Proportion!

Amidst the whining that Israel's response to thousands of rockets landing on its territory was  disproportionate —— a charge  leveled against no other nation for defending itself —— Yaashiko Sagamori agrees;  Jews should strike back proportionately. But he focuses on proportions of population.

Let us imagine that, instead of trying to please anti—Semites, Jews decided to react proportionately to every offense. The worst Jew—haters, the most avid murderers of Jews in the modern world are Muslims. They outnumber Jews approximately 100 to 1. Therefore, if we want to stick to that proportion, every time a Muslim hurts a Jew, we have to hurt 100 Muslims.

For example, when Arabs destroyed the Tomb of Joseph and murdered Rabbi Lieberman, who was hoping to salvage some of the books that had been kept at the site, Jews should have destroyed 100 mosques of similar historical significance and murder (sic) 100 mullahs. That, in addition to taking the Tomb of Joseph back and making sure that no Arab could ever again approach within shooting distance.

He continues with other examples of complete proportion for Israel which, if carried out, would cause, of course even louder whining.  But, he concludes tellingly

By the way, a few — very few — applications of that terribly bitter medicine would, in the long run, have saved many thousands of both Jewish and Arab lives, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved an estimated one million American soldiers and up to three million Japanese civilians.

In response to my perfectly obvious reasoning, I am anticipating a small avalanche of e—mails calling me a Nazi and unfavorably comparing me to various VIPs of the Third Reich. Here's what puzzles me: Why do the letter—writers never turn their righteous anger against those who openly work to make the next Holocaust happen? How terribly disproportionate of them!

And, speaking about the Holocaust that has already taken place, what do you think would have been a "proportionate" response to that? 

Yes, let's hear it for proportion.  And those criticizing Israel the most should look at their own disproportionately violent responses throughout the centuries.  Yes, England, yes France, yes Arabs, for starters, this does mean you.
 
Ethel C. Fenig   8 15 06

Update: 8:15 AM PDT

Bruce Thompson adds:

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an op—ed that stated Israel had destroyed "4,000 square meters of buildings" in an hour long bombardment. So how many thousands of buildings might that be? 4,000 square meters is less than one acre, about 40,000 square feet. Chicago's "Big Box" ordinance, aimed at Wal—Mart, Target and Home Depot et al, is limited to buildings over 90,000 square feet. So Israel's hour long bombardment destroyed the equivalent of one—half a Wal—Mart. Sounds pretty tightly targeted to me.

Amidst the whining that Israel's response to thousands of rockets landing on its territory was  disproportionate —— a charge  leveled against no other nation for defending itself —— Yaashiko Sagamori agrees;  Jews should strike back proportionately. But he focuses on proportions of population.

Let us imagine that, instead of trying to please anti—Semites, Jews decided to react proportionately to every offense. The worst Jew—haters, the most avid murderers of Jews in the modern world are Muslims. They outnumber Jews approximately 100 to 1. Therefore, if we want to stick to that proportion, every time a Muslim hurts a Jew, we have to hurt 100 Muslims.

For example, when Arabs destroyed the Tomb of Joseph and murdered Rabbi Lieberman, who was hoping to salvage some of the books that had been kept at the site, Jews should have destroyed 100 mosques of similar historical significance and murder (sic) 100 mullahs. That, in addition to taking the Tomb of Joseph back and making sure that no Arab could ever again approach within shooting distance.

He continues with other examples of complete proportion for Israel which, if carried out, would cause, of course even louder whining.  But, he concludes tellingly

By the way, a few — very few — applications of that terribly bitter medicine would, in the long run, have saved many thousands of both Jewish and Arab lives, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved an estimated one million American soldiers and up to three million Japanese civilians.

In response to my perfectly obvious reasoning, I am anticipating a small avalanche of e—mails calling me a Nazi and unfavorably comparing me to various VIPs of the Third Reich. Here's what puzzles me: Why do the letter—writers never turn their righteous anger against those who openly work to make the next Holocaust happen? How terribly disproportionate of them!

And, speaking about the Holocaust that has already taken place, what do you think would have been a "proportionate" response to that? 

Yes, let's hear it for proportion.  And those criticizing Israel the most should look at their own disproportionately violent responses throughout the centuries.  Yes, England, yes France, yes Arabs, for starters, this does mean you.
 
Ethel C. Fenig   8 15 06

Update: 8:15 AM PDT

Bruce Thompson adds:

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an op—ed that stated Israel had destroyed "4,000 square meters of buildings" in an hour long bombardment. So how many thousands of buildings might that be? 4,000 square meters is less than one acre, about 40,000 square feet. Chicago's "Big Box" ordinance, aimed at Wal—Mart, Target and Home Depot et al, is limited to buildings over 90,000 square feet. So Israel's hour long bombardment destroyed the equivalent of one—half a Wal—Mart. Sounds pretty tightly targeted to me.