Hamas: Why are you bombing us?

I must say that I am completely befuddled by the general response by the world to Israel's attacks on Hamas.  It seems that most of the world's response outside of the USA (and Israel itself, of course), and much of the response within the US has been that Israel's bombings of Hamas has been, to use their word, "disproportionate" to Hamas' attacks on Israel.  

"Disproportionate."

What an awful sounding word.  Now, don't you feel duly chastised, Israel?  Bad country.  Bad, bad country.  (I hope you see me shaking my finger.)

Here is a typical example...

After several days of conflict in the Middle East, approximately 3,350 Gazans have been killed and another 1,450 have been wounded. On the Israeli side, three have died and three have been wounded.

Clearly, Israel’s response to the Hamas rocketfire has been disproportionate. In the beginning the targets were mainly stations of security forces, but the Israeli military operations have expanded to other targets, including police stations, organizations and other infrastructure. Women and children are being killed in Gaza.

The growing conflict reminds me of the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier in 2006 that led to massive attacks on Gaza, and later Lebanon, resulting in utter destruction of civilian infrastructure and a great number of deaths. 

What they are saying, in effect is:  "You should wait until Hamas kills many more of your citizens before you start killing so many of their leaders, Israel.  Don't you know you aren't playing fair?"

My response to the world is ... "Uh ... DUH!!!"  

If you're in a war, do you really want your leaders to limit their response to a "proportionate" response?  Seriously?  

We should look at "disproportionate" responses throughout history.

Image this:  General George Armstrong Custer is leading his 264 men into battle against the Sioux and Sitting Bull.  Custer realizes that Sitting Bull is riding with over 4000 Native American warriors.  So he rides up to Sitting Bull, and says "Listen, Sit.  You have too many men.  This is disproportionate.  You need to cut your troop size down to ... oh, let's say about 100 warriors."  Sitting Bull's response?  I'd bet it would be "disproportionate". 

I suspect that all of these "geniuses" calling Israel's response "disproportionate" would consider themselves to be "anti-war".   It's ususally the so-called "anti-war" crowd that makes these sort of stupid suggestions.  What they need to realize is that "proportionate" responses prolong wars.  Disproportionate responses end wars and save lives.  

World War Two would probably still be going on had the US not dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.  Yes, it was barbaric.  Yes, civilians died.  Yes, it was tragic.  It also, more that likely, saved more lives than it cost.  Japan surrendered instead of drawing the war out for several more years, which they would likely have done, even knowing they were losing.  In fact, may of those civilians who were killed by the atomic bombs may well have been killed anyway following a US led land invasion of Japan, along with countless hundreds of thousands of other Japanese civilians and US and allied troops.  

So I say, Israel, continue the pressure on Hamas.  In fact, Israel, if you REALLY want to end the violence, you need to step up the retaliation.  Make it MORE disproportionate.  

There is a saying here in America:  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  For anyone reading this post who is unfamiliar with that saying, allow me to translate:  Hamas, if you didn't want Israel to respond in a "disproportionate" manner, you shouldn't have attacked Israel in the first place.