The new cry of the anti-Israel supporters of terrorism is that Israel's response to the warfare conducted against it by Hamas and Hezbollah is that the self-defense actions of Israel are not "proportional".

Now I can reach only two conclusions about those calling for proportionality. Either they are disingenuous, or they are stupid. After all, life teaches us that when we face a threat to our lives or our safety, proportional response is not the answer. The response must be overwhelming, absolute, and utterly disproportinate to the threat. The goal cannot be a draw -- it must be the utter subjugation or annihilation of the enemy.

My brother is a sergeant on a police force on the West Coast. We've watched more than one television show or movie in which some scriptwriter has had a police officer shoot a perp in the knee, arm, or hand in order to stop or disarm him. When that happens, my brother laughs, and notes "In real life, that is probably a dead cop." Real cops, you see, recognize that when they pull the trigger they must shoot to kill. If they don't, there is a very real chance that the perp will not be disabled or disarmed, and that he will shoot back or use a blade when the officer approaches. Therefore, they shoot for the chest, in the hope of causing such massive injury (or, of course, death) that there is no chance of that the perp can take any action in response. Any other response is stupid -- and anyone who advocates the use of less than deadly force in that situation either does not understand policework or is more concerned about the life of the perp than the life of the police officer. Cops don't use deadly force often or as a primary course of action -- but they don't hesitate to use it when appropriate.

But with Israel, which is using the IDF to disarm and incapacitate terrorist enemies, the call is for settling for something less than safety and security by using no greater force than the enemy is using.

Take this, for example.

Destroying the Beirut airport, blasting communications towers into oblivion and cleansing southern Lebanon of its civilian population are not measures the world will see as an attack on Hezbollah terrorists. The Israeli campaign is so intense and widespread that it is creating more terrorists than it kills. Proportionate military action might have enhanced Israel's security, but video footage of grandmothers weeping amid the rubble of their homes and bloodied children lying in hospital beds won't make Israel more secure. Hezbollah's stature in the Arab world is growing, and its patrons in Damascus and Tehran must be smugly satisfied.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how "the world" views Israel. What matters is that the people of Israel are safe. If that makes Israel unpopular, so be it. Experience has shown the Jews that "the world" does little on their behalf, no matter how passive they are. A litany of pogroms and concentration camps demonstrates that. And somehow I doubt that Iran and Syria would make nice if only Israel would refrain from going to extremes in its own defense.

Even Richard Cohen, who calls Israel a mistake, recognizes that calls for proportionality are insane.

If by chance you have the search engine LexisNexis and you punch in the words "Israel'' and "disproportionate,'' you run the risk of blowing up your computer or darkening your entire neighborhood. Just limiting the search to newspapers and magazines of the last week will turn up "more than 1,000 documents.'' Israel may be the land of milk and honey but it certainly seems to be the land of disproportionate military response -- and a good thing, too.

The list of those who have accused Israel of not being in harmony with its enemies is long and, alas, distinguished. It includes, of course, the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan. It also includes a whole bunch of European newspapers whose editorial pages call for Israel to respond, it seems, with only one missile for every one tossed its way. Such neat proportion is a recipe for doom.

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

Damn straight. Anything less is an invitation for further attack and ultimate destruction.

Now there are those -- including my now banned troll -- who plead the case of the poor civilians of Lebanon. Sadly, they are victims in this -- victims of Hezbollah and their own government. Captain Ed sagely makes the point about where the responsibility belongs for the disproportinal response by Israel -- a response that has led to these unintended but unavoidable civilian casualties belongs.

If Hezbollah finds itself holding a knife in a gunfight, then the blame falls on Hezbollah and the Lebanese government that granted then de facto sovereignty in the south. Wars do not get fought through "proportionality," and they certainly do not end that way. They end when one side overwhelms the other with superior force and dictates terms to the loser, or when one side decides they've had enough and sues for peace. Demands for proportionality lead us to where we are today -- long, bloody wars of attrition that solve nothing and embolden asymmetrical warfare.

How about this for proportionality: Israel comprises about 6.3 million people, while Hezbollah's sponsors, Syria and Iran, comprise a combined 87 million people. Does that mean that the global community will allow Israel to impose a 13:1 death ratio in this war, and to keep killing people indiscriminately until they reach the correct numbers? When the UN and its international dupes start endorsing that proposal, then we can take their demands for proportionality seriously.

Frankly, I think I could accept precisely such a ratio, though I would prefer that it be higher. So keep up the good work, IDF -- leave not one rocket-launcer standing, and not one terrorist alive.

UPDATE: Would you like to know the effect of a "proportionate" response to Hezbollah? It can be inferred from this statement of Mahmoud Komati, a Hezbollah leader.

His comments were the first time that a leader from the Shiite militant group has publicly suggested it miscalculated the consequences of the July 12 cross-border raid in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three were killed.

"The truth is _ let me say this clearly _ we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.

Komati said his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese held in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it has in past prisoner exchanges.

Yeah, that's right -- Hezbollah was expecting another proportionate response from the Israelis, and is upset that the Israelis aren't playing by Hezbollah's rules. what's more, he goes on to complain that Israel had this campaign planned and had just been waiting for the opportunity to strike. I guess he feels that it is somehow immoral for Israel to decide to effectively defend itself from an external threat.

So let's clarify the matter here -- proportionate response leads to continued attacks -- because Hezbollah gets what it wants in such situations. Disproportionate response might just succeed in getting Israel some security.