So if I understand you correctly, there is no limit of proportionality in our war with Hamas in Gaza (because even if we need to kill everyone there in order to eliminate Hamas, that would still be within the bounds of proportionality). How does that fit with what you wrote elsewhere, that proportionality considerations must also be taken into account when fighting a collectively pursuing group? Meaning, although it is permissible to harm innocents for the purpose of killing terrorists as long as those innocents belong to the pursuing collective, there is still some limit beyond which harming innocents would be disproportionate.

And another thing: why are these numbers meaningless in your view? (And which numbers were you referring to?)

Hi Rabbi Michi,
What do you mean by “the limit of proportionality is killing all the residents of Gaza or de facto eliminating Hamas”?
Are the numbers meaningless in your eyes because there is no other way to achieve the goals of the war (which are of course moral/necessary) while preserving our soldiers’ safety without killing the number of innocent people we are killing (even if that number could be endless and disproportionate relative to Hamas terrorists)?
Would a statement saying, “We will flatten all of Gaza” (including killing all the innocent people so as not to endanger even a single soldier, on the assumption that if we make an effort to reduce the killing of innocents this will certainly come at our expense, even if the ratio is 1 to a million)—“if you do not disarm and return the hostages”—be, in your view, a morally legitimate statement?

The fact that there is a limit does not tell us what it is.
In my view, in the context of Gaza, if eliminating Hamas requires eliminating everyone, that is still within the limit. By contrast, if preventing one casualty would require killing a hundred thousand uninvolved people, that is beyond the limit.

Oren, I was referring to the civilian casualty numbers that get quoted under every green tree.

YSD, see my reply to Oren. Obviously I’m talking about achieving the goals of the war, not preventing a terror attack.

Allow me to suggest the limits of proportionality: after Hamas has been destroyed down to the last one of them, and all the residents of Gaza declare that from now on the Jews are not enemies and act accordingly in practice, any further military action would be considered disproportionate. Not before then.

To Rabbi Michi,
Do you accept the criticism that many Israelis have, that they don’t understand why we need to risk the soldiers so that some Gazans won’t die? Why send them on raids into sites where there may be explosives/terrorists instead of bombing everything from the air? Why are we required to pay such a heavy price in our blood in order to achieve the goals of the war if we have before us an option not to pay that price, and instead only the other side pays it (especially since if they want, they can disarm, return the hostages, and that’s it—the whole event is over, we won’t touch them)?
From my own familiarity, both in the ground maneuver in Gaza and in the ground maneuver in Lebanon, I can say that all the fallen soldiers (except for operational mishaps) were because we went into a site to “clear” it. Why, why not just bomb everything? (True, many times this is because of a shortage of munitions, but not only.)

I agree in principle that soldiers should not be put at risk, but this criticism is not precise. Also because of international law and the world, and also because in many cases this is done for operational considerations. Tzvi Sukkot once examined these claims in depth, and I previously brought his article on the matter here.

https://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/831094.shtml