Proportionality – Part 3

Well, I've decided to accept the concept of proportionality. My problems are that I don't know to whom and to what I should apply it. One thing I've learned is that it only has meaning when Jews are involved. It's never used in other circumstances. But after that the criteria become a little vague. So I thought I'd offer some of my questions in the hope that a reader would be able to help me with them. Once I understand what is required, I'm sure a solution to the current situation will be easy.

1. Is the issue solely one of people? And if that is the case, what people are counted? Live or dead? I know Jews have to be involved, but I'm not sure if we should count Arabs or Muslims. And I don't know if our calculations should be based on all Jews, Jews in the Middle East, Jews in the land they claim for themselves, or land within the green line. Similarly, I don't know whether to include Muslims (since the Jews are defined by religion I thought I'd work with religions, but I could be wrongⁱ) in what they claim are “occupied” territories, Muslims in lands which they claim are theirs even if others rule them now, Muslims around the world, or should I use some other criterion.
   
   
2. Should there be proportionality of territory? Does the idea apply to land as well? And if the issue is Jews versus Muslims (or Arabs – see end note number 1), should lands be distributed proportionally? What about tunnels between lands? Should Israel be permitted to dig a proportional number of tunnels under Muslim lands?ⁱⁱ
   
   
3. Does proportionality apply to resources? If, for example, the Arabs control most of the region's oil, are they obliged to give a fair proportion to Israel? The same principle should, of course, apply to all resources, including territory as noted above.
4. Since it is clear that people are the primary “resource” that is being counted when there is talk of proportionality, and among Muslims some of the wealthier individuals have more than one wife, I'm not sure if wives should be given to Israeli government officials in numbers that will even things out. On the other hand, since Jewish intellectual capacity exceeds that of Muslims,ⁱⁱⁱ it makes sense to send some Israeli academics^iv to Muslim countries – not as spies but as resources.
   
   
5. Perhaps proportionality should include beliefs and practices. In Israel the Muslims make up about twenty percent of the population, and the Jews seventy-five percent. It would be a facetious suggestion that the same proportions should exist in Muslim lands, but it might be reasonable to expect that such countries should have twenty percent Jews, with the right to practice their religion openly, and with a right to serve in the government and on the courts as Muslims have in Israel.
   
   

These, though, are unrealistic question and suggestions. Indeed, they're silly. All that's ever discussed is the number of civilians killed.^v Those who speak of proportionality are either disingenuous or stupid. They use “proportionality” to cover their biases. Especially when they only apply the idea to a situation in which they don't like the outcome. European countries (and others) hitch their wagons to “oppressed” (who, in their eyes, can do no wrong) and “feel their pain.”^vi And the numbers prove their point.

But proportionality is a flawed concept. It gives the attacker the opportunity to choose weapons and decide the level of hostilities. If followed, it gives him the chance to decide what level of punishment he's prepared to accept. And no more. The attempt to “teach him a lesson” and prevent future aggression would be a violation of proportionality and a demonstration of oppression by the party he attacked in the first place. “Proportionality” turns losing into winning – at least on “moral” grounds – in the eyes of a world that is looking for a way to disguise its prejudice as virtue: as a defense of the weak – even if that world doesn't care anywhere else.

The solution is one that Israel won't, and shouldn't accept. Hamas may choose to force its people to become “martyrs,”^vii but Israel must not turn its citizens into the terrorists and victims that the “Palestinian government”seeks for its people – its political pawns. Israel must not sacrifice its people as its enemies do. Hamas may see the hostilities as a numbers game with the prize for the most deaths being the world's sympathy. If humanity accepts this idea, however, there is no hope for a just solution. The only proportionality that we should seek relating to those who die in war is 0:0.

And that all begins with an end to rockets from Gaza and the aggression of Muslims against Jews.

Next episode: “It's Easy Being Green” – Some thoughts about travel.

I        If the use of religion is anathema, and the reader defines those who oppose Israel as Arabs, He should just substitute words as necessary. I do not mean to offend anyone, and I'm happy to accept any definition. But the questions that I have still remain.

ii       What, by the way, is a Muslim land? Does the term apply to anywhere Muslims have lived in the past? If so, Israel should be permitted to dig tunnels under Russia, France, the United States, and a plethora of other countries. The number, however, might be limited to lands that have been under Muslim rule before. Tunnels under Spain would be interesting.

iii      Muslims may refuse to accept such an idea. Fine. They will not need any Israeli expertise in their rebuilding efforts.

iv       This, of course, would require an end to the boycott of Israeli academics in Muslim countries, including England which is resembling such a land more each day.

v        Actually, what's discussed is the number of what Hamas tells the world are dead civilians killed by Israel. Various news reports tell us that the “dead” are sometimes still alive, they're not necessarily civilians, and that some of them have been killed by Muslims. Or placed in jeopardy by Muslims.

vi       Or is it that they feel their own guilt, seeing themselves as oppressors – both historically and currently. Current and historic antisemitism play a significant part in their public stand, but they cannot admit to them.

vii      Whether or not they wish to assume such a role.