Al-Zahar: Let Hamas fire rockets from West Bank

[Shayah]

I don't think you're unintelligent so surely you saw the post I made right after your last post on this page, read it, and understood it. I have no intention of giving you any more than that.

Name: Operation Sun
Date: 2008
TAF Fatalities: 27
TAF Wounded: 0
PKK Fatalities: 624
PKK Captured: 3

List of Turkish Armed Forces operations in Northern Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your great example of restraint?

 

[Demon of Light]

List of Turkish Armed Forces operations in Northern Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your great example of restraint?

What an asinine remark. Aside from the fact it was far from the only example you are playing ridiculous number games, typical of those arguing Israeli exceptionalism, that have no bearing on the actual issue. Even here you fail, assuming the Turkish estimates of PKK casualties are accurate that is still bellow the number of people killed in both Cast Lead and the 2006 Lebanon War, and it should be noted that only half of the casualties refer to the actual Operation Sun, the ground incursion, the rest allegedly occurring during the airstrikes that occurred over several months prior to the incursion.

Even in your absurd numbers game you lose.

 

[donsutherland1]

Never said they didn't have a right to attack and this was never about whether they had such a right. Rather, you and several others have insisted that Israel is better than all other countries and tolerates things no other country would tolerate. I have already referred to countless incidents where countries have shown more restraint than Israel would or has under similar circumstances.

Four points:

1. I never said that Israel is "better than all other countries." Israel acted as any other sovereign state would act to defend itself when under attack.

2. Israel enjoys the same inherent right of self-defense as any other sovereign state.

3. The expectation some have implied that Israel should not have defended itself when subjected to more than 3,000 rockets being fired at its cities is unreasonable. No sovereign state over at least the period of Israel's existence has refrained from a military operation when subjected to attacks by 1,000 or more rockets, missiles, or bombs within a year or less. One should not expect Israel, alone, to have refrained from launching a military operation to reduce the rocket fire.

4. The post-Cast Lead period has witnessed a dramatic reduction in rockets being fired at Israel. Over time, Israel will need to ensure that it sufficiently deters such attacks.

 

[Shayah]

Even in your absurd numbers game you lose.

To the contrary, the TAF/PKK fatality numbers from the example that YOU provided demonstrate conclusively that your assertions are unfounded and quite ridiculous.

 

[Demon of Light]

Four points:

1. I never said that Israel is "better than all other countries." Israel acted as any other sovereign state would act to defend itself when under attack.

You were not the one to say that specifically, but you did say Israel tolerates things no other country would tolerate.

2. Israel enjoys the same inherent right of self-defense as any other sovereign state.

Never said it didn't and it is in fact in my post that you're quoting.

3. The expectation some have implied that Israel should not have defended itself when subjected to more than 3,000 rockets being fired at its cities is unreasonable. No sovereign state over at least the period of Israel's existence has refrained from a military operation when subjected to attacks by 1,000 or more rockets, missiles, or bombs within a year or less. One should not expect Israel, alone, to have refrained from launching a military operation to reduce the rocket fire.

Talking up the numbers is deceitful, possibly deliberately deceitful on your part, because the number of casualties was incredibly small. Though no exact situation exists elsewhere the nature of a constant cross-border fire that occasionally results in casualties describes most conflict lines in the world and in the vast majority of cases even when there are casualties no war results and there may not be any real retaliation at all.

4. The post-Cast Lead period has witnessed a dramatic reduction in rockets being fired at Israel. Over time, Israel will need to ensure that it sufficiently deters such attacks.

I think perhaps you misunderstand why there was a reduction and ignore the fact there had been a considerable reduction in the months leading up to the war, only changed by an Israeli incursion that killed several Hamas members. Hamas realized its forces needed to improve their capabilities in a number of ways and constant war would make that extremely difficult.

 

[donsutherland1]

Never said it didn't and it is in fact in my post that you're quoting...

Talking up the numbers is deceitful, possibly deliberately deceitful on your part, because the number of casualties was incredibly small. Though no exact situation exists elsewhere the nature of a constant cross-border fire that occasionally results in casualties describes most conflict lines in the world and in the vast majority of cases even when there are casualties no war results and there may not be any real retaliation at all.

Your interpretation of Israel's right to self-defense is a far more limited one than is the norm for all other sovereign states. Indeed, the casualties inflicted are irrelevant. That Israel was attacked is relevant. A nation is not barred from acting in self-defense until a certain threshold in casualties has been inflicted on its people. There is no provision under international law nor customary principle toward that effect. Instead, it is widely understood that a nation has an inherent right of self-defense when it comes under attack. The indiscriminate bombardment of Israel constituted an attack under which Israel, like every other sovereign state, had a right to act in self-defense. Demanding that Israel refrain from acting would be to insist that Israel tolerate what no other sovereign state is asked to tolerate. Such a demand is unreasonable.

I think perhaps you misunderstand why there was a reduction and ignore the fact there had been a considerable reduction in the months leading up to the war, only changed by an Israeli incursion that killed several Hamas members. Hamas realized its forces needed to improve their capabilities in a number of ways and constant war would make that extremely difficult.

Hamas provoked the temporary incursion by attempting to dig a tunnel into Israel to kidnap additional Israeli soldiers. The November 5, 2008 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Israeli troops killed a gunman and wounded at least two others when the army moved into Gaza to destroy a tunnel built by fighters intending to capture Israeli soldiers..."

 

[Demon of Light]

Your interpretation of Israel's right to self-defense is a far more limited one than is the norm for all other sovereign states. Indeed, the casualties inflicted are irrelevant. That Israel was attacked is relevant. A nation is not barred from acting in self-defense until a certain threshold in casualties has been inflicted on its people. There is no provision under international law nor customary principle toward that effect. Instead, it is widely understood that a nation has an inherent right of self-defense when it comes under attack. The indiscriminate bombardment of Israel constituted an attack under which Israel, like every other sovereign state, had a right to act in self-defense. Demanding that Israel refrain from acting would be to insist that Israel tolerate what no other sovereign state is asked to tolerate. Such a demand is unreasonable.

Actually countless states are asked to tolerate it because if countries didn't there would be a dozen or so different wars raging right now. I already told you I think Israel has a right to self-defense and at no point did I suggest it was in any way different from the right of other countries. However, this should not be taken as a blank check to engage in as much violence as you desire whenever you desire.

Countries are generally expected not to rush in at the slightest provocation. In real life if someone punches you in the face it is generally considered bad form to blow their brains out in response.

Hamas provoked the temporary incursion by attempting to dig a tunnel into Israel to kidnap additional Israeli soldiers. The November 5, 2008 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Israeli troops killed a gunman and wounded at least two others when the army moved into Gaza to destroy a tunnel built by fighters intending to capture Israeli soldiers..."

So Hamas is forbidden from military preparations while Israel could make all the preparations they like? You see, the ceasefire never stipulated that either country had to cease its military preparations or cease arming itself. Of course, all we have is Israel's word that the tunnel was intended for capturing soldiers and that it somehow was a sufficiently imminent threat to justify the consequences of action. I do not see any reason why that tunnel would justify Cast Lead, which was the ultimate result of Israel's actions.

In fact, my thought is that Israel was never really interested in a ceasefire and went for the first opportunity it could at ending it.

 

[donsutherland1]

Actually countless states are asked to tolerate it because if countries didn't there would be a dozen or so different wars raging right now.

"Countless states" are not subjected to attack by a thousand or more rockets, bombs, or missiles within a year or less. A handful of countries experience such conditions and they are involved in conflict, generally internal conflict.

Countries are generally expected not to rush in at the slightest provocation.

That's a novel redefinition of "slight," but it is far off the conventional use of the term, which refers to a small, low, minimal level/threshold. 3,200 rockets fired into one's cities in the course of a year is not a "slight provocation."

So Hamas is forbidden from military preparations while Israel could make all the preparations they like? You see, the ceasefire never stipulated that either country had to cease its military preparations or cease arming itself. Of course, all we have is Israel's word that the tunnel was intended for capturing soldiers and that it somehow was a sufficiently imminent threat to justify the consequences of action. I do not see any reason why that tunnel would justify Cast Lead, which was the ultimate result of Israel's actions.

The tunnel was being dug into Israel not Egypt. Moreover, Operation Cast Lead was not launched in the immediate wake of Hamas' tunnel operation. It was launched only after Israel had been subjected to intense, continuing, and indiscriminate rocket bombardment. Without such bombardment, there would have been no Operation Cast Lead.

 

[Demon of Light]

"Countless states" are not subjected to attack by a thousand or more rockets, bombs, or missiles within a year or less. A handful of countries experience such conditions and they are involved in conflict, generally internal conflict.

Do you think repeating the word "thousands" over and over is going to make the fact only a few dozen have died over eight years as a result of those rockets seem more serious with none during the months prior to Cast Lead? You can say it doesn't matter, but to nearly everyone else in the world it most certainly does matter because war rarely results when there are no casualties.

That's a novel redefinition of "slight," but it is far off the conventional use of the term, which refers to a small, low, minimal level/threshold. 3,200 rockets fired into one's cities in the course of a year is not a "slight provocation."

In terms of world conflict it most certainly is slight, especially during a period when there were no people killed on Israel's side.

The tunnel was being dug into Israel not Egypt.

I am sorry, but do you think preparations for war are limited to smuggling weapons? Certainly that big wall separating Gaza from Israel puts them at a strategic disadvantage. Rather than trying to break through the heavily-defended wall it makes more sense to go under it.

Moreover, Operation Cast Lead was not launched in the immediate wake of Hamas' tunnel operation. It was launched only after Israel had been subjected to intense, continuing, and indiscriminate rocket bombardment. Without such bombardment, there would have been no Operation Cast Lead.

The bombardment was a direct consequence of the Israeli operation. The irony is that the month before that operation rocket fire had almost completely ceased because Hamas began putting pressure on other groups in Gaza, despite none of them being a party to the truce. Hamas being so strict on the truce is partly why you cannot call Cast Lead a success. It at best restored the situation that had existed during the truce.

 

[donsutherland1]

Do you think repeating the word "thousands" over and over is going to make the fact only a few dozen have died over eight years as a result of those rockets seem more serious with none during the months prior to Cast Lead? You can say it doesn't matter, but to nearly everyone else in the world it most certainly does matter because war rarely results when there are no casualties.

As noted previously, a nation's inherent right of self-defense does not depend on a threshold of casualties being achieved. A nation has the right to defend itself when it is attacked or under a certain and imminent threat of attack. The rocket attacks amounted to an attack under which Israel, like any other sovereign state, had the right to defend itself.

I am sorry, but do you think preparations for war are limited to smuggling weapons? Certainly that big wall separating Gaza from Israel puts them at a strategic disadvantage. Rather than trying to break through the heavily-defended wall it makes more sense to go under it.

Hamas did not have immunity to tunnel into Israel. The tunneling constituted an act of aggression, especially as it was aimed at kidnapping soldiers, and Israel was not required to refrain from addressing that aggression.

Hamas being so strict on the truce is partly why you cannot call Cast Lead a success. It at best restored the situation that had existed during the truce.

Despite the low level of rocket fire prior to Hamas' choosing to unilaterally end its truce--for which Operation Cast Lead was a consequence--Cast Lead ultimately resulted in a dramatic reduction in rocket attacks. Hamas had no intention of letting up on its rocket attacks prior to Cast Lead and that made the military operation necessary.

 

[mbig]

Do you think repeating the word "thousands" over and over is going to make the fact only a few dozen have died over eight years as a result of those rockets seem more serious with none during the months prior to Cast Lead? You can say it doesn't matter, but to nearly everyone else in the world it most certainly does matter because war rarely results when there are no casualties.
[........]

As noted previously, a nation's inherent right of self-defense does not depend on a threshold of casualties being achieved. A nation has the right to defend itself when it is attacked or under a certain and imminent threat of attack. The rocket attacks amounted to an attack under which Israel, like any other sovereign state, had the right to defend itself.
[..........]

As I said to Demon of Light two weeks ago in post #61 of this very string about this 'proportionality' red herring:

I oft see this piece of fallacious reasoning.
Palestinians started and continued the Intifada/war with Israel quite content with that ratio.
A war palestinians relished both demographically and PR wise.
Israel is Not obliged to only respond 'proportionally' and allow a 50 year war of attrition.
An intentional war no civilized country should allow if it can stop it.
Thankfully the fence in large part did.

Postmodern Palestine
The new amorality in the Middle East.
Victor Davis Hanson on Middle East & Postmodernity on National Review Online

There is a postmodern amorality afloat — the dividend of years of an American educational system in which historical ignorance, cultural relativism, and well-intentioned theory, in place of cold facts, has reigned. We see the sad results everywhere in the current discussions of the Middle East and our own war on terror.

Palestinians appeal to the American public on grounds that three or four times as many of their own citizens have died as Israelis. The crazy logic is that in war the side that suffers the most casualties is either in the right or at least should be the winner.
Some Americans nursed on the popular ideology of equivalence find this attractive. But if so, they should then sympathize with Hitler, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh who all lost more soldiers — and civilians — in their wars against us than we did.

Perhaps a million Chinese were casualties in Korea, ten times the number of Americans killed, wounded, and missing. Are we then to forget that the Communists crossed the Yalu River to implement totalitarianism in the south — and instead agree that their catastrophic wartime sacrifices were proof of American culpability? Palestinians suffer more casualties than Israelis not because they wish to, or because they are somehow more moral — but because they are not as adept in fighting real soldiers in the full-fledged war that is growing out of their own intifada.

We are told that Palestinian civilians who are killed by the Israeli Defense Forces are the moral equivalent of slaughtering Israeli civilians at schools, restaurants, and on buses....

 

[Vader]

Al-Zahar is a ****bag who needs a dirt nap.

 

[Demon of Light]

As noted previously, a nation's inherent right of self-defense does not depend on a threshold of casualties being achieved. A nation has the right to defend itself when it is attacked or under a certain and imminent threat of attack. The rocket attacks amounted to an attack under which Israel, like any other sovereign state, had the right to defend itself.

I'm beginning to think you are deliberately giving retorts you know I have already responded to several times just to provoke me. You and several other posters have said Israel shows greater restraint than any other country in the world and the reality is most countries show restraint when there are no deaths and even when there are deaths.

Hamas did not have immunity to tunnel into Israel. The tunneling constituted an act of aggression, especially as it was aimed at kidnapping soldiers, and Israel was not required to refrain from addressing that aggression.

Yeah, digging a hole is not quite as serious as killing a bunch of people, which Israel did. This is assuming of course that the hole was even being dug for the reasons Israel claims. Most importantly the truce did not cover digging tunnels just like it didn't cover smuggling weapons.

Despite the low level of rocket fire prior to Hamas' choosing to unilaterally end its truce--for which Operation Cast Lead was a consequence--Cast Lead ultimately resulted in a dramatic reduction in rocket attacks. Hamas had no intention of letting up on its rocket attacks prior to Cast Lead and that made the military operation necessary.

Hamas probably would have kept honoring the truce, including preventing any other groups from firing rockets, had Israel not launched that operation into Gaza in November. In essence the truce fell apart on that day not after. Everything that followed was a direct result of Israel's violation of the truce.

 

[donsutherland1]

I'm beginning to think you are deliberately giving retorts you know I have already responded to several times just to provoke me. You and several other posters have said Israel shows greater restraint than any other country in the world and the reality is most countries show restraint when there are no deaths and even when there are deaths.

You keep arguing that the amount of rockets fired into Israel is irrelevant and, instead, keep citing the low number of casualties inflicted by the rockets in arguing that Israel was not justified in responding. Yet, under international law, an attack--not number of casualties inflicted in the attack--is all that is required for self-defense e.g., Article 51 of the UN Charter, which reflects the common principle of self-defense, makes no reference whatsoever to casualties.

As for Israel's restraint, Israel waited for a prolonged time-- prior to launching Cast Lead. You believe that Israel's restraint was not unprecedented, please provide a specific case (and citation or link to the corroborating information) of a nation that, in the case of Israel, was hit by more than 300 rockets and mortar shells in a month-and-a-half and more than 2,900 for the year prior to Operation Cast Lead, but did not undertake a military operation during that timeframe to try to bring an end to the attacks. Unless there is such an example, Israel's restraint was unprecedented. Numerous cases would be required to demonstrate that Israel's restraint was the norm or less than the norm.

Even in the days immediately prior to Israel's launching Operation Cast Lead, Israel submitted letters to the UN Secretary General on the matter (December 22 and December 24, 2008). Despite the intensifying rocket attacks and Israel's two letters to the UN Secretary General, the UN Security Council produced no Presidential Statements nor resolutions demanding that Hamas immediately cease its attacks. With UN inaction, Israel had no choice but to act on its own to address the attacks. Of course, once Israel acted, only then on January 8, 2009 did the Security Council adopt a resolution (UNSC Res. 1860) that demanded "an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza." Had the UN acted much earlier to condemn the attacks and demand an end to those attacks, perhaps Operation Cast Lead might not have been necessary. Needless to say, inaction is a choice and such a choice has consequences.

Yeah, digging a hole is not quite as serious as killing a bunch of people, which Israel did.

Israel targeted and killed only those responsible for the act of aggression related to the tunnel construction. Of course, even during the truce, there was not a single month in which no rockets were fired into Israel. Rocket fire was at a low level, but not zero.

Hamas probably would have kept honoring the truce, including preventing any other groups from firing rockets, had Israel not launched that operation into Gaza in November. In essence the truce fell apart on that day not after. Everything that followed was a direct result of Israel's violation of the truce.

Hamas' act of aggression violated the truce. Every rocket that was fired into Israel prior to the November incident was a violation of the truce.

 

[Shayah]

You keep arguing that the amount of rockets fired into Israel is irrelevant and, instead, keep citing the low number of casualties inflicted by the rockets in arguing that Israel was not justified in responding.

True enough. An analogy. Let's imagine a nasty arsonist who continually sets small fires in a crowded movie theater. Demon is arguing that such arson is unimportant and should be ignored unless/until hundreds of people burn to death.

This is a twisted strain of logic that contorts common sense and is anathema to basic morality and statute.

 

[donsutherland1]

True enough. An analogy. Let's imagine a nasty arsonist who continually sets small fires in a crowded movie theater. Demon is arguing that such arson is unimportant and should be ignored unless/until hundreds of people burn to death.

This is a twisted strain of logic that contorts common sense and is anathema to basic morality and statute.

Shayah,

I suspect that his logic stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of proportionality. Proportionality does not mean that a nation's military response must be on a scale commensurate with the enemy's response. Instead, it applies to the principle that a nation's targeting of military objectives cannot reasonably be expected to result in civilian casualties that are excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.

Needless to say, the principle does not demand that military planning or execution be perfect. Human error is understood to occur. So is systems failure. If, for example, a nation makes an error e.g., a missile goes astray resulting in relatively high civilian casualties, that does not mean that it violated the principle of proportionality. Only if the combatant should have reasonably expected civilian casualties to be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage does a problem arise with respect to proportionality.

Of course, a combatant's deliberately targeting civilians or engaging in indiscriminate bombardment (something that Hamas did when it was firing its barrage of rockets into Israel) violates the Laws of War.

 

[Demon of Light]

You keep arguing that the amount of rockets fired into Israel is irrelevant and, instead, keep citing the low number of casualties inflicted by the rockets in arguing that Israel was not justified in responding. Yet, under international law, an attack--not number of casualties inflicted in the attack--is all that is required for self-defense e.g., Article 51 of the UN Charter, which reflects the common principle of self-defense, makes no reference whatsoever to casualties.

I'm getting ****ing tired of your strawman tactics don. I never said Israel would not be justified in responding or that they did not have a right to respond. Rather I said the number of rockets is irrelevant when considering the low number of casualties. It is as irrelevant as the number of bullets fired over a conflict line or border. Countries typically don't go to war over bullets that missed. Even when people are killed most countries do not go to war and certainly not on the level Israel did during Cast Lead. Those countries would have a right to respond, but they restrain themselves and part of the reason is because was inevitably entails greater violence greater loss of life.

Unless there is such an example, Israel's restraint was unprecedented. Numerous cases would be required to demonstrate that Israel's restraint was the norm or less than the norm.

I have already pointed to cases worse than a bunch of rockets that hardly killed anyone by noting situations where people have frequently been killed and in some cases killed by the dozens all without causing a war or at least one of the destructive nature of Cast Lead. Your demand that I find an exact copy of the situation in Israel is absurd and clearly just a deceitful tactic on your part. Finding an exact parallel of any international incident is often difficult if not impossible.

Had the UN acted much earlier to condemn the attacks and demand an end to those attacks, perhaps Operation Cast Lead might not have been necessary,

Do you honestly believe that Israel would have not gone to war if the UN said some terse words?

Israel targeted and killed only those responsible for the act of aggression related to the tunnel construction. Of course, even during the truce, there was not a single month in which no rockets were fired into Israel. Rocket fire was at a low level, but not zero.

Of course you go by month and say "not zero" because in the month previous rocket fire had almost completely stopped. If you were to rephrase your absurd demand by asking for a country that would be hit a dozen rockets and mortars every month in a limited area and not respond like Israel then you would have to concede that most countries would show restraint. More importantly in terms of violations these are hardly even a blip on the radar.

Hamas' act of aggression violated the truce. Every rocket that was fired into Israel prior to the November incident was a violation of the truce.

Hamas did not fire said rockets, at least not until after Israel violated the truce. Rockets were fired by other groups who were not part of the truce.

 

[donsutherland1]

Barring credible new information, this will probably be my last post in this particular thread. The issue as to whether Israel had the right to launch Operation Cast Lead in response to the intense rocket and mortar bombardment has been settled. International law permits such a response when a nation is attacked. No contrary credible evidence was provided. In addition, efforts to minimize or outright dismiss Israel’s restraint prior to Operation Cast Lead were also unsubstantiated. Under the magnitude of bombardment, Israel’s restraint was, in fact, unprecedented.

On the first point, rationale that would largely strip Israel of its inherent right of self-defense was advanced. Objections were raised that prior to Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “survival wasn’t threatened.” Implicit was the expectation that Operation Cast Lead was illegitimate precisely because Israel’s survival was not at risk. Later, the objection evolved into a rationale that the bombardment of Israel’s cities did not claim many lives.

All of those lines of argument are incorrect. Under international law, a nation’s inherent right of self-defense does not apply only to situations in which a nation’s survival is threatened. It does not apply only to situations in which a sufficient number of casualties has been inflicted. Instead, a nation that is attacked can immediately respond with force in self-defense. This notion of an inherent right of self-defense extends back to ancient history. It was discussed in fairly extensive detail by 17th century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in his seminal work, On the Law of War and Peace. Article 51 of the UN Charter reflects that principle noting, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…” Israel was attacked by what amounted to approximately 3,200 rockets in 2008. Under international law, Israel like any other sovereign state had an inherent right of self-defense. That its survival was not threatened or casualties resulting from the rocket attacks were completely irrelevant.

Needless to say, not a single instrument of international law or precedent from the International Court of Justice was advanced to argue that a nation’s right to self-defense was contingent either upon the number of casualties, much less the risk to its survival. In fact, no such instruments or precedents exist.

On the second point, objections were raised when it was noted that Israel’s restraint in the face of the rocket attacks was unprecedented. When the facts of Israeli restraint, namely that 8 years of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and approximately 3,200 rockets were fired into Israel from there in 2008 alone prior to any serious Israeli ground operation, those facts were dismissed as “baseless and absurd” Israeli “exceptionalism.” It was asserted that pointing to Israel’s enormous restraint amounted to an argument that “Israel is better than all other countries and tolerates things no other country would tolerate.” On the specific issue of bombardment, Israel did, in fact, tolerate the assault for much longer than any other nation during the timeframe since Israel’s re-establishment in 1948. The rocket bombardment was also trivialized as the “slightest provocation.”

Repeated invitations for the furnishing of evidence to demonstrate that Israel’s restraint was routine or less than the norm went unfulfilled. If Israel’s restraint was not unprecedented during the timeframe of its existence, at least one additional country should have endured at least the same magnitude of assault without responding militarily in the fashion that Israel did. If Israel’s restraint is less than the norm, there should be numerous examples of countries facing the same magnitude of attack without responding in similar fashion to Israel.

Indeed, there is no single case. Lengthy searches through such widely-respected data bases as Lexis-Nexis, the UN’s documents, etc., reveal no single cases. Lacking credible evidence, actually any evidence, the argument was made that the “demand” to “find an exact copy of the situation in Israel is absurd and clearly just a deceitful tactic on your part. Finding an exact parallel of any international incident is often difficult if not impossible.” In sum, the claim that Israel’s restraint was less than extraordinary was unsubstantiated. That argument is not supported by a single case example.

In conclusion:

• Every sovereign state has an inherent right to act in self-defense when it is attacked. That right is not contingent upon a casualty threshold, much less the risk to a nation's survival.

• Israel's lengthy period of restraint during Hamas' rocket and mortar bombardment was unprecedented during the timeframe beginning with Israel's re-establishment in 1948. There are no cases of other sovereign states tolerating indiscriminate bombardment of at least a similar magnitude for as long as Israel did.