If Israel is at war, it must be time for accusations of a “disproportionate response.” (For example.) Israel, you see, really ought to keep the intensity of the war at a proportionate level, that is, one that Hamas can match. Israel should not try to win.
But let’s be honest, Israel isn’t really supposed to launch a proportionate response either. They are just supposed to curl up and take it. Hamas is allowed to fire rockets into Israel; they’ve got it coming. (What makes Israel so special? I can’t quite remember.) If they get tired of it, they can leave. I’m sure the Israelis can find somewhere else in the world where people will be happy to have them. . .
On a less sarcastic note, I’m happy to say that many people seem to be catching on to the “disproportionate response” crap (in America anyway). For example, this editorial from the Chicago Tribune. And this statement from Barack Obama.
Also, here’s an interesting article about how Israel prepared for its current war with Hamas, which was inevitable from the day the “cease-fire” began. And, Michael Ledeen places the war in context. (Via Instapundit.)
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald, obviously, is not one of those who are getting it.
UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru has an insightful comment on what a sensible doctrine of proportionality would be:
Critics of Israeli military action say that it is “excessive” or “disproportionate” to Hamas’s provocation. But that’s the wrong way to think about proportionality in war. The traditional just-war standard is that military action should be “proportionate” in that it causes fewer harms than it seeks to prevent. That’s a sane and sound moral standard. It does not mean that military means must inflict only as much pain as the enemy has inflicted.
The newfangled proportionality standard has several perverse implications, not the least of which being that military victories would almost always be considered morally illegitimate.