Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Michael Totten asks: What Would a Proportionate Response Look Like?
...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. The weapons used by each side can't be the same. No one has ever said Israel ought to put its superior weapons systems in cold storage until Hamas can develop or purchase something similar. Presumably Israel is allowed to use its superior technology as long as the casualty count on each side is proportionate.
But how would that work in practice? A single Israeli air strike is going to kill at least as many people as Hamas can kill in twelve months. Does that mean Israel should be given a "license" of one air strike per year to use in the war?...
The "proportionate response" crowd appears to be motivated by the pacifist faith, which considers it a moral victory to eliminate all violence, including self defense. Since these pacifists have no hope of eliminating terrorist violence, they focus their efforts on anyone who is unfortunate and soft-hearted enough to listen to their babble. Israel is one of those unfortunates.
The pacifist "proportionate response" ideal has helped terrorist violence increase worldwide. "Proportionate response" laws prohibiting self-defense have also been responsible for the recent crime wave in Britain.
Here are the basic rules for self-defense in Britain, via Uncommon Misconceptions:
...How did it come to this? How were the British lulled into giving up what Americans regard as an essential right? The Cato Institute identifies these steps in the process:
* 1920: Law introduced requiring certification every 3 years of necessity of owning a gun
* 1937: "Necessity" redefined to discourage home or personal protection
* 1953: Prevention of Crime Act passed - outlaws carrying any article for an "offensive purpose."
* 1964: "Necessity" redefined to exclude home or personal protection
* 1967: Criminal law revised to allow only "reasonable" force in self-defense. Protection of property is considered unreasonable.
British laws against self defense are based on the UN's "human rights" legislation. Like the British people, the Israelis have slowly gotten accustomed to living with UN laws forbidding self-defense, a basic right that every being, even the lowliest amoeba, requires for its existence. Because of this, UN pacifist laws are, in reality and practice, a severe violation of human rights.
Forbidding "violence" in the form of self-defense appears to have become the primary goal of the United Nations. As promoters of the pacifist faith, the UN should be reclassified as a religious organization, not a political one.
We all know that faith and politics should not mix. The faithful of the UN only have power over those who are unfortunate enough to listen to them. If Israel or any other nation values its existence, they should not listen.
Israel has lots of problems, but the UK is in far worse shape.
Have you seen the placards held by protesting muslims in London - some of which read
- Behead all those who insult Islam
- Slay those who insult Islam
- Butcher those who mock Islam
- UK YOUR 9/11 IS COMING
The British have become the Eloi to the Muslim Morlocks.
The British government has made it clear that it is more closely allied with the UAE and Saudi Arabia than they are with America. Because of that, we shouldn't trust them as allies.
The UK govt. has also shown that it's more willing to protect Islamist interests than the interests of British citizens. I have no idea why these citizens pay for the maintenance of this useless government. They should have a tax revolt
The major thing the Israelis didn't do, is ratify the latest Geneva Conventions which define proportionate use of force and basically legislate self defense acts out of existence. Europe has to thank its lucky stars that the USA never ratified that treaty otherwise Putin would be goosestepping down Berlinstrasses.
Britain's idea of self defense is no defense.
A nation of thieves
For this act of self-defense in his own home – and in the same country where the great statesman Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) declared boldly that a man's home is his castle – a free citizen, Tony Martin, was sentenced to life imprisonment as "a danger to burglars!"