I have always believed that disprportionate reponse is justifiable (if struck once I will strike back unpredictably harder if I can so that there is no future temptation to estimate expected value of an attack). And I understand that in the event of military action some level of “collateral damage” has to be expected (and that even those opposed to a belligerent regime can expect to suffer the consequences of retribution if they have failed to remove it from power). But the scale of suffering now in Gaza (when comared to the ineffectiveness of the attacks which prompted it) does make me wonder how much is too much?
Prompted by this article (by Fares Akram in The Independent via Alternet)