Diss Proportionate

Of all the annoying and absurd allegations aired against Israel in this era, perhaps none is so ludicrous as the charge that Israel’s response is "disproportionate." Well, duh. Isn’t it supposed to be? Both as a matter of history and simple reason, does anything else make sense? Let’s review the historical record, and consider how different things would have been if wars had been fought under the rules of "proportionate response."

The American Revolution: In the wake of the Redcoats’ marching on Concord, the Minute Men decide to teach them a lesson, and march on Manchester. This ends disastrously with their mass drowning.

The Civil War: Eleven Southern States secede from the Union. Dedicated to teaching them a lesson, Lincoln pursues a relentless campaign that results in the secession from Virginia of West Virginia. The Union then ends the war, confident that the Southerners now know how it feels.

World War I: In the wake of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination by a Serb nationalist, the Dual Monarchy assassinates the heir to the Serb throne (Okay, so that one actually worked out better than the original).

World War II: In April, 1945, the US, having reconquered Luzon in the Philippines and begun bombing Japan, decided to terminate hostilities against Japan, since they were pretty much even for that whole Pearl Harbor/invasion of the Philippines thing. The war against Germany, while still officially going on, didn’t really involve US troops, since, having declared war against Germany after Germany’s declaration of war against them, the Americans felt that things were pretty fair (this is still better than the British, who proportionately responded to the German invasion of Poland by also invading Poland). On the plus side, once the Red Army did manage to overrun Germany, they slaughtered about 20 million Germans as proportional payback.

Afghanistan: Following the destruction of the World Trade Center, the United States destroyed the second tallest buildings in Afghanistan, a devastating blow to the goat herder who lost his sheds.

So much for history. As for the here and now, it hardly seems reasonable to espouse a policy which would actually encourage weaker countries to attack stronger countries, since, if the latter could only respond proportionately, what would the former have to lose?

What do you think?