Significantly, proportionality does not mean an army is prohibited from attacking if it knows there will be collateral damage.

To the contrary, if the military objective is important enough, collateral damage is a baleful but unavoidable consequence of warfare.

The military commander is obliged to try to minimize collateral damage, but not to the point of refraining from attacking important military targets.

If important targets are not hit, wars last far longer, and there’s nothing humanitarian about insisting on more carnage.

[That aptly describes the situation in Gaza, where Israel’s allies have pressured them into tit-for-tat “proportionality” for almost two decades rather than a final end to Hamas rule in the territory This is especially risible considering that Hamas has spent the last 17 years raining missiles on Israeli civilians, necessitating both the containment of Gaza as well as the development of the expensive Iron Dome anti-missile system. Hamas fired 5,000 rockets at Israeli civilian centers in one day alone, indiscriminately attempting to slaughter even more civilians than the 1300-and-counting they did slaughter. Israel has every right to fight to put a permanent end to those attacks, and always has had that right. The entire discussion is absurd. — Ed]