Then there is the “yes, but…” response. “Yes” Hamas started it; “Yes,” Hamas tortured and massacred Israeli civilians; “Yes” Hamas puts military infrastructure in civilian neighborhoods; “Yes” Israel is entitled to self-defense; “Yes” the Israelis warn Palestinians. “But” so many more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis.

Isn’t that the definition of “disproportionate?” No. It isn’t.

Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about firepower returned being equal in sophistication or lethality to firepower received. Proportionality weighs the military necessity of an action against the suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity. A review of expert opinion – none of which was written in relation to Israel – helps to clarify. And each should be read in relation to Hamas crimes against Israeli civilians.

[This is one of the most misrepresented doctrines in the mainstream media. Proportionality does not relate to body counts. When someone starts a war, they do not get to demand an equal body count as a “just” outcome, or claim that a higher body count is a war crime. Proportionality relates to the value of a military objective relative to the civilian deaths that result from it. In a war started by a massacre of civilians by the initiating entity, the necessity of completely defeating the aggressor makes for a very wide window of ‘proportionality’ in the response. — Ed]