AÚN MÁS sobre la proporcionalidad de la contraofensiva de Israel en Gaza:

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. 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.

(Por cierto, Feliz 2009 a todos)

ACTUALIZACIÓN. Vamos a hacer un ejercicio mental, tomado de un comentario del post a quien enlazo. Imaginad por un momento un doble escenario alternativo:

1- Israel abandona unilateralmente las armas.

2- Los árabes abandonan unilateralmente las armas.

Podéis fácilmente imaginar en cuál de los dos escenarios acabaría inmediatemente el conflicto, y en cuál el otro bando aprovecharía para aniquilar al contrario (antisemitas zotes abstenerse del juego, claro)