What Rubin is arguing against—his blogpost is titled "The Perils of proportionality"—are concepts enshrined in international law.
Anything else—such as stopping at 50,000 for the sake of ‘proportionality’—would have been wrong, absurd and counterproductive.
His most recent book is proportionality in International Law, published by Oxford University Press.
Noting that my percentages were off still dodges the argument about proportionality.
This lack of proportionality affects coverage of the Palestinian side as well.
This curve expresses, in terms of value, the idea of proportionality which is an essential part of the quantity theory.
But, I repeat, this proportionality is not inherent in the notion of value.
Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law.
It is a proof that where this competition does not exist the proportionality ceases.
And now observe how well this conception falls in with the law of proportionality discovered by Newton.
1560s, from French proportionalité (14c.) or directly from Medieval Latin proportionalitas, from proportio (see proportion).