When one thinks of “proportionality” the idea of things being comparatively equal, or as equal as possible, is the default approach. But that leads to faulty reasoning when discussing proportionality in the context of the laws governing modern warfare.
First let us dispense with two overriding falsehoods regarding proportionality that tend to permeate nearly every discussion on the topic and thus render those discussions moot, at least in regards to international law. Proportionality in international law is designed to be applied on a strike-by-strike basis. Applying it to the whole of a conflict is nonsensical in the way it is defined. When pundits apply it to the entirety of a conflict, they are trying to demand a “fair fight.” But there is nothing in international law that stipulates war must be a fair fight, or that each side can only employ a comparable level of force to that employed by the other side. Proportionality in international law is not about tit-for-tat or retaliatory action. The application of the proportionality test has nothing to do with the “other” side of a...
Become a Member
-
Read all member content
Get exclusive in-depth reports from Israel.
-
Get exclusive in-depth reports from Israel
Connect with Israel, right from your home.
-
Lift up the voice of truth and hope
Support Jerusalem-based Zionist journalism.
Already a member? Login here.
It poses the question, how many times have Jihadists looked up international law to see just what they could or could not when they do a terrorist attack? Have they ever considered not attacking their target if there were civilians present? or have they simply attacked because there were many civilians and they would have a greater effect with the number of people they actually killed? Proportionality? it doesn’t exist with jihadist terrorists.
People who attack Israel over proportionality, do so from behind their own heavy security and high towers.