The claim that Israel’s actions are disproportionate is twisting of the international law. The international law says that the collateral damage of a military attach needs to match the military advantage that the attack achieves. As the value of the military target grows, so too does the extent of permitted incidental damage. This means that if there is very little military advantage and very large collateral damage, and attack is not lawful. There are no strict definitions on how to define proportionality. 

In other words, IHL accepts the fact that in war, civilian lives may be lost and civilian property might be damaged. Neither of these outcomes is necessarily prohibited, so long as the object being attacked is a military target of sufficient value.

Proportionality does not mean that the civilian casualties on one side needs to be proportional to the civilian casualties of another side or the ratio between the killed combatants and non-combatants. Some Israel haters want proportionality to mean this false interpretation, which explains Hamas’ efforts to aim to increase civilian casualties.The claim of proportionality is often used to deny Israel’s right to defend itself. Such were the controversial claims made by UN Special Rapporteur oPt, Francesca Albanese, who claimeds:

that Israel has no right for self-defense and that its actions are not in the boundaries of the principle of proportionality.