GAZA

Posted at 8:40 a.m. ET

It doesn't take long, in any Mideast crisis, before the usual suspects emerge from the nearest faculty lounge or foreign ministry to anguish over the "disproportionate" use of force, a label which always seems to be applied to democracies.  When it's dictatorships or thug groups, it's "understandable resistance."

Michael Gerson, of The Washington Post, who was formerly chief speechwriter for President Bush, has a clear moral perspective on what is happening in Gaza.  Obviously, the loss of life is tragic, but Gerson sees a clear moral lesson:

WASHINGTON -- There is no question -- none -- that Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. No nation can tolerate a portion of its people living in the conditions of the London Blitz -- listening for sirens, sleeping in bomb shelters and separated from death only by the randomness of a Qassam missile's flight. And no group aspiring to nationhood, such as Hamas, can be exempt from the rules of sovereignty, morality and civilization, which, at the very least, forbid routine murder attempts against your neighbors.

Yeah, I'd say that right.  President Bush agrees.  So does Condi Rice.  We haven't heard a word, even a leaked word, from the president-elect.  What that means we have no way of knowing.

Israel's response has been criticized as "disproportionate," which betrays a misunderstanding of proportion's meaning. The goal of military action, when unavoidable, is not to take one life in exchange for each one unjustly taken; this is mere vengeance. The goal is to remove the conditions that lead to conflict and the taking of life. So far, Israel's actions have been proportionate to this objective. And the convoys of fuel, medical supplies and food sent by Israel into Gaza show an appropriate concern for Palestinian suffering, even during a broad assault on Hamas forces.

Of course, this is not what we read in the "international" press or in statements from "human rights" groups, whose concern for "human rights" seem to extend only to this year's left-wing favorites.

The Israeli public will not accept any further risks for peace as long as Hamas missiles fly. Those missiles are a daily symbol that Israeli territorial concessions result in the strengthening of committed enemies and the death of Israeli citizens. The removal of this threat is not an obstacle to the peace process. It is the prerequisite for the resumption of the peace process.

That's common sense. 

Israel recognizes that Hamas will claim victory no matter how badly it is damaged. But the real determination of winners and losers will come six months after a cease-fire. And there are two objective criteria of Israeli success: an end of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and an end of large-scale arms smuggling to Hamas.

More common sense.  There must be a victory.  As MacArthur said, in war there is no substitute for it.

In this crisis, Israel faces a test of its wisdom and competence: Would its leaders really have undertaken such a high-risk operation without a clear endgame?

America, in turn, faces a test of its moral judgment. This conflict is not a contest between shades of gray in mist and fog. It is a matter of distinguishing between murderers and victims -- and of supporting an ally until a clear victory against terrorism is achieved.

Well said.  It's sad, but very few are saying it.  I fear that the new administration will give us the usual mush about the need for "a negotiated settlement" and a "resumption of the peace process."  The key figure here will be Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state.  We should know in the first few weeks whether she was sincere in the generally moderate foreign policy she favored as a senator from New York, or whether she'll start running for secretary general of the UN.

January 3, 2009.