From the article on Canadian Zionist Forum by David Roytenburg

canadianzionistforum.substack.com

Visiting Scholar Brian Cox explained a number of complex ideas. One was the notion of proportionality. He explained that in the laws of war, a proportionate response has two aspects. One has to do with the decision to go to war and the objectives that are set by the state that makes the decision to go to war. This comes from a body of law called Jus ad Bellum. In this context, the law requires that the objectives of the war must be proportionate to the threat. In the current war, Israel determined, in response to the act of genocide committed by Hamas beginning on October 7, that it must eliminate Hamas from Gaza. The second war aim is the liberation of the Israelis taken captive by Hamas. Given the gravity of the threat demonstrated by Hamas’ actions on October 7, these objectives are clearly proportionate to the threat, according to our speaker. Thus Israel’s response meets the first test of proportionality.

The second aspect of proportionality applies to the way the war is conducted and has to do with the means that are used to destroy enemy military targets. This body of law is called Jus in Bello. For the definition of a military objective here is a quote from the article Legitimate Military Target in Wikipedia:

Article 52 states, “In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”

Our speaker explained that the concept of proportionality with respect to military targets requires that proportionate force be used in destroying such a target. In the case of a Hamas tunnel, the laws of war require that the force used to destroy that tunnel not be more than necessary. Since Hamas tunnels are buried deep, the use of bombs which can reach them is necessary and justified.

Proportionality does not have anything to do with comparing outcomes on the two sides. The fact that the winner in a war may do much more damage than the loser does not constitute a disproportionate use of force. The fact that one side has suffered more casualties than the other does not mean that the side that has lost fewer people has used disproportionate force. Critics of Israel will often point out that more Palestinians than Israelis have died in a given battle, or over the course of the conflict, and complain about disproportionate use of force. This reflects a misunderstanding of the idea of proportionality. This misunderstanding is, unfortunately widely disseminated in the media and even by supposed scholars of the laws of war.

Another concept explained by our speaker was the notion of discrimination in armed conflict. Critics of Israel frequently complain that Israel is engaged in indiscriminate attacks on Gaza. But discrimination has a clear meaning in international law and the repetition of a false statement doesn’t make it true.

When dropping a bomb or shooting a missile or using any weapon, there is a legal requirement that the attacker must have a specific military target in mind and that the weapon must be capable of being directed at that target. Brian Cox said that the legal advisers in the IDF would not sanction bombing or missile attacks that do not meet these requirements. The soldiers flying the war planes or launching the projectiles are subject to these rules.

When Israel drops a bomb in Gaza aimed at a Hamas tunnel or other installation, and directed to the best of the fighter’s ability at that target, that bomb is by definition dropped discriminately. The law concerning discriminate attacks is based on the intent of the attacker. When members of the press go to a site and report that they don’t see evidence of a military target after the fact, and therefore the attack was indiscriminate, they are showing that they don’t understand the law, as such analysis ignores any inquiry into intent.

Brian Cox said that when you think about indiscriminate bombing, you should think about Hamas. Hamas rockets are not directed at Israeli military targets and they can’t be steered. They are the definition of indiscriminate bombing. It’s particularly egregious to see people who defend Hamas accusing Israel of indiscriminate attacks, which is untrue, when the side they support is in fact engaged in the very crime they falsely accuse Israel of committing.