Keeping to my theme from the previous post, how does the media define “Disproportionate Response”? How do they define “Proportionate Response”? They should let us know because a lot of the questions I see bandied about regarding
“General, do you think that the Israeli response, while certainly initially provoked, has been disproportionate?”
“Why not?” “Because its not. What do you think qualifies as disproportionate?”
“Because its not. What do you think qualifies as disproportionate?”
“…Well, its not me saying its disproportionate. So and so says so.”
“Okay, what do they say they think is disproportionate?”
You get the idea. The problem I am highlighting is the media's tendencyto set up a meme, or to proceed from a certain “conclusion”, and to base their coverage and questions on it. The one they seem to working from now is, "Well,
They are certainly not the only one, mind you. Various other factions, like say Hezbollah, do it for specific tactical reasons. But the press is supposed to be clarifying things, no? Getting to the truth behind the spin?
So, what IS a disproportionate response to unprovoked attacks, kidnapping and the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists?
I am not saying that there are no responses which are disproportionate or excessive. I am merely saying that those asking the question should first have some idea of what they think that means before asking the question.