Critics of Israel’s offensive in Gaza to neutralize the threat of Hamas rockets fired at the southern part of the country love to use the “proportionality” argument. 

 This line of thinking goes as follows: considering that Hamas is merely lobbing inaccurate, small payload rockets, and considering that such rockets have only killed a handful of Israelis, Israel’s military answer of precise, tactical air and artillery strikes, which are decimating Hamas’ infrastructure and ranks, and are killing some innocent civilians as well, is too much.

You and I suspect that those who play the proportionality card are not out to make a straightforward correlative argument against Israeli aggression. Which is to say, this sort of reasoning is the tactic used exclusively by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. Look around: no one else – even others opposed to Israel’s Gaza campaign for one reason or another – dares utter the word. Indeed, no country at war – in the history of warfare – has been served with the accusation of fighting “disproportionately.” Only Israel.

To illustrate the sheer ridiculousness of the proportionality offence, let’s, for a second, humour those who employ it.

To wit: what would a “proportionate” Israeli response to Hamas rocket attacks look like?

First, Israel would have to start using less explosive shells and bombs. This would make the destructive yield of both sides’ weapons even. There would be no more air strikes, either – a proportionate response means exclusively using primitive, often homemade, bombs and unpredictable explosives.

Next, Israel would have to scrap its precision guiding systems. No more laser directives ensuring that missiles land where they should – which is to say, on the storerooms of Hamas rockets and the houses of Hamas terrorists. Losing the guidance systems would also mean that Israel would not be able to warn Palestinian civilians (and even some of the Hamas men it has targeted) to evacuate targeted spots.

This sort of Israeli response – strapping on a blindfold and hurling crude bombs at Gaza – would quite likely inflict more damage on innocent Palestinians than Israel’s actual strategy (which puts Israeli soldiers at greater personal risk so as to lessen the risk of Palestinians dying in the crossfire). But at least it would be proportionate, right?

I’ll guarantee you this much: if Israel was to adopt the proportionate response I’ve outlined, those who use the proportion argument would simply find a new way to make the mess in the Middle East the exclusive responsibility of the Jewish state.

Proportionality, we know, has nothing to do with what’s going on in southern Israel and Gaza. Nor does it have anything to do with previous battles in Lebanon and the West Bank, or a possible future altercation with a nuclear Iran. It’s an excuse to vilify Israel, plain and simple.

What’s shameful is that so many – in the media and, more generally, on the centre-right – have taken the bait from proportionality mongers. Everyone should be able to see through such an illogical, nonsensical line of reasoning, yet so many are consciously, and infuriatingly, choosing not to.

So the next time you hear someone spouting off about Israel “disproportionate” response to Hamas’ rocket campaign on southern Israel, I would urge you to try a different tack. Instead of talking about Israel’s right to respond to an act of war, Hamas’ use of human shields, UN conventions regarding the rules of warfare or the fact that Israeli soldiers are more at risk of injury and death due to Israel’s humane war strategy, try to play by the proportionate crew’s rules.

Paint them a clear picture of just what a proportionate Israeli response might look like: aimless, crude bombs hurtling toward unsuspecting Gaza Palestinians who won’t have any time to take cover (and nowhere to hide anyway, because Hamas has neglected to build bomb shelters in Gaza).

We’ll see how the proportionate crowd takes to a little of its own medicine.