From your response it is clear that you either did not read the article, misunderstood it or (perhaps purposefully) decided to ignore it.

If you had taken a moment to consider the arguments Walzer makes, you would have seen that not only does he propose “parameters” for the definition of proportionality, but actually expands on them while referencing the current operation. You may disagree with his analysis, but claiming he made none is simply untrue.

For example, from the article itself:
“These are the questions that point us toward the important limits. First, before the war begins: Are there other ways of achieving the end-in-view? In the Israeli case, this question has shaped the intense political arguments that have been going on since the withdrawal from Gaza: What is the right way to stop the rocket attacks? How do you guarantee that Hamas won’t acquire more and more advanced rocketry? Many policies have been advocated, and many have been tried.”
(Source: On Proportionality, Michael Walzer, The New Republic, Jan 08, 2009)

As you can see, Walzer begins his list of “parameters” with a specific question relating to warfare in general, and then applies it specifically to this case.

We appreciate and encourage a spirited debate on these (and other) matters in order to give our readers the opportunity to address official representives of the State of Israel.

However, just as the peace process requires cooperation from both sides, so does conversation. If your intention is to repeatedly post your own arguments without regard for the answers and resources others supply, then please refer to our comment policy.

No matter what PR language and sophistry employed by Israel the response to the vile acts and words of Hamas, are now disproportionate and can be seen as a collective punishment on the wider population.

This deliberate targeting and killing of women and children is to the eternal shame of Israel and its people.