Another question which might perhaps be raised is whether Israel has any alternative to the use of force. Unfortunately, I have not followed this conflict closely enough to have an idea about that, but I wish to express my thought that this is as important a question in its own right as the other two.

I feel strange intervening in a vaguely pro-Israeli way twice in a row, given that for all my disdain for many of the groups that oppose Israel, I’m not particularly pro-Israeli. Their sob story doesn’t really impress me.

But do feel the need to intervene when the definition of fascism is abused. Precisely what do you mean by fascism, and how do the racist and land-grabbing policies of Israel (yes, I cheerfully point out that Israel indulges in both) amount to actual fascism? This is not a semantic quibble. It is about abusing a term with the effect that discourse is poisoned and rational debate shuts down. It is about obscuring much more accurate terms and arguments with more emotionally satisfying ones.

Second, please don’t tell me you actually believe that proportionality refers to proportionality in casualties. The Germans suffered far more civilian casualties in World War II than the Americans or the English. Does this give the monsters who started that war even a shred of moral high ground? Do we know that an country has made a just assault when it kills about as many people as it loses? How is this line of argument anything other than simply twisting the actual concept of proportionality – a debatable concept in its own right, one Israel has certainly ignored – it becomes a macabre victimhood contest?

I stand corrected. I was not using fascism in the technical sense that some political historians may use it; but rather as an abbreviation for nationalism plus militarism to the exclusion of decency and common sense.

With regards to proportionality, I meant exactly what I said. What fairer measure is there than human life? War is macabre and produces lots of victims; there’s no getting around that.

Ginan Rauf

The question may also be if force becomes the only force of
exchange, then, doesn’t one merely encourage others to say
force is the only alternative we have? The dangerous shredding
of all norms of international law are convincing many that in
a world where might is right and the law is a sham that doesn’t
protect the weak then many will simply decide to take the law
into their own hands. If you expect people to follow international
norms then you have no credibility or moral authority if you flaunt
them egregiously youself. We are in such a dangerous world.

By the way, the lack of US civilian casualties in the World Wars was simply because they were mainly fought in Europe. That was just the nature of those wars; it has no moral bearing on the US side vs. the Nazis at all. Except of course for the firebombing of cities like Dresden, which were definitely immoral and possibly war crimes on the part of the US, albeit on a smaller scale thatn Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

You might want to think about the fact that doctors in Lebanon
are talking about the illegal use of phosphorous. There are
accounts- not yet confirmed by independent sources about
the use of cluster bombs, weapons that indiscriminately target
civilians and violate the norms of international law. You might
also want to consider the fact that according to the Guardian
two- not one- ambulances were bombed today, with a patient
on a stretcher losing his leg.