Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

There is no proportionate response to terror [Letter]

I appreciate the valid points made by Bruce Knauff in his letter to The Baltimore Sun regarding the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict ("Conflict over Gaza is one-sided," July 16). Allow me to respond to the idea that it is a one-sided conflict and the notion that Israel uses disproportionate force.

We all remember what the streets of downtown Boston looked like in April 2013 during the aftermath of the marathon bombing. A war zone would be too weak of a description; it looked more like the aftermath of a military offensive. Here's a question: Why did the Boston Police Department respond so aggressively to the acts of two deranged teenagers? The answer is self-evident. When terrorists attack indiscriminately, there is no proportion. Terrorism is inherently not proportionate, so the response isn't either. The equivalent of a proportionate response to terrorism would be to place a bomb in a terrorist's face.

When it comes to the Israeli Army and Hamas terrorists, here's how some western journalists portray the conflict. "The media coverage hardly reflects the reality," writes Owen Jones in the Guardian. "A military superpower armed with F-15 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters, Delilah missiles, IAI Heron-1 drones and Jericho II missiles (and nuclear bombs, for that matter), versus a 'prison camp' firing almost entirely ineffective missiles."

A senior Hamas official who was quoted in Haaretz in response to a question about Hamas' rockets targeting civilians as well said that "everyone knows the rockets from Gaza are primitive and lack the destructive power of Israel's weapons. How many have they killed? You can't compare with an Israeli bomb that can destroy a 12-story building. It's just a sort of defense. We want to defend ourselves."

Hamas' rockets are ineffective not because they decided to go easy on their enemies but because of the miraculous Iron Dome defense system. And by the way, they have saved hundreds of Palestinians from becoming collateral damage as a response to Israeli deaths, and it's all thanks in part to America funding this project.

A pressure cooker bomb is also "almost entirely ineffective" but still managed to sow terror in the heart of Bostonians and brought on a disproportionate response. Should Israel start firing rockets into Gaza as a proportionate response? Mr. Owen still wouldn't be content because Hamas leaders don't have a rocket defense system such as Iron Dome. Does Israel have to supply them with an Iron Dome battery for the sake of proportion? Maybe Israel should hand them over some combat jets as well for good measure to minimize their underdog' status.

The only language terrorists understands is disproportion. There is no way of proportionately neutralizing terror.

Aryeh Rand

To respond to this letter, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why Israel belongs to the Jews
    Why Israel belongs to the Jews

    There can be no question about the centrality of Israel to the Jewish and Christian religions, but the Muslim claim is tenuous to say the least.

  • Making a claim on Israel
    Making a claim on Israel

    G. Jefferson Price's commentary refers to the Arab concern for Palestine ("An odd start to America's romance with Saudi Arabia," Feb. 13). But others have claims to that area. What the Arabs now consider Palestine, Jews call Israel or the Promised Land and Christians call the Holy Land. It...

  • Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise
    Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise

    Op-ed writer Frederic Hill ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 28) faults House Speaker John Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections. "Democratic nations usually do not interfere in another country's vote," Mr. Hill says.

  • Congress has right to hear Netanyahu
    Congress has right to hear Netanyahu

    In his commentary ("Boehner's unwise move," Jan. 28), Frederic B. Hill claims it was unwise for House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because it shows deference toward him before an Israeli election.

  • Let Netanyahu speak
    Let Netanyahu speak

    I find it necessary to respond to Frederic B. Hill's odious and erroneous op-ed, "Boehner's unwise move" (Jan. 28).

  • Netanyahu needs to address Congress
    Netanyahu needs to address Congress

    Contrary to Frederic B. Hill's assertions ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27) both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner have had little option, considering how the nuclear negotiations with Iran have proceeded.

  • Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders
    Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders

    Has Speaker John Boehner has a brilliant idea in inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the subject of Iran ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27). What else can he do when, apparently, no Republicans in the House have what it takes to address the issue?...

  • What if Obama spoke to Knesset?
    What if Obama spoke to Knesset?

    I wonder how Benjamin Netanyahu would feel if President Barack Obama wrangled an invitation from an opposition Israeli politician to push the Obama-Iran plan in the Knesset without informing the Israeli prime minister ("Israel spy HQ bucking premier, opposing Iran sanctions," Jan. 23). But...