The Silly Argument Over Proportionality

The dumbest things being said about the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon involved "Israel's disproportionate use of force". You can pretty much tell where everyone stands by their views on that one issue. If you are for Israel's security and wish to see them continue to exist, you understand that you win by knocking the other guy on his butt, and not by standing toe-to-toe and trading slaps.

RealClearPolitics points us to two articles with opposing views on "proportionality". First, Richard Cohen:

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

Cohen gets it (though I sometimes wonder since he's the same guy that called Israel a "mistake" in his last column). Representing the moonbats, Eugene Robinson:

Bush's endorsement of the violence that Israel is inflicting on Lebanon -- a sustained bombing campaign that has killed hundreds of civilians and can only be seen as collective punishment -- is truly astonishing. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rocket attacks. But how can this utterly disproportionate, seemingly indiscriminate carnage be anything but counterproductive?

According to Robinson winning wars is now "counterproductive". He also ignores the reality that Hezbollah thrived by placing their operations in the middle of civilian areas, thus ensuring that any Israeli response would involve civilian casualties.

We can never let these people back into power.

And finally, the view of Isaac Herzog, an Israeli lefty and peace activist who doesn't seem to disturbed at all by Israel's "disproportionate" response:

Some may wonder how, as a man of the left and Israel's peace camp, I can at the same time be a member of a government now fighting a war in Lebanon. The answer is the same one that Clement Attlee or even Harold Wilson would have given: when your very existence is under threat, you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to your people to defend their security. Let's be clear: Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation. This is not a political issue, it is not an ideological issue; it is a matter of survival. That is why I and the vast majority of the Israeli population support this military response.

Israel today is facing a sustained onslaught from one of the world's most dangerous and effective terrorist organisations. In the past few days, 1,000 rockets and 1,200 mortar rounds have been hurled across the border by Hizbullah at hospitals, schools and homes. Their intention is the killing and maiming of Israelis in general.

Israel is fighting back. Israel's use of force is entirely proportionate to the extent of the threat that Hizbullah poses. A third of our people are in immediate danger of Hizbullah missiles and are sheltering for fear of their lives. The whole of the north of our country has in effect been shut down. International law recognises the right to respond to the extent of a threat, and Israel has therefore acted within international law.

I wonder if U.S. peace activists would react with such common sense to an attack on the United States?

Oh wait, we already have that answer. You may remember a little incident on 9/11/01 which the U.S. left has pretty much already forgotten.