Proportionality in War
“Moshe, what do you know about proportionality in war?”
“I know that every Zionist—and every Jew—should understand those words. They ought to be part of everyone’s vocabulary. Whether we’re talking about Gaza, Iran, or Lebanon, proportionality is always an argument. The anti-Semites use proportionality to attack Israel, claiming that Israel is not obeying Hammurabi’s Code of an ‘eye for an eye’. I also know that Israel is the only country in the world expected to fight proportionately,” Mordechai replied.
“You’re right. Douglas Murray, the British author, journalist, political commentator, and steadfast supporter of Israel, agrees. He said, ‘Only Israel seems to be expected to act by this strange standard of what’s often called proportionality.’“
“To refresh your memory,” Moshe continued, “here’s how Google defines proportionality: ‘Proportionality in war is a fundamental legal and moral principle that requires the expected incidental harm to civilians and civilian property not to be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack.’“
“What a joke,” Mordechai scoffed. “War is hell, not a game of tit-for-tat. Generals are hired to win wars, and history is full of commanders who pursued decisive victory—not mathematical proportionality. Did the United States apply those kinds of calculations before bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Berlin, or Tokyo? Of course not.”
He leaned forward.
“And when an enemy places military facilities, weapons, or fighters in residential neighborhoods—as Hamas has repeatedly done—it shouldn’t surprise anyone that civilians are placed at terrible risk. What do they expect will happen when murderers and rapists hide among their own families?”
Moshe nodded. “The American generals concluded that using two atomic bombs, despite the horrific loss of civilian life (150,000 dead), would shorten the war and potentially save hundreds of thousands of American lives that might have been lost in an invasion of Japan. They believed it was a military imperative.”
“And as we all know, as the victors, everything we did was properly proportional. And as victors, we get to write the history of our success.”
“Google goes on to describe proportionality as a balancing test,” Mordechai said. “‘Applying this principle is often incredibly difficult in practice because it requires commanders to compare inherently different values—human lives versus military objectives.’“
“Incredibly difficult?” Mordechai replied. “I’d say it’s nearly f–-ing impossible. How do you measure the value of one human life against a military objective? There’s no equation for that.”
He paused.
“Military historian Victor Davis Hanson put it bluntly: ‘No war was ever won by proportionality.’ Throughout history, generals have sought overwhelming—not merely proportional—force to defeat their enemies.”
Moshe reflected for a moment.
“Proportionality recognizes that war inevitably causes tragic collateral damage. Under the law of armed conflict, the question isn’t whether civilian casualties occur, but whether the anticipated civilian harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the attack.”
Mordechai smiled.
“And who decides what’s ‘excessive’?”
“The victors,” Moshe answered. “Courts and international bodies may judge legality, but history is written by those who win.”
