A Wall Street Journal column by former Jerusalem Post editor Bret Stephens explains to readers the fallacy of the argument that Israel's counter terrorist operations in Gaza are "disproportionate." Under the title "The Sderot Calculus," Stephens wrote that the argument that Arab casualties have far exceeded those of Israelis "is fatuous."
Now serving on the editorial board of the Journal, he wrote, "Conditions in Gaza, in so far as they are shaped by Israel, are a function of conditions in Sderot. [If there would be] No Palestinian Kassams (or other forms of terrorism), [then there would be] no Israeli siege... The standard answer is that Israel's response to the Kassams ought to be 'proportionate.' What does that mean? Does the 'proportion' apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams -- to wit, indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a 'proportionate' Israeli response would involve, perhaps, firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza."
Using the argument of a "proportionate" response in effect means that "Israel's presumptive right to self-defense has no practical application as far as Gaza is concerned," he wrote.