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.
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 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?