in the terrorist leg who in response will likely shoot the Jew in the head and killing him thus denying the Jew a proportionate response.

[piytar]

Yup.

[Secret Agent Man]

Whites aren’t even allowed that.

[piytar]

You will never win a war fighting proportionaly.

I've posted my two Fundamental Rules of Winning a War many times on Free Republic (albeit in slightly different forms):

(1) The only way to win a war are (a) break the enemy's will to fight or (b) kill all of the enemy. No other way to win exists.

(2) You cannot care more for the enemy's warfighter and civilians than you care for your own warfighters and civilians.

Going to add a third Rule:

(3) You cannot allow outside forces to dictate your strategy or tactics.

"Proportional response" violates all three of my Rules.

Note: I am not formally trained. These are my own rules after studying a lot of world and military history for most of my life. That said, I think these Rules have held through all recorded history.

[jerod]

Proportionality? So that means that the Israeli soldiers will need to murder and then rape their woman, cut off their babies heads and then burn families alive?

I think that they’d have a hard time getting any of the Israeli soldiers to do that... But if that’s what they want... So be it.

[wjcsux]

“0bama called it “leveling the playing field.”

It’s going to take decades to undo the damage that fool did.