But when I talk on the Israeli side, when I say existential threat I mean the long term loss of political legitimacy of the state. (What I called losing the war, which is maybe the wrong metaphor)

Brilliant point, and so true. Again I think that's part of my point that it's important to remember that Israel gets held to a different standard because we want more from Israel and believe in its project. In a more concrete, pragmatic way, it's at least possible that Israel losing its moral and democratic status could cause it to lose the support of the United States, and then all bets are off. So, you're completely right.

I mean, look-- people love to cast this conflict as a case of Israel facing an existential threat, with Israel being deeply imperiled and in danger of being wiped off the map. Israel certainly faces grave threats to its future, largely because of geographical proximity to regimes that don't like it very much. I actually don't think these are as grave as some people make them out to be, because Israel boasts a nuclear arsenal, a competent and powerful military, and the backing of the United States. But, yes, Syria, Iran, etc. are legitimate threats to the Israeli way of life.

Hamas and the Palestinian population, meanwhile, most certainly are not genuine threats to Israel's way of life or existence. They just aren't. They have nothing resembling the military capability to destroy Israel, or even to cause it meaningful short term harm. Part of the point of talking about the comparatively tiny number of Israelis killed in reference to the number of Palestinians killed isn't just to talk about proportionality, but to demonstrate that Hamas simply isn't a meaningful threat to the Israeli way of life. They just don't have that capacity. The point isn't, and has never been, simply that there's some sort of superior morality in killing less people than more; the killing is immoral, point blank. The question is, are people right when they say that Hamas represents a significant threat to Israeli security? To Israel's border integrity? I say no.

So if we're going to talk about threat level, let's be honest and point out that the Palestinian people are more imperiled than the Israeli people. It seems a matter of little controversy to me to say that a people with neither citizenship rights nor sovereignty, no conventional military, no control over their own borders or airspace, destroyed or decaying infrastructure and no capacity to provide for their own people are far more endangered than the Israelis.

That is, again, not to in any way justify rocketing or bombing. We have to avoid believing in the superior morality of the most oppressed. But the situation here is totally untenable for the Palestinians, and actually quite survivable for the Israelis. It is the Israelis who have the ability to effect meaningful change by honoring international law and their treaty obligations and curtailing the settlements. The Palestinians have to stop rocketing, absolutely must stop it. But in reality whether they do or don't they have an incredibly small amount of control on the situation.

You know, I've never been moved with those who thread logic through ever-thinner needles in order to say "don't worry, this isn't actually immoral." I don't know if proportionality is the best philosophical prism to consider this issue through; I do know that if you've arrived at a place where you have abdicated your responsibility for moral action, you are in bad faith, and in the wrong.

As for you, Roque, following this brief statement I won't be responding to your comments, because you've demonstrated that you aren't worth responding to. If you had ever shown even a modicum of good faith in responding to me, or even a shred of being interested in an actual dialogue, that wouldn't be the case; you can ask almost anyone else who's ever argued with me at my blog, ever. I respond to them all, I engage with them all, and then there's you. Many of my other commenters and I still don't agree, many think I'm totally off-base, but we have talked together. You and I meanwhile, never haved; you've yelled at, insulted and sworn at me, and I've grown to ignore you. The question is, do you have the self-critical mechanism necessary to ask yourself the question, "Maybe it's not him... maybe it's me"? I highly doubt you have; your certitude is the only thing that matches your frankly ludicrous bile. So, from now on, I'll just ignore. I believe in the enterprise of discussion, but I have limits, and you've never demonstrated, in any degree or capacity whatsoever, that you actually want to talk. And that's that.