The fact that Hamas deliberately places its military facilities near concentrations of civilians needs to be propagated more. Too many still see Hamas as a kind of resistance group that fights for the people of Gaza and Palestine, when in fact they provoke their death for political capital.
From both an ethical and strategic point of view, a ground offensive into Gaza imho is only justifiable if you have a long-term plan of completely destroying Hamas and installing a more moderate government. Otherwise Israel only produces political wins for Hamas and dead people for little in return, since the Hamas hydra just regrowth its heads unless you kill it completely.
It is infuriating that Israel still continues its settlement policy in the West bank, especially because this causes support for organizations as Hamas and makes it hard to decidedly stand with Israel. While there are of course reasons for this policy, from an outsider's POV this just seems like such an obvious mistake that it is hard to believe anyone could make them.
I thought this post was very helpful for thinking about the allocation of blame regarding the tragic loss of life in Gaza.
Kiran, I appreciate how you offer dispassionate analysis of the war as a result of rational-ish decision making, but you're not afraid to provide ethical commentary as well.
It doesn't matter whether you translate Clausewitz's German word 'politik' as policy, politics, polity, or power, they all involve making choices and cloaking them in ethical language.
So, in this article compare: "The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent.
Like the USA that reacted to the 11th of September attacks by going berzerk ("battle-crazy") and, as Usama bin Laden wanted, America crippling itself in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Israel has copied its Great Protector. Israel has already lost this war through its choice of conduct, which may become the instrument of its downfall from the river to the sea.
The other infathomable contradiction in this piece is what comes after "the policies of Hamas deliberately make it difficult to assess the legality of Israeli actions and seek to obfuscate moral responsibility for civilian deaths": Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult.
So it is strange to then read "Without unusually clear evidence, it will be nearly impossible to judge Israel guilty of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets. Because of Hamas’ pattern of positioning itself within those targets, it would be necessary to affirm not only that Hamas was not based there, but that Israel either knew that or was negligent in its analysis". No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields.
Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices, which militant Islamism (tacitly supported by a majority of Muslims) will exploit to turn on the rest of us in the West.
"The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent."
I agree to some extent, Clausewitz even counterintuitively frames war as a defensive act, the aggressor would always prefer to take what he wants without resistance. So in that sense, Israel could theoretically grin and bear what was proportionally an order of magnitude worse than 9/11. It's not impossible, but it's a possibility I believe was not worth discussing considering how few people would advocate for it.
I think it's a mistake to view 9/11 as a strategic victory for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was explicit in his aims, and central to them were the removal of US forces from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, and an end to US support of Israel, in pursuit of its eventual destruction. These simply were not accomplished and Al Qaeda does not have anywhere near the influence it did before 9/11.
"Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult." On what basis do you conclude this? Hamas's crimes are easily proven by their lack of use of uniforms and history of using human shields. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
"No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields."
In general, so long as it cannot be proven that Israel is wantonly or deliberately targeting civilians, civilian casualties are legal under the laws of war. Civilians are bound to die in war and thus it must be proven that belligerents are violating their obligations to be criminally responsible. For an attack to be criminal, it must "be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Irrespective of Hamas's human shields, this must be positively proved against Israel to establish criminal responsibility. Innocent until proven guilty also applies for war crimes.
"Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices,"
I will be absolutely shocked if the Hague gives any kind of judgment against Israel. The case presented, even regardless of facts, is legally unsound.
Thanks for responding, Kiran, and for the Stratcom link - it's exactly that argument that will get Israel off the hook in The Hoek. It will be up to Israel to prove human shielding, not Hamas to affirm "that Hamas was not based there". You are not allowed to kill non-combatants.
The most important part of humanitarian law during armed conflict is protection of "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" ( Commentary and Article 3, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949). For ordinary people and the ICJ's judges (all of whom have cuddly cats, cotton-wool children, soft furnishings and central heating, and none of whom have been bloodied combatants), the idea that "Civilians are bound to die in war" is abhorrent to them, and the South African lawyers' story-telling will successfully pull on their heartstrings. Furthermore, despite failures, we hear that the US military frequently pulls out of strikes if there is a strong likelihood of civilian casualties regardless of whether a legitimate military operation is necessary and proportionate. If it's likely to be indiscriminate, then it's a no-no.
Not so for the IDF in Gaza. The frenzied Israeli public demand for blood should have been resisted, but Netanyahu merely copied Dubya. Where they have pushed the Gazan population into ever-more confined areas, they will also be vulnerable to the charge of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The IDF can be highly discriminatory, so your argument that it is "not worth discussing considering how few people would advocate for it" is not so true: on the 2nd of January, Deputy Hamas chief Saleh al-Arouri was killed in an Israeli drone strike on Beirut's southern suburbs of Dahiyeh, a stronghold of the allied Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Al-Arouri was meeting Hezbollah criminals, but the drone struck his room just as soon as the Evil Party of God thugs left.
Double effect is therefore under alot of pressure of being abandoned. Intentionality is being pushed to the sidelines: the consequences of an intended act, that is, the death of innocent civilians resulting from an intentional military operation, make Israel morally responsible for the deaths of Palestinian civilians.
Good article, will share this with a few friends.
The fact that Hamas deliberately places its military facilities near concentrations of civilians needs to be propagated more. Too many still see Hamas as a kind of resistance group that fights for the people of Gaza and Palestine, when in fact they provoke their death for political capital.
From both an ethical and strategic point of view, a ground offensive into Gaza imho is only justifiable if you have a long-term plan of completely destroying Hamas and installing a more moderate government. Otherwise Israel only produces political wins for Hamas and dead people for little in return, since the Hamas hydra just regrowth its heads unless you kill it completely.
It is infuriating that Israel still continues its settlement policy in the West bank, especially because this causes support for organizations as Hamas and makes it hard to decidedly stand with Israel. While there are of course reasons for this policy, from an outsider's POV this just seems like such an obvious mistake that it is hard to believe anyone could make them.
I thought this post was very helpful for thinking about the allocation of blame regarding the tragic loss of life in Gaza.
Kiran, I appreciate how you offer dispassionate analysis of the war as a result of rational-ish decision making, but you're not afraid to provide ethical commentary as well.
@deadcarl, you might like Thomas Gregg's piece > https://charlesfiddespayne.substack.com/p/phony-handwringing
It doesn't matter whether you translate Clausewitz's German word 'politik' as policy, politics, polity, or power, they all involve making choices and cloaking them in ethical language.
So, in this article compare: "The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent.
Like the USA that reacted to the 11th of September attacks by going berzerk ("battle-crazy") and, as Usama bin Laden wanted, America crippling itself in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Israel has copied its Great Protector. Israel has already lost this war through its choice of conduct, which may become the instrument of its downfall from the river to the sea.
The other infathomable contradiction in this piece is what comes after "the policies of Hamas deliberately make it difficult to assess the legality of Israeli actions and seek to obfuscate moral responsibility for civilian deaths": Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult.
So it is strange to then read "Without unusually clear evidence, it will be nearly impossible to judge Israel guilty of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets. Because of Hamas’ pattern of positioning itself within those targets, it would be necessary to affirm not only that Hamas was not based there, but that Israel either knew that or was negligent in its analysis". No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields.
Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices, which militant Islamism (tacitly supported by a majority of Muslims) will exploit to turn on the rest of us in the West.
"The danger of thought-terminating clichés is their power to absolve oneself of blame by pretending there is no choice" with "Hamas knows that Israel has no choice but to strike back", and you can see that the bit "Israel has no choice" is incoherent."
I agree to some extent, Clausewitz even counterintuitively frames war as a defensive act, the aggressor would always prefer to take what he wants without resistance. So in that sense, Israel could theoretically grin and bear what was proportionally an order of magnitude worse than 9/11. It's not impossible, but it's a possibility I believe was not worth discussing considering how few people would advocate for it.
I think it's a mistake to view 9/11 as a strategic victory for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was explicit in his aims, and central to them were the removal of US forces from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, and an end to US support of Israel, in pursuit of its eventual destruction. These simply were not accomplished and Al Qaeda does not have anywhere near the influence it did before 9/11.
"Israel will need to show incontrovertible evidence of Hamas' malfeasance, but this is indeed going to be difficult." On what basis do you conclude this? Hamas's crimes are easily proven by their lack of use of uniforms and history of using human shields. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
"No, the onus is on the actor and not the omitter that the double effect was legitimate: it will be nigh-on impossible to acquit Israel of disproportionate use of force or of striking non-military targets; and Hamas doesn't have to prove anything; Israel will have to prove beyond doubt that Hamas was using Palestinians as human shields."
In general, so long as it cannot be proven that Israel is wantonly or deliberately targeting civilians, civilian casualties are legal under the laws of war. Civilians are bound to die in war and thus it must be proven that belligerents are violating their obligations to be criminally responsible. For an attack to be criminal, it must "be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Irrespective of Hamas's human shields, this must be positively proved against Israel to establish criminal responsibility. Innocent until proven guilty also applies for war crimes.
"Israel is going to get hung out to dry in The Hague because of its foolish and knavish choices,"
I will be absolutely shocked if the Hague gives any kind of judgment against Israel. The case presented, even regardless of facts, is legally unsound.
Thanks for responding, Kiran, and for the Stratcom link - it's exactly that argument that will get Israel off the hook in The Hoek. It will be up to Israel to prove human shielding, not Hamas to affirm "that Hamas was not based there". You are not allowed to kill non-combatants.
The most important part of humanitarian law during armed conflict is protection of "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" ( Commentary and Article 3, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949). For ordinary people and the ICJ's judges (all of whom have cuddly cats, cotton-wool children, soft furnishings and central heating, and none of whom have been bloodied combatants), the idea that "Civilians are bound to die in war" is abhorrent to them, and the South African lawyers' story-telling will successfully pull on their heartstrings. Furthermore, despite failures, we hear that the US military frequently pulls out of strikes if there is a strong likelihood of civilian casualties regardless of whether a legitimate military operation is necessary and proportionate. If it's likely to be indiscriminate, then it's a no-no.
Not so for the IDF in Gaza. The frenzied Israeli public demand for blood should have been resisted, but Netanyahu merely copied Dubya. Where they have pushed the Gazan population into ever-more confined areas, they will also be vulnerable to the charge of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The IDF can be highly discriminatory, so your argument that it is "not worth discussing considering how few people would advocate for it" is not so true: on the 2nd of January, Deputy Hamas chief Saleh al-Arouri was killed in an Israeli drone strike on Beirut's southern suburbs of Dahiyeh, a stronghold of the allied Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Al-Arouri was meeting Hezbollah criminals, but the drone struck his room just as soon as the Evil Party of God thugs left.
Double effect is therefore under alot of pressure of being abandoned. Intentionality is being pushed to the sidelines: the consequences of an intended act, that is, the death of innocent civilians resulting from an intentional military operation, make Israel morally responsible for the deaths of Palestinian civilians.
Even if double effect is not abandoned, it might still lead to Israel being morally responsible for the deaths of Palestinian civilians because Israel violates its conditions. The South African dossier is full of that accusation > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf