Israel is criticized for “disproportionate” use of force in Lebanon, but it is hard to see what “proportionate” could mean in this context. Would it be OK for Israel to fire missiles indiscriminately at civilian areas so long as they were of the same size and number as the ones Hezbollah fires at civilian areas? Or is there some acceptable ratio of response – three retaliatory deaths for every initiatory death?

The very idea that proportionality might convey legitimacy – that there is some permissible amount of retaliatory killing – is horrifying. The only legitimate use of force is in self-defense, and this is precisely Israel’s use of it.

True, there are far more civilian deaths north of the border than south of it, but this is an entirely predictable result in light of the warring parties’ contrasting strategies. Israel seeks to separate civilians and conflict – south of the border, by putting its own civilians in bomb shelters; north of the border, by dropping warning pamphlets and targeting missile launchers. Hezbollah seeks to mix civilians and conflict – south of the border, by targeting hospitals and playgrounds indiscriminately; north of the border, by using civilian homes as missile-launching pads with the civilians still in them.

Naturally, Hezbollah’s strategy is more effective north of the border, in territory it controls, rather than in Israel, where concern is taken for civilians’ safety. If Hezbollah, too, acted to separate civilians and conflict, the casualty count on both sides of the border would go way down.

Jonathan R. Cohen, Farmington