Log In | Register
There were, I suppose, other "proportionate" responses available aside from killing one Palestinian and two Israelis. The Israel Defense Forces might have launched thousands of air strikes against targets in Gaza to match the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at the cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. It's unlikely, however, that this is what Israel's critics have in mind.
So what do they have in mind? What would a legitimate and "proportionate" response actually look like? Surely they don't believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.
The "disproportionate response" crowd doesn't seem to mind that Israel struck back at Hamas per se. They aren't saying Israel should only be allowed to negotiate with its enemies or that any use of force whatsoever is wrong. They're clearly saying Israel should use less force, inflict less damage, or both.
One problem here is that it's not at all clear how they think Israelis should go about doing it.
What Would a Proportionate Response Look Like?
Article Source: contentions- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (13)
Its easy to sit back and criticize Israel. But its a lot harder to make positive suggestions.
If a person on Newsvine had the city or town in the U.S. (or wherever people live) being targeted by Hamas rockets-- what would they want their government to do?
- 10 votes
#1 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:02 AM ESTImply the attack was from an entirely unrelated country? Invade them and get mired in an endless war?
Nah, guess you wouldn't actually want your country to do that.
Or, I suppose you could want your government to prevent an attack. So they may decide to have a policy of Preemptive war, and then be able attack another country in proportion to a threat before it materializes....
Which could be a problem if the government is very imaginative.
- 1 vote
mply the attack was from an entirely unrelated country? Invade them and get mired in an endless war?
Nah, guess you wouldn't actually want your country to do that.
Or, I suppose you could want your government to prevent an attack. So they may decide to have a policy of Preemptive war, and then be able attack another country in proportion to a threat before it materializes....
Which could be a problem if the government is very imaginative.
Nice job of evading my question! I asked what would you want your country to do? Not-- to list all the things you wouldn't want it to do!
Heck-- I wouldn't want it to do...lots of things. Set the lions and tigers in the zoo loose. Open the dams on rivers and flood the countryside. Make dying your hair green mandatory. We could go on and on-- but that's not the point.
The important question is not what you wouldn't want yourcountry to do-- but what would you want it to do. You have every tight to evade the question, of course-- but don't think we didn't notice!
- 9 votes
I would want my country to do everything possible even if it meant the government couldn't tell me the real reason behind some of the action taken. Action like invading a country in the middle of a group of enemy countries so we could have a place to operate from. Gaza is a strategic location in Israel just like Baghdad has been a strategic location in Persia for thousands of years.
I would want my country to keep the secrets it needed to keep in order to keep me and my family from bloodthirsty, irrational people like Hamas.
- 3 votes
Well, I'm ok with what Israel is doing now, there is no good answer. I have no sympathy for terrorists, and I too would be skittish living next door to millions of people who longed to wipe me off the map.
It is not right that civilians are harmed, but it would be easier to figure out what to do if the Hamas charter didn't specifically list them as part of their effort.
Sorry if I sounded flip above, it's just that, it seems to me, when the US found herself in a similar situation, that was our response-- oh, that and Afghanistan-- and it was 'only' one successful attack. So it seems kind of sanctimonious to me when we criticize Israel's response as 'disproportionate.'
Possibly a good long range plan would be if people were content enough not to resort to terrorism in the first place-- but, if that contentment would come only if Israel was annihilated, well, clearly, that's not the path to contentment.
What I don't understand, is not the war, which is understandable however irrational, but the conditions of the people in Gaza. If a Jewish population were to be living in conditions like that, they would be airlifted out of there into Israel.
It isn't reasonable to ask Israel to do the same in this case, because it would be kinda suicidal-- which has been clear since 1948, but why isn't anyone rescuing Palestinians? Why has the world community allowed them to remain in WWII displacement camps? Why have other countries turned them out? And, how, if Israel and Egypt control their borders, airspace and ports-- how the heck are they able to get the stuff to make long range rockets, but not food?
- 3 votes
Blow the culprits to hell, which is what they want, to become a martyr. Just a suggestion. Um, you could try killing them, or capturing them, and sending them to Idaho, never to be seen again.........
- 5 votes
#2 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:17 AM ESTWell nothing much has changed. This is the same discussion we had back in March.
- 3 votes
#3 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:20 AM ESTIt's obvious that every country has the right to defend itself. It's also obvious that Israel is held up to an almost impossible standard by the "international community,"where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Since Israel will be excoriated, pilloried and criticized anyway, they might as well erase the immediate threat of Hamas from their border. This may take a ground incursion, which will bring more cries of disproportionate response. But they are the best ones to judge what's necessary to protect their citizens.
- 6 votes
#4 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:20 AM ESTA proportionate response that would satisfy many would be no response at all. And then when a rocket hits a school and let's say the media actually reports it honestly, the same aforementioned "entities" would say ... they put this crap on 24/7 and I'm missing the ball game! Enough said and enough credibility given to these selective "human rights advocates" who don't seem to consider Israelis to be human at all.
- 5 votes
#5 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:45 AM ESTIf the Israelis endure rocket fire until one civilian is killed, do they get a “kill one Palestinian terrorist” coupon?
That seems to be the argument for many here. Good article.
- 5 votes
#6 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:06 PM ESTA "proportional response" would also just perpetuate the violence. Hamas must be stopped, not merely detained until they can collect more weapons and begin lobbing them again until the "next proportional response." The idea is ludicrous.
- 11 votes
#7 - Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:56 PM ESTI personally think that over the long view of history, the Israelis have it right. When attacked, they strike back hard and decisively. If threatened, they sometimes make premptive attacks (as per the nuclear reactor a few years back). Measured response is balderdash, better to put an end to it instead of exhanging slaps and insults.
- 8 votes
If a dog continues to bit it has to be put down. Israel could wipe the Gaza off the map but instead they carefully select their targets to spare as many civilians as they can. They will probably end up pulling out without finishing the job and the dog will bite again.
- 3 votes
#8 - Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:28 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
