This message was self-deleted by its author

[Lee-Lee]

11. I'm not sure what you expect "proportionality" to look like

There has to be a proportionality when violence is used against our enemies. If there are a thousand rockets fired at Israel but very few, if any, Israelis are killed or wounded, that does not give the Israelis the legitimacy to invade, occupy, and destroy the people and the homes of their neighbors.

So if the Israelis had a worse defense network and more on their side got killed, then they could respond in a harsher way?

Being good at defense means you lose the ability to react?

That's like saying if somebody is shooting you buy you have a bulletproof vest that stops the rounds you shouldn't shoot back because they haven't harmed you enough yet.

How do you judge this supposed "proportionality". Number of dead? Then you make allowing your own to die an advantage and playing a good defense less desirable. Tons of ordnance fired?

The idea that Israel must take more casualties and damage before responding, when it's clear the goal of Hamas is to cause those casualties and damage they are just being less than successful at it, is crazy. It's like saying a woman who has a person attempting to rape her, who has told her his intent to rape her, isn't justified in shooting or stabbing her attempted rapist because she hasn't been "assaulted enough" to justify that response under these rules of "proportionality".

Seriously- when thousands of rockets are being fired, just how much is enough to justify a response?