Is A Disproportionate Response Moral In Modern War

Would a proportional response have been for Israel to fire as many rockets into Gaza as Hamas fired into Israel?

Hamas fires rockets at Israel because its the only thing left for them to do. They know that Israel can defend against it pretty well through active (Iron Dome) and passive (bunkers) defenses and that little harm will come to Israel from this rocket fire.Israel could quite easily, from a military perspective, demolish and destroy all of Gaza and its buildings and inhabitants in a matter of a day or two. why doesn’t it do this? tit for tat?Israel has no desire to cause harm and destruction - it wishes to be left alone in peace. Hamas (and Islamic Jihad) only seeks chaos and destruction - they don’t have a positive vision for themselves or the region.So when Hamas fires rockets into Israel - Israel seeks an answer that will stop the rockets as fast as possible and deter Hamas from firing more rockets in the future. BUT - for its own moral and ethical reasons - as well as international law - is extremely cautious about harming Gaza’s civilian population. Hamas takes advantage of this by firing from within the civilian population to try and get Israel to kill as many civilians as possible - and draw negative international pressure on Israel.At the end of the day - Israel (and modern armies in general) will begin with applying the minimal amount of force to try and get the other side to comply with its wishes: to stop the rocket fire. This means pin-point air-strikes against rocket launch crews and weapons storage sites. If Hamas backs down, it ends there. If Hamas keeps firing, Israel has to up the game - more targets - Hamas HQ - training sites…etc. this will go on and Israel will keep raising the bar on its targets until Hamas backs down.As far as the world goes - they tend to look only at how many Israelis are actually killed (few) and not what are Hamas’ actions and intentions as far as proportionality. This is myopic and mistaken - so they see Israel’s successful response - and say “all that for only a few Israelis killed???? that’s disproportional”. when they should be saying “that is an appropriate response for what Hamas is TRYING to do to you”.Police arrest criminals attempting to commit a crime much like they arrest a criminal who actually succeeded in committing a crime.

Why is the Israel government so disproportionate in their use of violence toward Palestinians?

Why don’t you turn the question around?Why do all the “Palestinians “ use so much disproportionate violence towards Jews?Let’s see:1929 and 1936 - progroms against Jews in what was then Palestine. Before there was a State of Israel.1948 - rejection of UN resolutions and attack of Israel with full intention of destroying the country and killing the Jews.1949 to 1956 - constant infiltration by fedayun for terrorist acts.1974 - murder of Israeli representatives to the Olympic Games.The first entifada, the knives terrorists, the second entifada, constant shelling of Israel since we left Gaza. Hamas chart that declares its intention to erase Israel.I could write for hours.On second thought, thou, I agree with you. The force we use against the “Palestinians” is disproportionate. It is too little. If it was Russia, France or USA, there would be no house standing in Gaza and the number of death would be order(s) of magnitude more. If it was Syria or Egypt, very few would be left alive.Why do Palestinians attack Israel so much? BecauseTheir fighters hide behind the civilians and they know we are very (too much) soft-hearted.The hypocrite press will present events in a distorted way, manufacture fake news, etc. Just like your question!The bleeding heart liberals of the world unite to condemn Israel and put pressure on it to stop. Then the governments get into it and the “very moral” UN gets into it, etc.

When did proportionality become a moral standard for warfare?

"Proportional response" is a fundamental concept of war ethics.The problem is that everybody seems to understand and apply it absolutely wrong.People think that a proportional response is to hit your aggressor no stronger than he hit you. For example, if a terrorist is coming at you with a knife, you may only protect yourself by using a knife. If you have a handgun, throw it away and find a knife. Best of luck to you. In the same manner, people say "Hamas only fires primitive rockets and Israel uses advance airstrikes - this isn't proportional!". As if Israel should be allowed to defend itself solely by using primitive rockets too.This of course is nonesense. The doctrine of Proportionality in war requires that a measure taken must be proportional in terms of its goal. For example, to use a bomb to destroy an arms factory, which (a) is aimed at a legitimate target; (b) is the only way to achieve the goal, and (c) will not cause excessive damage, would be considered proportional, even if some civilians may be killed in the process. However, flattening an entire neighbourhood in order to destroy one factory, is disproportional. It is way more force than required to achieve the goal, and will cause excessive damage.The question of proportinality in warl has nothing to do with "Eye for an eye" - it is not a question of retaliation or fairness, it is a question of legitimate use of means to achieve ends.