RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, P F Tinmore,, et al,
Yes, this is the two-fold argument based on the:
◈ Strict application of proportional response,
◈ Utilization of civilians to shield and render certain hostile points immune from military retaliation,
The arguments are on a very single and simplistic level.

Chumpsky.
(COMMENT)
You will notice that, the first part of the argument is based on the chivalry of a duel. That is if the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) fire a single Qassam Rocket, the Israelis can only fire a Qassam Rocket back. That is stupid. No country in the world gives-up its combat superiority because the hostile force is inferior.
✪ Just because the HoAP does not have a Navy or an Army --- heavy weapons or artillery → does not mean that Israel must give up its advantages.
The second part of the argument is base on the notion that the citizenry, that supports and sustains the HoAP, can act as a shield for a launch site for the Qassam Rockets and that the HoAP may fire as many Rockets they wish without fear of retaliation because the civilians that support and sustains the HoAP are in close proximity.
✪ The fault is that the HoAP must avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
✪ The second fault in the argument is that the HoAP must remove civilians from the vicinity of HoAP operations.
✪ Just because the HoAP use civilians to shield, conseal, hide or disguise the presence of HoAP operations. Civilian casualties must have a military objective. Each time the HoAP fires a rocket into Israel, it is indiscriminte fire.
Dr Chomsky thinks that a battlefield is fair. It is not. For most countries, the military force is to protect and defend.
Most Respectfully,
R