The War against Hamas: Are you sure you want ‘proportionality’?

Israel is responding to the October 7, 2023 invasion of its country. There are calls for a “proportional response” on its part vis-à-vis Hamas. The only democracy in the Middle East is now being widely accused of engaging in a “disproportionate” reaction.

For example, one newspaper headline claims: “Turkey’s Erdoğan calls Israeli response to Hamas in Gaza a ‘massacre.’” The Turkish president continued: “Israel’s ‘disproportionate’ attacks on Gaza could put it in global disrepute.” According to Irish government minister Thomas Byrne, “[t]he attack initiated by Hamas on Saturday was ‘absolutely wrong’ and Israel is entitled to defend itself but the country’s response needs to be proportionate.” Seymour Hersh mentions “Israel’s murderously disproportionate response to the October 7 attack by Hamas.”

What would it mean if the IDF were to follow this advice — check that: demands — to react in a “proportionate” manner?

If it would mean anything at all, it would that the IDF go house to house and deliberately shoot Palestinian women and children. First, these soldiers rape the former and torture the latter. A beheading of babies in front of their parents would not be at all amiss. Nor should they forgo raping the women in front of their children.

Some Gazan families might be hiding in their homes. What to do upon such occasions? Why, burn them to death, either directly by fire or indirectly by smoke inhalation.

Nor should the Israeli military forget to seize a few hundred hostages. Helpless women, children and the elderly should be their prime targets.

The biblical injunction about a “tooth for a tooth” seems to be the philosophy underlying this call for “proportionality.” But this, surely, is insufficient. That would not be fully “proportional” to the damage inflicted. A steals a car from B. If the punishment is proportional in this sense, all B must do in return when he is caught is return it to A. But wait. There is something amiss in this scenario. If A is apprehended by the police, he is no worse off than before he committed this crime. He must only return B’s vehicle to him, not give him one of his own. If not brought to the bar of justice, B keeps his booty. If he is arrested 50% of the time, the statistically expected value of his depredations is one half of whatever he seizes. This is nothing but a recipe to encourage theft. And it does not sound very “proportionate” at all.

“Proportionality” is BS. It’s treating war as a sport; fighting it by Marquess of Queensberry rules. War is not a contest. It’s about SURVIVAL. If someone attacks you, you don’t pull your punches fighting back. You give them such a hard beat-down that they are NEVER a threat to you again, either because they’re terrified by the very thought of provoking your anger or they’re physically unable to be a threat ever again.

Doing anything less is suicidally stupid.

Proportionate responses never work to deter an enemy from trying again later.

In WW1, the Allied powers dished out roughly the same amount of munitions and lethality against the Germans as the Germans did to the Allies. But Germany wasn’t occupied after the war, merely impoverished. 15 years later, about 1/3 of them chose Hitler to lead them, and the rest is rather gruesome history. However, in WW2, the Allies gave considerably more than they received, and occupied Germany after the carnage stopped. Notice that Germany hasn’t started up anything for the last 79 years - showing the wisdom of a NON-proportional response.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.