“Disproportionate Force” is politico speak for “I do not know what I am talking about”

The “value” attached to the statement depends entirely upon where you stand in the world.

Some third rate African bureaucrat, currently doing a hopeless job of running the UN, might consider, from the lofty heights of a New York Office block, that something represents “Disproportionate Force”

However, a Jewish conscript soldier might regard the same “force” as being entirely “proportionate”, especially if he is one of the conscript soldiers who has been captured by Hamas or Hezbollah.

He probably has no problem with “proportionality” as some terrorist runs around with a sword ready to behead him or worse, slowly starts to torture him to death.

My sympathy is with the poor bloke captured by terrorists.

So, before everyone decides to play the self-righteous, I suggest you remember, all War represents a mixture of both proportionate and disproportionate force.

Better the Democracies of the world applied “disproportionate force” in using atomic bombs on Japan during WWII, than leaving a single allied soldier in a POW camp doomed to a lingering and heinous death.

Leigh, there is merit in your post, particularly the “ignoring Barnes” bit.

Col Rouge, Disproportionate force, you know the only type that Israel believes in, is when in order to rescue 2 captured soldiers you lay siege to an entire country of 4.5 million and destroy that country's civilian infrastructure. What would you call it other than disproportionate?

2002 ABC Foreign Correspondent interview with Jennifer Byrne.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s511530.htm

"Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians."

For the reasons given in the interview Israel has been desperate for peace - disengaging wherever possible.

Why attack Lebanon then?

AMAL SAAD GHORAYEB

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/commentary/commentaryother.asp?file=julycommentary582006.xml

"As a scholar who has devoted much of my career to following Hezbollah, I have a simple answer. I’m sure that Hezbollah had envisaged, though perhaps not expected, a response of this kind. By provoking its southern neighbour, Hezbollah knew it would present Israel with a ghastly choice.

I’ve been reading this script for 11 years now, interviewing political, media and security officials from Hezbollah. And they have given me insights into the party’s motives that go well beyond the prisoner exchange that it publicly claims.

Hezbollah hopes to set a new precedent in the Arab world, as its leader Hasan Nasrallah revealed in his latest televised speech: He characterised his movement as a “spearhead of the (Islamic) umma” and declared the conflict as “surpassing Lebanon ... it is the conflict of the umma,”

As to what is going to happen now, how could anyone disregard Spengler given his seeming prescience over the years?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG25Ak01.html

I'm sympathetic to authors who have to write articles to eat, but I do feel sorry for those Mr Barnes adivised if his latest article is typical of his depth of thought.

Perhaps he is best to stick to Oz politics?

In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon. Militarily it was successful, politically it was a failure. It was Israel's first political-military failure, as very previous military campaign resulted in Israel getting extra land.

In July 2006 Hezbollah has captured two Israeli soldiers. In 1967 Israel captured how many Palestinians?

Israel has the right to defend itself, so does Lebanon. In 1940-1944 the Germans treated the French Resistance as terrorists, and the French population as hostages. Looking back we see French resistance fighters, operating out of areas that were nominally under the control of French authorities as Freedom fighters, not terrorists.

Germany was eventually kicked out of France by the Western Allies. In 1944 Germany could have argued, as strongly as Israel could have argued in 1950, that it had a right to occupy territory outside its previously delineated borders. Why didn't the rest of the world just let Germany have France?

Can someone explain the difference to me between Oradour-sur-Glane and Qibya?

Marilyn's post seemed a little empty without reference to refugees and asylum shoppers.

Disproportionate force is a new concept in hostilities. I always thought the idea of hostilities was to win. Should Israel tone it down a little? Maybe Israel should resort to a daily volley of rockets fired into bustling towns along Lebanon's coast.

Sage wrote:

"Disproportionate force is a new concept in hostilities. I always thought the idea of hostilities was to win. Should Israel tone it down a little? Maybe Israel should resort to a daily volley of rockets fired into bustling towns along Lebanon's coast."

To the inhabitants of the West bank, each Zionist settlement has represented a barrage or rockets being delivered each day since the establishment of the settlements.

Those settlements disrupt and fragment Palestinian life, which is what they are intended to do. If Israel really wants peace then it should dismantle every settlement on the West Bank, and delineate a border now.

Of course we know what Israelis do to Prime Ministers who actually try to achieve peace.

The problem in the area of greater Palestine is that BOTH sides are addicted to blood: just enough to maintain the body politic that feeds on it, without draining the life completely. Politicians on both sides need the shedding of blood to justify their position, which is why there will never be an end to war in the Middle East.