Hamas hasn’t even delivered the medicines their relatives sent.
There are Israeli soldiers dying every day in Gaza. We know a handsome sweetheart young man who died this past week fighting in Gaza. Israelis risk their young men who they raise to love life, not in pursuit of death, in a ground invasion to try to save lives.
200,000 Israelis are displaced because their homes are in areas that aren’t safe to go back to.
Someone truly pro-human cares about all humans, not the cause du jour.
Explain how abandoning the hostages to months of torture and the possibility of death is “pro-human.”
Someone “pro-human” speaks out about the senseless death of Paul Kessler.
Someone “pro-human” spoke out about October 7 before Israel responded.
Someone “pro-human” stood up for the release of the hostages.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the restaurants that have been targeted for selling Israeli food.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the Jewish students locked in the library in Cooper Union.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the two Palestinians murdered in the West Bank for collaborating with Israel. Their bodies were strung up from an electric pole.
Someone “pro-human” stands up for the Palestinian boy who was shot by Hamas for trying to get food from an aid truck.
Some may be "thoroughly horrible people", having bad character and bad intentions, and wanting bad consequences.
Thomas, your opening with George Orwell enables us to focus on his argument, not on adhominems. Orwell made the argument that pacifists support the fascist cause in the context of countering Vera Brittain, who was opposed to the RAF's raids on German cities. He said that deliberately killing German civilians was good. The architect of this killing was Bomber Harris, subsequently ostracised by the British govt because he deliberately targeted civilians. It was wrong, against international law, and was not effective. The effective bombing targeted the Nazi war effort, its ability to produce weapons and prosecute the war. Israel has given such a bad name to Collateral Damage that the West will never be able to deploy the Doctrine of Double Effect again.
You have clearly read Clausewitz, but I think you misplace your praise for his "Ideal" War: 'absoluten Krieges'. Absolute war is the extreme, and war has a risk of escalation towards the extreme. That is not a good thing, it is not ideal. In an age of nuclear weapons, that risk makes war illogical and defeats the point that real war - 'wirklichen Krieges' - can be political, moral and legal. Against this risk is where pacifism can make good sense. Even where the pacifist argument can be assuaged because in Gaza the risk of escalation to nuclear war via contagion to nuclear weapons states is only slight at the moment, nevertheless the ICJ's order that Israel must prevent genocide and punish its incitement commands Israel to fight in accordance with the laws of war, or to stop the war.
Why does Hamas still stubbornly continue to fight, although from a military point of view its affairs are bad and defeat is inevitable?
Because Hamas leaders hope that the "useful idiots" who demonstrate will force their governments to put pressure on Israel, stop their actions and save Hamas.
We are not talking about true pacifists who make efforts to ensure that no one fights with anyone. This is pacifism. We're talking about pseudo-pacifists who force one side to stop killing without caring that the other side isn't going to stop.
Thus, they take the side of those who want to continue killing. This is not pacifism. There are attempts to self-identify as the “side of good,” which in reality leads to even greater casualties.
Let's return to Hamas, which is waiting for salvation. If useful idiots had not given them the illusion that they would soon be saved, they would have given up long ago or accepted some conditions. Now they are simply playing for time, delaying negotiations in the hope of victory. And they have good reason.
So what you call “pacifists”, but in fact pseudo-pacifists act entirely on the side of terror, murder and maintaining war.
Thank you for your reply, Viktor, and your excellent questions. Your answer to your first question is spot-on. The IDF always says there are two stop-watches that are started when they operate: one for obtaining their objectives, and the second for when their government are forced by outside Powers to stop. In this case, under the full glare of the world's traditional and now social media (which did not really exist during the 2008 Gaza conflict), Israel is looking like the bad guy and has even been taken to the International Court of Justice and is also being investigated by the International Criminal Court..
George Orwell's comment that Thomas used above against pacifism was against someone who was a fire warden in WW2 and who had been a nurse in WW1, and who argued for restrictions on the extent and intended targets of allied bombing, and that it was perfectly possible to want to win the war without agreeing with every excess. While she herself was a pacifist, it was a travesty to argue she was "a supporter of fascism".
The commonality that the current Israeli military policy has with the Orwellian criticism of pacifism is that they both appear to be opposed to Just War theory and International Humanitarian Law. The South African case against Israel in the ICJ is a powerful one, which the judges very nearly completely agreed with. The evidence in the dossier makes for worrying reading > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
Thanks for the answer. Let's leave Orwell aside; it wasn't my argument at all.
I am not an analyst or a journalist, but after 25 years of studying this conflict, I am accustomed to using either what I see myself or sources that I can rely on.
I read the documents of the International Court and some chapters are a new edition of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and the rest is the usual anti-Israeli manipulation that is now everywhere, in the media, in politics and on social networks.
I completely disagree with you that Israeli policy is directed against the “just war theory” (what the hell is that?)
Israel is waging war in compliance with all international rules. A huge staff of lawyers ensures that every attack, every shelling is carried out taking into account the minimization of casualties among civilians. Video cameras are installed on soldiers and tanks that record the actions of the soldiers.
As a former military man, it is difficult for me to find an analogue in another army in the world that could fight in such conditions. I don’t want to give dozens and hundreds of examples in which the Israeli army acts more humanely than any other, but the fact is that Israel is demonized and any attempts to present the real picture are rejected. Any crimes attributed to Israel are accepted.
Why do I categorically not believe the document of the international court? This is because the only source of deaths in Gaza is the Gaza Ministry of Health. That is, an organ of Hamas. And this number does not include Hamas combatants, who make up the majority of those killed in the Gaza Strip.
In addition, there are deaths as a result of Hamas rocket attacks in Gaza (30% of the rockets fell on Gazans). There are people killed by Hamas while trying to leave the combat zone (most likely, they are passed off as killed by the IDF).
Well, after 25 years of watching the conflict, I am convinced that Hamas is lying. Always . Even when you don't have to lie.
I agree with alot of what you've written, especially much anti-Israel material on social media from people who have already taken sides. It's difficult not to when confronted by war. Because of this ground war, Israel has lost the social media war, for the reason I expand on below.
I trained with the Army with a view to joining up, but instead studied War at university. I am now a pacifist, because of how many wars I have seen escalate toward the Absolute and out of all proportion to the objectives and cost-benefit analysis that encouraged entry into war in the first place. I would have opposed Britain's entry into WW1 (which very nearly happened). In business, I have a traditional Jew as one of my major shareholders.
Juxtapose the January 2024 killing of Arouri and other Hamas members in a drone strike in southern Beirut with no civilian casualties, with the knee-jerk berzerk spasms of the US response to 9/11 and of the Israeli one to 7 October. I too could "give dozens and hundreds of examples in which the Israeli army acts more humanely than any other". Juxtapose these with the killing in 1995 of the head of PIJ, Fathi Shikaki, disrupting that terrorist organization for several years.
These two of over 300 cases I could give of Israeli practice illustrate Just War theory and International Humanitarian Law: first, before you go into war, choose the proportional response, which may not be to use the military instrument at all. And then, if violence is thought to be proportional, then use distinction or discrimination.
In 1999, NATO dropped 23,000 bombs on Serbia from above the clouds because they wanted 0 NATO casualties, and so needlessly killed many hundreds of civilians, enraging that country to this day against the West. The 2006 Israeli strategy in its war against Hezbollah in which during a two-day period Israel launched more than 7,000 air attacks and 2,500 naval bombardments on heavily populated towns led directly to killing 1000 civilians.
The bigger picture, the one that the Jus Ad Bellum part of Just War encourages us to consider, is that this war has given birth to generations of Jew- and Israel-haters. Israel should win the war against Hamas. Israel has hundreds of examples of its own practice of killing each of them discriminately and with distinction, but it needs to learn to do the politics of peace better, or else it dooms itself to perpetual war which in this war at least is consuming it, and may lead, because it is isolating itself in international society, to its own elimination. @Kiran Pfitzner
Thanks for understanding. I don't want to mind. Just want to be clear.
The enemy is purposefully destroyed. These are carefully planned operations that take weeks and months to prepare. And we see the results. We have seen the targeted killings of leaders, we have seen the destruction of previously known tunnels where the middle of the street was destroyed but the cafes along the sidewalk were left untouched. Residents of the Gaza Strip filmed the attacks on their phones from 30 meters away without worrying about safety and were warned in advance of the attack.
At the same time, Israel chose in advance the time, place and method of striking.
But there is a war going on. A war that Israel did not start, a war waged by Hamas in violation of all international rules and without risking anything, and Israel is forced to comply with all the rules of war, because all the actions of ill-wishers are viewed under a magnifying glass.
In war, different rules apply. It is necessary to clear a place for the advancement of equipment, otherwise the armored vehicles will be destroyed. It is necessary to destroy all ammunition depots, missile launchers and the missiles themselves. They cannot be removed or removed; they just need to be destroyed. And they are in every municipal building, in every hospital, in every school or kindergarten (there are hundreds of video evidence). It is necessary to destroy tens of kilometers of tunnels through which terrorists move, and above them hundreds of residential buildings.
It is necessary to destroy the launchers that fire at Israel.
And this needs to be done quickly, without preparation, which is possible when targeted liquidations occur.
This is why Israel abandoned war in 2008-2009, in 2012 and 2014, and in 2015, 2019, 2020, 2022 and May 2023. I haven't even listed all the escalations, with rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip and Israel limiting itself to surgical operations in an attempt to avoid war. Precisely because Israel understands well that war will bring what has happened now, and has not done this to the detriment of its security. History has shown that this was a mistake. Many citizens had to pay with death for their reluctance to kill Gazans.
You get the point. Targeted killing and war are two different situations, and one cannot require that war be the same as targeted killing (or is there a special requirement for Israel?).
And when I see video from cameras mounted on soldiers and tanks, I see battles taking place in empty, civilian-free areas, I see how soldiers identify targets, I see that they open fire only after identifying the enemy.
I saw a tank camera video where the tank did not open fire on the building where the terrorists were located until the terrorist came out of the building and started aiming an RPG at the tank. Not an airstrike or artillery strike on a building, which would be safer. There are already a lot of similar videos on the Internet, but, of course, they are of no interest to anyone.
And as you correctly noted, the same situation was in 2006. It was not Israel that started the war, but Hezbollah, and it was a war where the rules of war apply. The number of Lebanese killed, as in Gaza, is high because neither Hamas nor Hezbollah do anything to protect their populations. Hamas even kills its own population.
Israel is doing everything to protect the population. This is the only reason why the number of victims in Israel is not in the thousands.
It's a pity Substack doesn't have more than just a Like, this reply from Viktor is one of The best Comments I've read on this platform. Both military and political cultures in Israel had established an ideal for the moral use of force by armed troops. Questions relating to morality in military conduct have been so central in Israel that the IDF has won the appellation as the world’s “most moral armed force”.
That's why it's so sad that the response to 7 October has been so bloodthirsty and destructive. It would bankrupt Israel to rebuild what it has destroyed. Israel will be hated for generations to come. And the strength of the Israel Lobby in the USA has never been so tested to the extent that the balance of opinion in America may have swung permanently against it, with very worrying anti-semitic overtones.
Here in the UK there will be a Labour government next year, and its leader looks like he's one of those flip-floppers who'll bend under the pressure of the anti-Israel faction and institute BDS policies that the current government has not, even in the face of London's second biggest ever march, against Israeli conduct of this war. So what? The UK is just another country among over 200. Agreed, but it is still holds a veto and authorising vote in the UN Security Council. France has already joined PRC and Russia in condemning Israel's response, the UK has abstained and may next year side with those 3. If the US abstains on anti-Israel proposals, then Israel will feel the full force not just of world opinion, but of actions up to and including war. Netanyahu and his government colleagues need to pay more attention to the way the wind is blowing.
The IDF has been put in an impossible position by its government in the execution of ground operations. It is simply not possible to adhere to the laws of war by using 2000-lb bombs in built-up areas. And herding civilian populations into ever smaller areas moves closer to ethnic cleansing. It's why operations in Rafah without evacuating civilians will be successfully prosecuted by both the ICJ and the ICC. All that soldier- and vehicle-borne camera footage will be critical in containing the severity of the judges' condemnation.
This week, Netanyahu unveiled his post-war plan for Gaza. It contains no funds for reconstruction, and the US has rejected it as just a "re-occupation". It has been months since the war started, but there has been no postwar planning. As for the military response to 7 October, it was not months in the planning, but on the command of Netanyahu's Cabinet, a vengeful demand for massive retaliation and retribution couched in genocidal words. That Cabinet can choose perpetual war with ever-spiralling hatred and violent escalation. One of my shareholders was going on holiday to Israel, but then changed his destination. Will Netanyahu?
The idea that wars can be fought without killing and injuring civilians or destroying non-military infrastructure is delusional. Had the Allies adopted that principle during World War Two, the result would have been an Axis victory.
Also delusional is the notion that Israel should conduct itself with due regard for the opinion of the “world community.” Since much of that gaggle consists of authoritarian regimes with bloody hands, and since most of it is antisemitic in root and branch, its approval carries far too high a price tag.
"without killing and injuring civilians or destroying non-military infrastructure" - this is not what Just War and Intl Hum Law argues.
The Allies did not fight a perfect war: Netanyahu has argued in the way you have, that whatever excesses were committed by the Allies in WW2, so they must be ok for Israel to commit too. It's why you have used the Orwellian argument. And it's not what Just War and Intl Hum Law argues. The problem is that militaries around the world have been exploiting the Doctrine of Double Effect that permits Collateral Damage to give the doctrine a bad name. The Supreme Court of Israel, during its judicial activist stage, contributed to the emergence of a new culture within the IDF, characterized by a deep awareness that the Supreme Court could intervene, control and, if necessary, punish. Don't let the ICJ or the ICC take over that mantle.
There are a number of senses of a "world community" - this social media platform is an embodiment of one of them, so is the idea of the planet as a single Biome and a singular eco-system, and the globalised economy, and human rights. Global Village is another term for the same idea. Don't dismiss it summarily as "much of that gaggle": it was that gaggle that so enthusiastically supported the creation of the state of Israel, support which the prosecution of this war has been so successful at dissipating.
What I meant by 'international society' is, within the anarchy of all states against all, a commonality of interest that creates norms, rules and laws for states to abide by. Russia - one of your "authoritarian regimes with bloody hands" - was heavily censured by this international society for invading Ukraine on this day in 2022. Israel is finding itself similarly isolated.
But your final comment I do agree with - states exist in the anarchical system, and they will break or ignore the norms, rules and laws of international society if they feel their vital interest, or even their very existence, demands it. Somehow I don't think 7 October, utterly disgusting though it was, represented an existential threat to the state of Israel. Yes, it represented a threat to the Netanyahu government, but not to Israel.
You're wrong in every particular. First, the Allied strategic air offensive a played a major role in the defeat of Germany. Aside from the great damage that it did to German industry, it forced the Germans to divert major resources from the fighting fronts to home defense. And the defeat of the Luftwaffe, essential to an Allied victory, took place in the skies over Germany. As for the argument that it deliberately targeted civilians—why should German civilians have been exempted from the consequences of the war? They were contributing to the war effort by their labor, weren't they? As Orwell noted, if it was all right to sink a U-boat, sending sixty or seventy young men to their deaths, what was wrong with bombing and killing the industrial workers who built the U-boat in the first place?
Orwell's argument therefore stands: The pacifist was objectively siding with the enemy.
Regarding Clausewitz, I can only assume that you didn't read what I wrote with the attention it deserves:
"Embodied in Clausewitz’s concept of 'ideal war' is a principle of extremes. For instance, if one side in a war employs violence without compunction, the other side is compelled to follow suit, taking matters to an extreme. It’s true that he went on to note that actual war, which is affected by many external factors, seldom if ever approaches the ideal.
I'm quite well aware what Clausewitz meant by the term "ideal war." That was the thing in itself, war in the abstract, without consideration of external factors that affect war in reality. And I said as much. I did not say, however, that the ideal is a good thing or, for that matter, that it's a bad thing. The concept of ideal war is an analytical tool that Clausewitz developed to facilitate his study of war, nothing more.
Israel is doing all it can to minimize collateral damage in Gaza. But it has no obligation to hold its hand when the other side is using civilian infrastructure for military purposes or civilians as human shields. The responsibility for the consequences of that lie with Hamas and Hamas alone. That's the governing principle in international law. So I suggest that you get in touch with the Hamas command and remind them that they're supposed to be following the laws of war. And good luck with that assignment.
Thank you for responding, Thomas, and I forgot to say 'Thank You' for your article in the first place. Robustly argued.
It was your choice of the word "compelled" in connection with Clausewitz and escalation that made me comment. While Clausewitz and a great many other strategists agree with one aspect of your interpretation of Clausewitz - namely the inherent risk of escalation in war - you used the word also to suggest that Israel has no choice other than to obliterate Gaza as the RAF did German cities. There is always a choice.
International law does not agree with you that the responsibility for the consequences lie alone with Hamas. Israel will have to prove every case of human shielding. It will also have to prove in every case that the importance of the military objective over-ruled the prohibition against killing civilians with prior knowledge. This prohibition is why a good many US drone operations are called off.
Israel could get off the hook by arguing that all Gazans are nocent, that they are all contributing to the war effort, as you and George Orwell do. Certainly it is difficult to argue otherwise of very, very many Gazan adults. We also have ample though anecdotal evidence that a huge amount of pubescent boys have been militarised. They are guilty too.
Perhaps because I am a liberal I find it hard, though, to charge any pre-pubescent child as persons taking an active part in the hostilities; all of these are innocent, and Israel will be called to account for their deaths.
For the rest, while bearing guilt, they are not all combatants, and as such, have not forfeited their status as protected persons. Very many will be called to account for their involvement in the war, and I can imagine many tens of thousands - and evidence is being gathered to prove it - will be successfully prosecuted. That all of these have been knowingly and summarily executed makes Israel responsible.
It was the same in WW2. As difficult as it may seem to us given the totalitarian nature of Nazi Germany, a good many of the population were not involved in the war effort, and destroying the civilian infrastructure destroyed their livelihoods to the extent where they then sought employment in the war effort. To that extent - and it was a considerable extent in the worst-hit cities - Bomber Harris' strategy had the opposite effect to what you suggest.
You make a good point about defence of the homeland consuming Germany's war resources. Furthermore, it counters the argument that it was only the Russians who bore the brunt. My point was that precision targeting of overtly military targets was possible then - the Royal Navy’s X-Craft midget submarine operations disabling Tirpitz, the Dambusters raid sabotaging the wartime industrial effort in the Ruhr valley; RAF Mosquito precise hits on Gestapo Headquarters in Amiens and Copenhagen - these examples among many more inflicted quantifiable damage on the Nazis' ability to conduct the war. Today, Israel can do alot better.
And it is in Israel's self interest to do so. For if you argue that all Palestinians forfeit the protected persons statuses that most should have to varying degrees, then they (and other enemies of Israel) will retort - as Mohammed Darlan did in 2002
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/15/world/mideast-turmoil-the-overview-us-says-powell-demanded-pullout-by-israeli-forces.html - "Whoever harms civilians must expect similar responses". Intentionality and its corollary argument, the doctrine of double effect, will not matter; Israeli civilians will be the legitimate target of reprisals, and the most important objectives "compel" attacks on civilians. In Darlan's argument - which is yours too, Thomas - lies the hell of Idealtyp und Absoluten Krieges until all have been genocidally and ethnically cleansed.
If you chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" you are anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and calling for the death of all Jews who live in Israel. It really is that simple. If you feel in any support for Hamas you have lost your moral compas
I recall during the Shock & Awe phase of the Iraqi War the US military over-selling the notion that they could pinpoint bomb a building without disturbing anything around it. Obviously, it didn’t work out that way for that war or any other war in history. But I imagine many who grew up in that time think the IDF could, if it chose, root out Hamas without disturbing “innocent” civilians. As simple as the electronic games on their phones. It might not be all bad if this has driven the IDF to extraordinary measures to preserve lives, but it is still fundamentally dishonest.
And I agree that the openly vicious critics are somehow more tolerable than the chronically stupid, but the ones I despise the most are those in between, as in the Biden administration. With all the pandering back and forth, you just know they are anxiously awaiting a misstep by the Israelis so they can ditch the issue in time for the elections. And they have to know that Israel can’t stop at the gates of Raffeh, so they’re trying to cast that as a legitimate line in the sand. It’s all a bit despicable.
You’re right that people have unrealistic expectations of precision-guided munitions, but they do reduce collateral damage and casualties. The problem in Gaza is that Hamas deliberately seeks to maximize civilian casualties. And the anti-Israel Left plays along.
I think the Biden Administration knows quite well that Israel is going to fight this war to a finish, regardless of what the US or the so-called world community says. But they’re spooked, as always, by the possibility that the progressive base of the Democratic Party will rise up in open revolt—this being an election year. But throwing Israel under the bus would just exchange one political problem for another. There are twice as many Jews in Michigan than there are Muslims, after all.
The hostages are still captive.
Hamas hasn’t even delivered the medicines their relatives sent.
There are Israeli soldiers dying every day in Gaza. We know a handsome sweetheart young man who died this past week fighting in Gaza. Israelis risk their young men who they raise to love life, not in pursuit of death, in a ground invasion to try to save lives.
200,000 Israelis are displaced because their homes are in areas that aren’t safe to go back to.
Someone truly pro-human cares about all humans, not the cause du jour.
Explain how abandoning the hostages to months of torture and the possibility of death is “pro-human.”
Someone “pro-human” speaks out about the senseless death of Paul Kessler.
Someone “pro-human” spoke out about October 7 before Israel responded.
Someone “pro-human” stood up for the release of the hostages.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the restaurants that have been targeted for selling Israeli food.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the Jewish students locked in the library in Cooper Union.
Someone “pro-human” spoke up for the two Palestinians murdered in the West Bank for collaborating with Israel. Their bodies were strung up from an electric pole.
Someone “pro-human” stands up for the Palestinian boy who was shot by Hamas for trying to get food from an aid truck.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-militants-west-bank-say-two-collaborators-executed-2023-11-25/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-teen-trying-to-grab-humanitarian-aid-said-shot-dead-by-hamas-police/
Some may be "thoroughly horrible people", having bad character and bad intentions, and wanting bad consequences.
Thomas, your opening with George Orwell enables us to focus on his argument, not on adhominems. Orwell made the argument that pacifists support the fascist cause in the context of countering Vera Brittain, who was opposed to the RAF's raids on German cities. He said that deliberately killing German civilians was good. The architect of this killing was Bomber Harris, subsequently ostracised by the British govt because he deliberately targeted civilians. It was wrong, against international law, and was not effective. The effective bombing targeted the Nazi war effort, its ability to produce weapons and prosecute the war. Israel has given such a bad name to Collateral Damage that the West will never be able to deploy the Doctrine of Double Effect again.
You have clearly read Clausewitz, but I think you misplace your praise for his "Ideal" War: 'absoluten Krieges'. Absolute war is the extreme, and war has a risk of escalation towards the extreme. That is not a good thing, it is not ideal. In an age of nuclear weapons, that risk makes war illogical and defeats the point that real war - 'wirklichen Krieges' - can be political, moral and legal. Against this risk is where pacifism can make good sense. Even where the pacifist argument can be assuaged because in Gaza the risk of escalation to nuclear war via contagion to nuclear weapons states is only slight at the moment, nevertheless the ICJ's order that Israel must prevent genocide and punish its incitement commands Israel to fight in accordance with the laws of war, or to stop the war.
Why does Hamas still stubbornly continue to fight, although from a military point of view its affairs are bad and defeat is inevitable?
Because Hamas leaders hope that the "useful idiots" who demonstrate will force their governments to put pressure on Israel, stop their actions and save Hamas.
We are not talking about true pacifists who make efforts to ensure that no one fights with anyone. This is pacifism. We're talking about pseudo-pacifists who force one side to stop killing without caring that the other side isn't going to stop.
Thus, they take the side of those who want to continue killing. This is not pacifism. There are attempts to self-identify as the “side of good,” which in reality leads to even greater casualties.
Let's return to Hamas, which is waiting for salvation. If useful idiots had not given them the illusion that they would soon be saved, they would have given up long ago or accepted some conditions. Now they are simply playing for time, delaying negotiations in the hope of victory. And they have good reason.
So what you call “pacifists”, but in fact pseudo-pacifists act entirely on the side of terror, murder and maintaining war.
Can we call them pacifists? Definitely not
Thank you for your reply, Viktor, and your excellent questions. Your answer to your first question is spot-on. The IDF always says there are two stop-watches that are started when they operate: one for obtaining their objectives, and the second for when their government are forced by outside Powers to stop. In this case, under the full glare of the world's traditional and now social media (which did not really exist during the 2008 Gaza conflict), Israel is looking like the bad guy and has even been taken to the International Court of Justice and is also being investigated by the International Criminal Court..
George Orwell's comment that Thomas used above against pacifism was against someone who was a fire warden in WW2 and who had been a nurse in WW1, and who argued for restrictions on the extent and intended targets of allied bombing, and that it was perfectly possible to want to win the war without agreeing with every excess. While she herself was a pacifist, it was a travesty to argue she was "a supporter of fascism".
The commonality that the current Israeli military policy has with the Orwellian criticism of pacifism is that they both appear to be opposed to Just War theory and International Humanitarian Law. The South African case against Israel in the ICJ is a powerful one, which the judges very nearly completely agreed with. The evidence in the dossier makes for worrying reading > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
Thanks for the answer. Let's leave Orwell aside; it wasn't my argument at all.
I am not an analyst or a journalist, but after 25 years of studying this conflict, I am accustomed to using either what I see myself or sources that I can rely on.
I read the documents of the International Court and some chapters are a new edition of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and the rest is the usual anti-Israeli manipulation that is now everywhere, in the media, in politics and on social networks.
I completely disagree with you that Israeli policy is directed against the “just war theory” (what the hell is that?)
Israel is waging war in compliance with all international rules. A huge staff of lawyers ensures that every attack, every shelling is carried out taking into account the minimization of casualties among civilians. Video cameras are installed on soldiers and tanks that record the actions of the soldiers.
As a former military man, it is difficult for me to find an analogue in another army in the world that could fight in such conditions. I don’t want to give dozens and hundreds of examples in which the Israeli army acts more humanely than any other, but the fact is that Israel is demonized and any attempts to present the real picture are rejected. Any crimes attributed to Israel are accepted.
Why do I categorically not believe the document of the international court? This is because the only source of deaths in Gaza is the Gaza Ministry of Health. That is, an organ of Hamas. And this number does not include Hamas combatants, who make up the majority of those killed in the Gaza Strip.
In addition, there are deaths as a result of Hamas rocket attacks in Gaza (30% of the rockets fell on Gazans). There are people killed by Hamas while trying to leave the combat zone (most likely, they are passed off as killed by the IDF).
Well, after 25 years of watching the conflict, I am convinced that Hamas is lying. Always . Even when you don't have to lie.
My only comment on this: Exactly. Dead on. Target hit.
I agree with alot of what you've written, especially much anti-Israel material on social media from people who have already taken sides. It's difficult not to when confronted by war. Because of this ground war, Israel has lost the social media war, for the reason I expand on below.
I trained with the Army with a view to joining up, but instead studied War at university. I am now a pacifist, because of how many wars I have seen escalate toward the Absolute and out of all proportion to the objectives and cost-benefit analysis that encouraged entry into war in the first place. I would have opposed Britain's entry into WW1 (which very nearly happened). In business, I have a traditional Jew as one of my major shareholders.
Juxtapose the January 2024 killing of Arouri and other Hamas members in a drone strike in southern Beirut with no civilian casualties, with the knee-jerk berzerk spasms of the US response to 9/11 and of the Israeli one to 7 October. I too could "give dozens and hundreds of examples in which the Israeli army acts more humanely than any other". Juxtapose these with the killing in 1995 of the head of PIJ, Fathi Shikaki, disrupting that terrorist organization for several years.
These two of over 300 cases I could give of Israeli practice illustrate Just War theory and International Humanitarian Law: first, before you go into war, choose the proportional response, which may not be to use the military instrument at all. And then, if violence is thought to be proportional, then use distinction or discrimination.
In 1999, NATO dropped 23,000 bombs on Serbia from above the clouds because they wanted 0 NATO casualties, and so needlessly killed many hundreds of civilians, enraging that country to this day against the West. The 2006 Israeli strategy in its war against Hezbollah in which during a two-day period Israel launched more than 7,000 air attacks and 2,500 naval bombardments on heavily populated towns led directly to killing 1000 civilians.
The bigger picture, the one that the Jus Ad Bellum part of Just War encourages us to consider, is that this war has given birth to generations of Jew- and Israel-haters. Israel should win the war against Hamas. Israel has hundreds of examples of its own practice of killing each of them discriminately and with distinction, but it needs to learn to do the politics of peace better, or else it dooms itself to perpetual war which in this war at least is consuming it, and may lead, because it is isolating itself in international society, to its own elimination. @Kiran Pfitzner
Thanks for understanding. I don't want to mind. Just want to be clear.
The enemy is purposefully destroyed. These are carefully planned operations that take weeks and months to prepare. And we see the results. We have seen the targeted killings of leaders, we have seen the destruction of previously known tunnels where the middle of the street was destroyed but the cafes along the sidewalk were left untouched. Residents of the Gaza Strip filmed the attacks on their phones from 30 meters away without worrying about safety and were warned in advance of the attack.
At the same time, Israel chose in advance the time, place and method of striking.
But there is a war going on. A war that Israel did not start, a war waged by Hamas in violation of all international rules and without risking anything, and Israel is forced to comply with all the rules of war, because all the actions of ill-wishers are viewed under a magnifying glass.
In war, different rules apply. It is necessary to clear a place for the advancement of equipment, otherwise the armored vehicles will be destroyed. It is necessary to destroy all ammunition depots, missile launchers and the missiles themselves. They cannot be removed or removed; they just need to be destroyed. And they are in every municipal building, in every hospital, in every school or kindergarten (there are hundreds of video evidence). It is necessary to destroy tens of kilometers of tunnels through which terrorists move, and above them hundreds of residential buildings.
It is necessary to destroy the launchers that fire at Israel.
And this needs to be done quickly, without preparation, which is possible when targeted liquidations occur.
This is why Israel abandoned war in 2008-2009, in 2012 and 2014, and in 2015, 2019, 2020, 2022 and May 2023. I haven't even listed all the escalations, with rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip and Israel limiting itself to surgical operations in an attempt to avoid war. Precisely because Israel understands well that war will bring what has happened now, and has not done this to the detriment of its security. History has shown that this was a mistake. Many citizens had to pay with death for their reluctance to kill Gazans.
You get the point. Targeted killing and war are two different situations, and one cannot require that war be the same as targeted killing (or is there a special requirement for Israel?).
And when I see video from cameras mounted on soldiers and tanks, I see battles taking place in empty, civilian-free areas, I see how soldiers identify targets, I see that they open fire only after identifying the enemy.
I saw a tank camera video where the tank did not open fire on the building where the terrorists were located until the terrorist came out of the building and started aiming an RPG at the tank. Not an airstrike or artillery strike on a building, which would be safer. There are already a lot of similar videos on the Internet, but, of course, they are of no interest to anyone.
And as you correctly noted, the same situation was in 2006. It was not Israel that started the war, but Hezbollah, and it was a war where the rules of war apply. The number of Lebanese killed, as in Gaza, is high because neither Hamas nor Hezbollah do anything to protect their populations. Hamas even kills its own population.
Israel is doing everything to protect the population. This is the only reason why the number of victims in Israel is not in the thousands.
It's a pity Substack doesn't have more than just a Like, this reply from Viktor is one of The best Comments I've read on this platform. Both military and political cultures in Israel had established an ideal for the moral use of force by armed troops. Questions relating to morality in military conduct have been so central in Israel that the IDF has won the appellation as the world’s “most moral armed force”.
That's why it's so sad that the response to 7 October has been so bloodthirsty and destructive. It would bankrupt Israel to rebuild what it has destroyed. Israel will be hated for generations to come. And the strength of the Israel Lobby in the USA has never been so tested to the extent that the balance of opinion in America may have swung permanently against it, with very worrying anti-semitic overtones.
Here in the UK there will be a Labour government next year, and its leader looks like he's one of those flip-floppers who'll bend under the pressure of the anti-Israel faction and institute BDS policies that the current government has not, even in the face of London's second biggest ever march, against Israeli conduct of this war. So what? The UK is just another country among over 200. Agreed, but it is still holds a veto and authorising vote in the UN Security Council. France has already joined PRC and Russia in condemning Israel's response, the UK has abstained and may next year side with those 3. If the US abstains on anti-Israel proposals, then Israel will feel the full force not just of world opinion, but of actions up to and including war. Netanyahu and his government colleagues need to pay more attention to the way the wind is blowing.
The IDF has been put in an impossible position by its government in the execution of ground operations. It is simply not possible to adhere to the laws of war by using 2000-lb bombs in built-up areas. And herding civilian populations into ever smaller areas moves closer to ethnic cleansing. It's why operations in Rafah without evacuating civilians will be successfully prosecuted by both the ICJ and the ICC. All that soldier- and vehicle-borne camera footage will be critical in containing the severity of the judges' condemnation.
This week, Netanyahu unveiled his post-war plan for Gaza. It contains no funds for reconstruction, and the US has rejected it as just a "re-occupation". It has been months since the war started, but there has been no postwar planning. As for the military response to 7 October, it was not months in the planning, but on the command of Netanyahu's Cabinet, a vengeful demand for massive retaliation and retribution couched in genocidal words. That Cabinet can choose perpetual war with ever-spiralling hatred and violent escalation. One of my shareholders was going on holiday to Israel, but then changed his destination. Will Netanyahu?
The idea that wars can be fought without killing and injuring civilians or destroying non-military infrastructure is delusional. Had the Allies adopted that principle during World War Two, the result would have been an Axis victory.
Also delusional is the notion that Israel should conduct itself with due regard for the opinion of the “world community.” Since much of that gaggle consists of authoritarian regimes with bloody hands, and since most of it is antisemitic in root and branch, its approval carries far too high a price tag.
"without killing and injuring civilians or destroying non-military infrastructure" - this is not what Just War and Intl Hum Law argues.
The Allies did not fight a perfect war: Netanyahu has argued in the way you have, that whatever excesses were committed by the Allies in WW2, so they must be ok for Israel to commit too. It's why you have used the Orwellian argument. And it's not what Just War and Intl Hum Law argues. The problem is that militaries around the world have been exploiting the Doctrine of Double Effect that permits Collateral Damage to give the doctrine a bad name. The Supreme Court of Israel, during its judicial activist stage, contributed to the emergence of a new culture within the IDF, characterized by a deep awareness that the Supreme Court could intervene, control and, if necessary, punish. Don't let the ICJ or the ICC take over that mantle.
There are a number of senses of a "world community" - this social media platform is an embodiment of one of them, so is the idea of the planet as a single Biome and a singular eco-system, and the globalised economy, and human rights. Global Village is another term for the same idea. Don't dismiss it summarily as "much of that gaggle": it was that gaggle that so enthusiastically supported the creation of the state of Israel, support which the prosecution of this war has been so successful at dissipating.
What I meant by 'international society' is, within the anarchy of all states against all, a commonality of interest that creates norms, rules and laws for states to abide by. Russia - one of your "authoritarian regimes with bloody hands" - was heavily censured by this international society for invading Ukraine on this day in 2022. Israel is finding itself similarly isolated.
But your final comment I do agree with - states exist in the anarchical system, and they will break or ignore the norms, rules and laws of international society if they feel their vital interest, or even their very existence, demands it. Somehow I don't think 7 October, utterly disgusting though it was, represented an existential threat to the state of Israel. Yes, it represented a threat to the Netanyahu government, but not to Israel.
Also something about 72 virgins.
You're wrong in every particular. First, the Allied strategic air offensive a played a major role in the defeat of Germany. Aside from the great damage that it did to German industry, it forced the Germans to divert major resources from the fighting fronts to home defense. And the defeat of the Luftwaffe, essential to an Allied victory, took place in the skies over Germany. As for the argument that it deliberately targeted civilians—why should German civilians have been exempted from the consequences of the war? They were contributing to the war effort by their labor, weren't they? As Orwell noted, if it was all right to sink a U-boat, sending sixty or seventy young men to their deaths, what was wrong with bombing and killing the industrial workers who built the U-boat in the first place?
Orwell's argument therefore stands: The pacifist was objectively siding with the enemy.
Regarding Clausewitz, I can only assume that you didn't read what I wrote with the attention it deserves:
"Embodied in Clausewitz’s concept of 'ideal war' is a principle of extremes. For instance, if one side in a war employs violence without compunction, the other side is compelled to follow suit, taking matters to an extreme. It’s true that he went on to note that actual war, which is affected by many external factors, seldom if ever approaches the ideal.
I'm quite well aware what Clausewitz meant by the term "ideal war." That was the thing in itself, war in the abstract, without consideration of external factors that affect war in reality. And I said as much. I did not say, however, that the ideal is a good thing or, for that matter, that it's a bad thing. The concept of ideal war is an analytical tool that Clausewitz developed to facilitate his study of war, nothing more.
Israel is doing all it can to minimize collateral damage in Gaza. But it has no obligation to hold its hand when the other side is using civilian infrastructure for military purposes or civilians as human shields. The responsibility for the consequences of that lie with Hamas and Hamas alone. That's the governing principle in international law. So I suggest that you get in touch with the Hamas command and remind them that they're supposed to be following the laws of war. And good luck with that assignment.
Thank you for responding, Thomas, and I forgot to say 'Thank You' for your article in the first place. Robustly argued.
It was your choice of the word "compelled" in connection with Clausewitz and escalation that made me comment. While Clausewitz and a great many other strategists agree with one aspect of your interpretation of Clausewitz - namely the inherent risk of escalation in war - you used the word also to suggest that Israel has no choice other than to obliterate Gaza as the RAF did German cities. There is always a choice.
International law does not agree with you that the responsibility for the consequences lie alone with Hamas. Israel will have to prove every case of human shielding. It will also have to prove in every case that the importance of the military objective over-ruled the prohibition against killing civilians with prior knowledge. This prohibition is why a good many US drone operations are called off.
Israel could get off the hook by arguing that all Gazans are nocent, that they are all contributing to the war effort, as you and George Orwell do. Certainly it is difficult to argue otherwise of very, very many Gazan adults. We also have ample though anecdotal evidence that a huge amount of pubescent boys have been militarised. They are guilty too.
Perhaps because I am a liberal I find it hard, though, to charge any pre-pubescent child as persons taking an active part in the hostilities; all of these are innocent, and Israel will be called to account for their deaths.
For the rest, while bearing guilt, they are not all combatants, and as such, have not forfeited their status as protected persons. Very many will be called to account for their involvement in the war, and I can imagine many tens of thousands - and evidence is being gathered to prove it - will be successfully prosecuted. That all of these have been knowingly and summarily executed makes Israel responsible.
It was the same in WW2. As difficult as it may seem to us given the totalitarian nature of Nazi Germany, a good many of the population were not involved in the war effort, and destroying the civilian infrastructure destroyed their livelihoods to the extent where they then sought employment in the war effort. To that extent - and it was a considerable extent in the worst-hit cities - Bomber Harris' strategy had the opposite effect to what you suggest.
You make a good point about defence of the homeland consuming Germany's war resources. Furthermore, it counters the argument that it was only the Russians who bore the brunt. My point was that precision targeting of overtly military targets was possible then - the Royal Navy’s X-Craft midget submarine operations disabling Tirpitz, the Dambusters raid sabotaging the wartime industrial effort in the Ruhr valley; RAF Mosquito precise hits on Gestapo Headquarters in Amiens and Copenhagen - these examples among many more inflicted quantifiable damage on the Nazis' ability to conduct the war. Today, Israel can do alot better.
And it is in Israel's self interest to do so. For if you argue that all Palestinians forfeit the protected persons statuses that most should have to varying degrees, then they (and other enemies of Israel) will retort - as Mohammed Darlan did in 2002
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/15/world/mideast-turmoil-the-overview-us-says-powell-demanded-pullout-by-israeli-forces.html - "Whoever harms civilians must expect similar responses". Intentionality and its corollary argument, the doctrine of double effect, will not matter; Israeli civilians will be the legitimate target of reprisals, and the most important objectives "compel" attacks on civilians. In Darlan's argument - which is yours too, Thomas - lies the hell of Idealtyp und Absoluten Krieges until all have been genocidally and ethnically cleansed.
If you chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" you are anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and calling for the death of all Jews who live in Israel. It really is that simple. If you feel in any support for Hamas you have lost your moral compas
I recall during the Shock & Awe phase of the Iraqi War the US military over-selling the notion that they could pinpoint bomb a building without disturbing anything around it. Obviously, it didn’t work out that way for that war or any other war in history. But I imagine many who grew up in that time think the IDF could, if it chose, root out Hamas without disturbing “innocent” civilians. As simple as the electronic games on their phones. It might not be all bad if this has driven the IDF to extraordinary measures to preserve lives, but it is still fundamentally dishonest.
And I agree that the openly vicious critics are somehow more tolerable than the chronically stupid, but the ones I despise the most are those in between, as in the Biden administration. With all the pandering back and forth, you just know they are anxiously awaiting a misstep by the Israelis so they can ditch the issue in time for the elections. And they have to know that Israel can’t stop at the gates of Raffeh, so they’re trying to cast that as a legitimate line in the sand. It’s all a bit despicable.
You’re right that people have unrealistic expectations of precision-guided munitions, but they do reduce collateral damage and casualties. The problem in Gaza is that Hamas deliberately seeks to maximize civilian casualties. And the anti-Israel Left plays along.
I think the Biden Administration knows quite well that Israel is going to fight this war to a finish, regardless of what the US or the so-called world community says. But they’re spooked, as always, by the possibility that the progressive base of the Democratic Party will rise up in open revolt—this being an election year. But throwing Israel under the bus would just exchange one political problem for another. There are twice as many Jews in Michigan than there are Muslims, after all.