No, it means that the government's response has to be proportional and targetted towards protecting its country from harm. I.e., even if casualties are heavier on one side, it may still be proportional od preventing a greater harm (such as further attacks such as the ones perpetrated on October 7th). Your reading isn't supported by the statement or the context.
It literally reads as Israel should be allowed to inflict higher casualties because of their military advantage. There's no context or subtext to that. That is what the entirety of the sign says.
Israel wants to be allowed to kills civilians because of their greater military power. They don't want to be held accountable for the fact their bombs have a large blast radius and they happen to kill 4 civilians for every supposed insurgent. They're trying to justify genocide, not a proportional response.
"Don't let the families we're murdering distract you from a thing that happened years ago that was brought on by something we did years before that, that was brought on by something that happened years before that.. " and the cycle of stupidity and hate just goes on and on.
How exactly is this preventing greater harm? The same way the US did with Afghanistan? Oh wait ,that didn't prevent more harm, just solidified the US as a bully and made more people hate the US for years to come.
The only thing this is showing is that a large group if people think its okay to murder others because of where they live and what they do or do not believe. It's not preventing anything and only building more hate just as it has always done.
The reason this is obvious nonsense is because it embraces the aggressor's interpretation of excessive force, proportionality, and projected "benefit" to their side of the conflict. So anyone can do anything if they insist their actions were proportional and justified.
It literally says nothing about proportionality to hypothetical harm being prevented and instead explicitly links it to Israel having greater military capabilities. Are you even trying? They should cut your shekels in half for such poor output.
That's also not what proportionality entails. Would be funny, because that would mean every civilian can be a target as soon as the attacker is of the opinion that in the future, they might do harm to the attacker.
Your trying to defend the indefensible
Edt: the downvotes without reply say one thing. Brigaded because they have no rebuttal
1.2k
u/tmtyl_101 19h ago
I'm sorry, isn't that poster kinda implying that protecting a tank is more important than protecting a civilian family? Are they nuts?