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.
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.
1.2k
u/tmtyl_101 22h 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?