Yes, barrister!

Every time I think that anti-Israeli rhetoric cannot stoop lower (for fear of breaking its back or for fear of hitting its head on the (basement) floor), the rhetoric surprises me again. This time it's Michael Paulin, a barrister and a philosopher, in the Guardian's CiF:

It is true that Israel has suffered from Hamas rocket attacks. Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel. Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.

It is great to know that Mr Paulin allows that Israel has suffered from Hamas rockets. But this is where the free ride on Mr Paulin's generosity ends. Read the next sentence:

Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

What the heck does this legalese mean in mean in plain language? "Insofar" means "To the degree or extent that...". Meaning that for Mr Paulin the truth of the matter is not established firmly enough to be absolutely certain. I am not sure whether he said it as a barrister or as a philosopher. "Would be" definitely means that Mr Paulin keeps its mind open to the possibility of Hamas not being exculpated of this, purely theoretical, accusation.

In short: at this stage of his article Mr Paulin doesn't absolutely exclude the possibility that Hamas could be possibly suspected of an alleged breach of military etiquette that, taken under further consideration by Mr Paulin or person(s) he entrusts with this mission of objectively and dispassionately taking the whole subject into consideration, could possibly lead to recognition of the necessity of ... under Geneva conventions of... I hope it's clear to you now.

But wait, it becomes curiosier and curiosier as we continue:

Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel.

Aside of this "yet", the sentence above could be taken at its face value - a dry recording of a fact. So what is the role of that "yet"? Of all possible uses, this one is, probably, the most fitting: "Used in negative statement to describe a situation that has existed up to this point or up to the present time".

If you still wonder about the "yet", here comes a smasher that rounds up the built-up tension:

Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.

That's it - simple and elegant. The response wasn't necessary - after all, what is a measly 20 (twenty) people killed between neighbors? Now, I am more than sure, it was not the barrister's half but the philosopher's one talking...

Anyhow, here is the barrister cum philosopher - I would spit on neither:

Bleh...

P.S. The learned barrister/philosopher forgot to compare that tiny number 20 with the number of people killed in road accidents in Israel during the same period. I can help: it's between 4,000 and 5,000.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com.