What WOULD be a "proportionate" response?

Show all answers

âœ¡I LOVE THE ZIONIST ENTITYâœ¡

shoot back 8,000 rockets i guess?

PaperbackWriter JPA

It's interesting that no matter what they do, NO other nation is ever accused of 'disproportionate' response.

When Britain fought the Nazis, she responded with 'disproportionate' force, because she killed 20 times more Germans, than the Germans killed of the Brits.

So does that mean that - according to those who condemn Israel - that the Brits were also 'wrong'?

Under international law, Israel is in the right. The elected GOVERNMENT of Gaza attacked, over eight years, Israel. The missiles were clearly AN ACT OF WAR.

In war, there is no such thing as a 'disproportionate' response! You act to get rid of your enemy - period.

Otherwise, NO WAR would ever END - if both sides were required to be equal!

Tequila

Please give an example in which a war has been won by an army using "proportionate response".
The correct response is the same as would be applicable in the case of any sovereign nation. The country must do all that is necessary to stop the firing of missiles and rockets upon the Israeli civilian population. (This has not yet been accomplished due to Israel's sensitivity to the Arab "civilian population" complicit in acting as human shields.) So, sudden talk of "proportionate" behavior only when Israel responds to aggression is clearly propaganda by the other side.

As the American military strategist, General Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
once said:
â€œWar is violence, moderation in war is an imbecility.â€

Jonathan Mark has an interesting take on that question.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024142.php

mattapan26

In the short period that Israel was fighting in Gaza, thousands were killed in fighting in Sri Lanka, including wounded in a hospital, thousands were killed in fighting between Hutus and Tutsis in Uganda. Didn't hear about that stuff did you? Instead, you got exactly what Hamas wanted you to get. Is Palestinian blood redder than African or Sri Lankan blood or is it who was fighting back against Hamas that had the world so pissed off?
Proportionate is whatever is necessary to stop the rockets.

Hatikvah JPA

It seems that whenever Israel responds to violent overtures from groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, leaders of the international community are quick to assign equal condemnation to Israelis and Palestinians regardless of whether one is legitimately acting in self-defense.
Whether it is due to a latent anti-Semitism, the desire to avoid inflaming fundamentalist Arab passions, or simply an unrealistic belief in equality, world leaders are focusing too much on buzzwords.
In the case of Israel, the buzzwords are the "disproportionate" and "excessive" use of force â€“ terms used in the 2006 Lebanon war and most recently spoken by French President Nikolas Sarkozy and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in response to Israel's Gaza offensive.
This is a particularly puzzling criticism of Israel. Would the international community truly prefer a proportionate or equal response? If Hamas launches three crudely-fashioned rockets into Israel, should the Israeli government respond with three equally-crude rockets? If three Israeli Defense Forces are kidnapped by Hezbollah, should the IDF respond by kidnapping an equal number of Hezbollah foot-soldiers?
The notion of "proportional" response lacks both merit and logical support for several reasons. In war, there are winners and losers, and the only palatable means of victory come from a disproportionate use of force. Victors are inherently more skilled in combat, tactics, and in the effective deployment of (generally superior) technology.
It does not make sense to demand one technologically or militarily superior belligerent to refrain from fighting to their full potential, simply because they are able to enact "disproportionate" damage on a weaker foe.
Should the United States have refrained from using the atomic bomb because Japan did not yet possess one? Would it have been better to extend Lend-Lease to Nazi Germany as well as Britain so that neither side would gain the advantage? Simply put, a militarily superior force should not limit itself due to the international community's desire to root for the underdog.
The notion of "proportional" responses is further baffling in that such occurrences actually prolong conflicts.
One need only look to the warfare in World War I. Equally-manned belligerents, using the same tactics, the same weapons, and the same defenses resulted in both sides being bogged down in interminable trench-warfare. No side could gain the upper hand and thus the conflict continued in an endless back-and-forth.
The cold war is another example of a proportional conflict. Both Russia and the United States maintained near-parity in regard to weapons, manpower, and political influence, and neither could emerge as sole superpower. As a result of its drawn-out nature, the conflict spread beyond America and Russia to encompass the entire Eastern and Western worlds. For an international community so concerned with peace, condemning "disproportionate" response, thereby accepting endless symmetrical warfare, appears hypocritical.
To be sure, discretion is the better part of valor, and that makes genocide a line that is unacceptable to cross. The use of retaliatory military force must not be reflexive. If peaceful solutions fail, however, the use of force is a viable option that may have to be employed.
In the 2006 Lebanon war, as well as the current Gaza offensive, this proportionality argument has no place. In neither case did Israel decide to launch unprovoked, unnecessary air and ground assaults on a whim as a way of boasting its military might. In both cases, Israel's actions came as a response to provocations from groups bent on its destruction.
Hamas should garner no international sympathy simply because it made the poor decision of engaging an enemy of far-superior military might. The international community must further realize that both belligerents do not always need equal blame placed upon them.
Israel's superior military power comes with responsibility, however. In the wake of the Gaza offensive, Israel should be active in supplying humanitarian aid to affected civilians, and to help moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas regain influence in the area.
Hamas is owed nothing, of course. But in order to further peace negotiations, civilians and moderates must be given any support necessary from Israel.
With the latest Gaza offensive, world leaders must condemn Hamas for abandoning its truce with Israel and recklessly endangering Palestinian citizens, while supporting Israel's right to defend itself, not offering platitudes condemning a "disproportionate" or "excessive" use of force.
â€¢ Allan Richarz is is a writer and teacher currently working near Tokyo.
.

dandyl

a proportionate response would be exactly the same as what Israel did.

STEVE S

I am afraid there is no such thing as a "proportionate" response in warfare. If a country is under attack, it uses whatever means are at its disposal to protect its citizens.

In 1982, Argentinians landed on the Falkland Islands. No Islanders (except,for, I believe, a sheep) were killed and the British garrison on the islands were well treated and immediately returned to British control. There was NO threat to the British mainland and British civilians at no time came under attack.

This did not prevent Margaret Thatcher dispatching a task force to the South Atlantic which resulted in the loss of 649 Argentinian and 258 British lives and many serious casualties. The "Falklands War" as it was termed, probably helped her and her government to win the next election.

British Naval vessels routinely carried nuclear weapons, including depth charges. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that these would have been used if it looked at any time as if the Argentinians might win?

As far as I know the British government was never taken to task, outside of Latin America, for the disproportionate use of force.

For some reason, this particular criticism is always reserved for Israel.

Annt Hu DeShalit

The obvious answer would be for Israel to lob 8,000 rockets onto innocent civilians in Gaza.

Day in, day out, from one to 20 rockets or mortar bombs per day.

Or, as the next prime minister of Israel stated recently in an interview with British Television.

The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)

Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"

Interviewer:(Falling into the trap) Why not?

Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany 's aggression.

"And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

"Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the RAF tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?"

And so, the foolish search for "proportionality" has once and for all been put to rest.

Steel Rain

8,000 GPS guided two thousand pounders would be equal in numbers.

Shay p

Not my words.

"To hell with a proportional response. Israel is surrounded by enemies bent on their annihilation. If we donâ€™t fight a bloody, no quarter, decisive battle now, one fought later will be even bloodier and the Jewish state may very well cease to exist.

If Hamas and Fatah laid down their arms, peace would follow in short order. If the Israelis laid down their arms they would all be dead or fleeing shortly.

With all due respect, a phrase that inevitably precedes an insult, Rather than navel gaze and survey world opinion Israel needs to sack up and neutralize the Hamas threat as completely as possible. That may include ground operations, reoccupation, house to hovel fighting and whatever else it takes. Anything less subjects the Israeli civilian populace to further indiscriminate artillery attack.

What other nation would accept such a state of affairs?"

NXile

In the eyes of the world, it would be to just lay back and take it.

In the eyes of the realistic, it would be to destroy Gaza and kill every single one of them! Why do you suppose God instructed the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in the Torah? If you let them live, they will come back against you in the future.

Israel must wake-up and take the biblical view of war. The U.S. must take this stance as well. Our future depends upon it.

Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.

THE TRUTH IS HOLY

Whatever it takes to make sure that another 8,000 rockets are not sent. Assuming that each rocket launch involved the cooperation of 25 people, proportionate response would involve neutralizing 8,000 x 25 or approx. 200,000 people (as long as it is the right people). The most important thing is to take care of the bad guys. If neutralizing even as small a number as 8,000 people resulted in no further acts of terrorism from the bad guys, then that is proportionate. The result is important, not the number. The result needed is NO MORE TERRORISM!

Lupines supports GEERT WILDERS

There is no such thing as "proportionate response" when it comes to warfare. This question is a myth, it's moot, it's just not done on the battlefield against an aggressive relentless regime. Proportionate only comes into play when one is discussing civilian casualties and the rule on that is that international law does provide for civilian casualties. there is no law that says there can be only be X amount of casualties or no casualties all, it is just that the military objective and gain must outweigh the risk to civilian casualties.

Anyways, to answer your question regarding warfare on the battlefield, proportionate is decimating the enemy as that is what the enemy has planned and seeks method for that attack (already a call out for a nuclear suicide bomber among the extremists to strike Dimona.). So proportionate would be to decimate them before they have a chance to decimate you.

Children's Hamas television saying: "We will wipe out the people of Zion and not leave a single one of them." Children in suicide bombing vests and ak-47s. Hamas TV & Hezbollah TV
"As Muslims, our blood vengeance against them will only subside with their annihilation." -- Wael Al-Zarad, Hamas Cleric, Hamas TV 3/25/08
"The annihilation of the Jews is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine." -- Muhsen Abu 'Ita, Hamas Cleric, Hamas TV 10/15/08
Hamas In Their Own Voices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg

"Whoever managed to get a martyrdom-seeker into Dimona armed with conventional explosives should consider how to get martyrdom-seekers into Dimona and elsewhere armed with non-conventional explosives and perhaps even small nuclear bombs. We should think in this direction." Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, Jordanian University Lecturer, Al-Jazeera TV May 13, 2008
Suicide Nuclear Bomber to Dimona (nuclear power plant) and elsewhere
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1770.htm

So proportionate would be to decimate them before they have chance to decimate you. Proportionate would be a carpet bomb or other mass attack aimed at their military targets. That's what happened in WW2. And that is how to win a war. One doesn't worry about a "proportionate" response, that is silliness, but to achieve strategic objectives and fight relentlessly until the enemy army is either dead or surrenders. In these types of wars, there are no cease fires, there are no tahdiahs (tactical calms) so an enemy can re-strengthen and re-arm, there is only victory or defeat. In WW2 the allies won, what would have happened if we were worried about "proportionate" response? Japan and Nazi Germany weren't going to surrender and had to take pounding after pounding until they finally did surrender. That's why an argument over "proportionate" response moot. Proportionate responses don't win wars, they just prolong them.

Carpet bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW2_casualties
World War II casualties

As far as the weaponry that the two sides are using. At Israel's disposal they see tanks and aircraft and high tech equipment, that is good, I like my police to be higher powered than the crooks. Israel is allied with America and the West I'm proud of that alliance because Israel's enemy is my enemy too.

Ronald Reagan, Speak Softly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efUB72yYxME

At Palestinian disposal they used anti-tank shells (uranium,) phosphorous shells (as all NATO and ARAB armies have them,) anti-aircraft cannons and rockets that shot farther into Israel than they've ever fired before (beer sheva.) Everything that they can smuggle into tunnels or shipments by land or ships from sea they use and they use it to purposely target Israeli civilians. They are supplied and fight proxy war by Iran and Syria. They even smuggled in/out troops for militant training. They are not firing "homemade" rockets that is also a myth. They fire homemade rockets and hand grenades made from medicine bottles and whatever else they can get their hands on, including the weaponry I mentioned above, and I don't need them to have a nuclear suicide bomber to call this a proportionate war.

This is not a Cold War Reagan-Russian era war stand off, where we point nuclear warheads at each other with MAD capabilities, then say okay I give, let's do a truce. This is a war that the enemy plans on total destruction of a whole society of people, are not motivated by reason but by blind extremist religious hatred, and if they had the capability (and currently seek it) they would actually use it. There is no truce in this enemies vocabulary, only tahdiah (tactical calm) so they can re-arm.

Screw proportionate liberal appeasors who want to shake hands with an enemy while he's openly planning to stab you and me in the back or decapitate us. I am on the side of Israel, America and the West and I fight to win.

Kimimela-PRO ISRAEL AND PROUD

When its Israel - unfortunatly there is no proportionate response in the worlds eyes...

No matter what israel do Hamas will still fire rockets into Israel - because their goal isnt medical treatment or housing or better conditions for palastinians, its the total destruction of israel and the anihilation of all jews... and people who think it will all go away if Israel just opens up a few borders are blind and stupid...

This is a WAR... war is unfair, and hard and cruel and civilians get killed ,FACT and i dont know of many wars where one side didnt use any advantage they had in order to win

Israel has excersiced HUGE restraint in the face of Hamas rocket firing on its civilians.. only that doesnt get reported -- after all - hamas rockets on Israeli children dont make for nearly as good head lines it seems ... so when Israel does finally do something -it looks like its for no reason....

I personally am sick of this wail of '' play fair Israel'' = believe me - if it was Hamas with Israels advantage they would have reduced israel to rubble right now - they wouldnt give a second thought about fair or proportionate responses...

Im sick of this one sided pressure on israel to sit and wave while hamas kills israeli civilians...

I used to think that restraint was the way to go but now i think Israel should use all its force and really bomb hamas to Hell... and the sooner the better ... every day they wait is just to Hamas advantage...

and people wailing about proportionate responses might want to have a good think about that next time an Islamic fanatical suicide bomber blows up one of their buildings -

after all - wouldnt that be a justified response to the debauchery of all those kuffars in the west ?

tlkr_11

Line up 8000 missiles on the border with Gaza, point them at Gaza City and fire away.

Bey$on back home

by retaliating with 10,000 rockets the same grade... not phosphorous !

blue eyed mama to be

how about opening up the borders and letting the people have food, water, meds, and electricity? then they might stop firing those home made rockets, and you wouldnt have to get all the heavy duty US made ones to answer.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: