Mediacrity quickly disposes of the ridiculous rhetoric on Israel and proportionality:
Today's No. 1 Israel—smear word is "disproportionate." Just run the words in Google News and you'll see what I mean —— 3,500 hits! It's a fave of such epitomes of moral authority as the European Union and French UN ambassador and the peace—loving, always restrained Russians and —— well, you get the idea. Morality fans!
I'm still waiting for someone in the media to call these hypocrites for what they are, and point out the last time any military action Israel took was ever described as reasonable or "proportionate." How about "never"? That is why the Israelis are wise to ignore such blather and strike out hard.
Meanwhile, in the "business as usual" front, the New York Times today was displaying its usual indifference to Israeli suffering and pro—Arab slant. With its house terrorism apologist, Hassan "Wrong Man" Fattah, on the job, The Times slathered on the sympathy for the poor, poor employees of the Beirut airport, none of whom actually got so much as a scrape. Contrast this with the grudging coverage of Hezbollah murder—rockets landing on northern Israel.
But the Times really outdid itself in its usual area of excellence, which is sophistry and simple—minded analysis. In a lead editorial, the Times opined that Israel risked "playing Hamas's game" by —— get ready for this, friends —— blowing Hamas and Hezbollah to smithereens. You gotta love it. Of course, they could send those two groups rose pedals, thereby hurting them politically.
There's more, well worth reading.
Ed Lasky adds:
Aside from the obvious criticism about proportionality (Israel has suffered over a thousand missile attacks from Gaza—so should Israel send a thousand of its missiles back into Gaza), here Chirac's own words are used to reveal the fatuousness behind his remarks re: Israel's "disproptionate" use of force.
French President Jacques Chirac used his Bastille Day interview to criticize Israel's response as "totally disproportionate." Yet in a speech earlier this year, Chirac announced that France was prepared to nuke any country that sponsored a terrorist attack against its interests. In the interview Chirac also declared: "But I have the sentiment, if not the conviction, that the Hamas, the Hezbollah could not have taken these initiatives completely alone. And therefore, that there is support somewhere from this or that nation." So, logically he couldn't call even an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran and Syria disproportionate. Unless that is, there's one rule for France and one for everybody else. Guess those French principles aren't so universal after all.
Sonny Lykos of Naples, FL writes:
I'm 64 now, but I remember when in high school and a small skinny kid, a bully constantly picking on me during our gym class. He'd push or poke me in the chest, make derogatory remarks, and otherwise taunt me. By our junior year, I'd had it and remembered what a friend's Dad said to me about the situation, so I took his advice.
The next day when it started again, I punched him in the face. He then beat the heck out of me. But I told him that we were not done and that the next time he did anything to me again, I'd punch him again, kick him, bite him, gouge his eyes out — anything I could do.
For the rest of our junior year and during our senior year, he never once did anything. In fact, he stayed away from me.
What my friend's Dad told me to do was to do twice or triple to him what ever he did to me. He said you have to make him realize that any response by me would be hugely "disproportionate" to whatever he did to me.
He was right, and Israel is right. And I've (we've) since raised two daughters and two sons under that same philosophy. There must be accountability for one's actions (and comments) , and only we can create that accountability. As I later earned in college, as we learned by Pavlov's experiments — "Condition and response".