Ezra Klein joins the media chorus criticizing Israel’s “disproportionate response” to the Hamas missile attacks, but doesn’t really care to unpack what the argument actually means.

The notion that Israel ought to be faulted for responding “disproportionately,” presumes that there ought to have been some other, “proportionate” response. What exactly would that response be? Send missiles indiscriminantly back towards Palestinian citizens in Gaza? Then what? Wait for Hamas to escelate, and escelate “proportionately”?

When, in the history of mankind, has a sovereign nation ever defended itself under such a principle? Should the U.S. have met Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait with a “proportionately” weak army? What would it even have meant to confront Nazi Germany “proportionately”? The bizarenesss of the questions belie the inanity of the proposal itself.

Hamas’ goal is clearly stated in its charter: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” In this context, Israel would appear to be reacting with disportionate restraint by not responding likewise.

But then again, proportionality, has never been, and will never be, an appropriate criteria for persuing national defense. So, please, let’s disabuse ourselves of the false standard.