The "Disproportionate Use of Force"

Palestinian terrorists have been launching rockets into Israel on a daily basis for months. Occasionally, Israel responds by air assaults on the rocket launchers, or on the leadership responsible for the offensive. Recently the rocket attacks have become more frequent and are reaching further into Israel.

Belatedly, Israel decided to respond more forcibly, with an incursion into Gaza by its ground forces. This is still inadequate. They have evidently only gone two or three miles inside Gaza, while the rocket launchers can operate from at least 15 miles deep in Gaza.

Nevertheless, even this inadequate response has drawn howls of outrage from the Palestinians, and the United Nations, as usual, weighed in on the side of the Palestinians, accusing Israel of responding with a "disproportionate use of force."

There is no such thing as a "disproportionate use of force" in defense against an aggressor. As the United States properly used all weapons at its disposal - including nuclear weapons - against the Japanese in WWII, so Israel can and should use all the force at its disposal to crush the Palestinian aggression until they cease to be aggressors.

How convenient the world would be for aggressors if their victims adhered to this insane doctrine of "proportionate use of force" in response to being attacked. Imagine hordes of Chinese attacking Taiwan in a maritime invasion, using only spears and rocks against the island's defenders. Adhering to the "proportionate use of force" doctrine, the Taiwanese use only spears and rocks in response. What happens? The Chinese easily defeat the moronic defenders, because there are more Chinese than Taiwanese. In short, the Taiwanese defeated themselves.

This is exactly what the Palestinians, and all the other countries in the Middle East that are hostile to Israel, want Israel to do. It is a recipe for national suicide. Yet the UN supports it, and so do many individual countries, including the United States.

No wonder aggressors are so emboldened in this era of moral grayness and moral "neutrality."