Israel Is Not Disproportionately Aggressive, It is Disproportionately Good

.

Here we go again.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned what he described as Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" use of force in the Gaza Strip.

"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children," Ban told the emergency session of the council. "I call on Israel to cease such attacks," he said.

Well, nothing new here.

As usual, Israel is being accused of applying a “disproportionate use of force” against people who publicly call for its annihilation.

What does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon think Israel is supposed to do to properly defend its citizens?

This is not a question that the Secretary-General concerns himself with. The truth is, the Secretary-General expects Israel to manage and cope with the problem, not end it.

The UN continues to be a disproportionate disappointment.

When the U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda living in Afghanistan on 9/11, the world joined as the U.S. used overwhelming force to mitigate the possibility that another attack would occur. There was no international outcry against a disproportionate use of force. This is what the government of a Nation-State is supposed to do—defend its citizens.

But Israel is different, in part, because its enemies are rich and powerful and have oil, the current engine of the world’s energy. In poker parlance, Israel has a weak international hand. It is only allowed to do so much before outside pressure comes to bear. This is unfortunate for the idea of stomping out terror around the world, not just for Israel.

It is an indisputable truth that not all people solve differences through negotiation and compromise. Hamas, the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians, intend to win their struggle with Israel. Winning, to Hamas, means the destruction of Israel. And so they go about their attempt to win through violence.

In some circles it is not well understood that sometimes there is simply no alternative but to deal with violent people violently. What could be a disproportionate use of force when faced against such a foe? There is no middle ground. There is no room for negotiation. Such an enemy must be destroyed before it destroys.

A more reasonable question is this: Why don’t more people in the international community consider it a “disproportionate use of force” when Hamas indiscriminately launches rockets into Israeli civilian population centers?

For those who assume both sides are equally wrong, know this: Israeli leadership mourns the loss of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian leadership intentionally targets Israeli civilians.

The Palestinian leadership could lessen the chance of its civilian casualties by choosing to locate its war machine away from civilian areas. But apparently, it would rather use the death of its own citizens for political gain than to do so. This is decidedly not the case in Israel.

And neither is there a “cycle of violence,” in this fight. For such a cycle to truly exist, it must be presupposed that one side can voluntarily stop the cycle if it simply does not respond to the other side’s violence. This is simply not true in this conflict. If Israel stopped going after Hamas, Hamas wouldn’t just recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop attacking it. Their terrorism is rational because it works. Repeatedly aiming to blow up civilians is not the “desperate” acts of those with no other recourse. Each act of terrorism is an act of “hope” in the fight to destroy Israel.

Hamas must be defeated.

As far as disproportionate, if one must use the term disproportionate as it relates to Israel, the term should be used as follows:

Israel has been disproportionate in its contributions that benefit humanity in the fields of science, medicine, and green energy.

Or,

Israel has earned disproportionate goodwill to have a viable state in which its Jewish citizens, outcast from both Europe and most of the Arab world, are free to help better their lives and lives throughout the world, without threat.

Israel has more than earned its place at the table of Nations. People in every corner of the world are much better off because of Israel’s existence. They eat better and are healthier.

Yet, as it exists today, Israel, even with its success and contribution to humanity, is not a viable state without the financial and military aid of the United States.

When the dust settles on the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict, the international community should help resolve it in such a way that Palestinians who want to, have room enough to live full lives in their own State or as citizens in the vast under-populated areas that stretch from the Morocco to Iraq, and Israel should be large enough to be prosperous, self-sufficient and independent on its own.

This day is not yet upon us. Unfortunately, world leaders pay disproportionate attention to which side of the bread their economies are oiled, and too little attention to the fact that Israel is disproportionately good.

--David Naggar