As the war in Gaza proceeds—and remember that Israel said it would take a long time—the world’s opprobrium against Israel continues to increase. What frustrates many of us who are sympathetic to Israel is that those who denigrate it—and I’m talking not about Netanyahu but about worldwide criticism of the conduct of the war itself, or of the existence of Israel and Jews themselves—base their opprobrium on either lies or misconceptions. These include what I call the Three Big Lies:
1.) Israel is an apartheid state (it’s not clear to me what’s being said here: whether it means apartheid within the country or, somehow, apartheid between Israel and other Arab countries),
2.) Israel is committing genocide in Gaza (that is, actions designed to wipe out all the people of Gaza),
and the one I’ll discuss today:
3.) Israel is killing too many Gazan civilians, and therefore the war should be stopped. This is connected with #2 above. The “too many” is often couched as a disproportionality: there are too many Gazan civilians killed compared to Gazan combatants killed (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.).
Of all of these accusations, it is the last that has brought the wrath of the world down on Israel, and, though the deaths of Gazan civilians seem to have been part of Hamas’s own strategy to get the world to hate Israel, let’s ignore that, too, and look at the “proportionality” argument.
Let me begin by saying that I am not trying to ignore the human toll in Gaza: every civilian gone represents a life that was surrounded by friends, relatives, and loved ones. This is the case in every war, and, unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a war that leaves all civilians untouched. But we’re dealing with the world’s view that too many Palestinian civilians have died. Of course when you say “too many”, you must specify, given the fact that there will always be civilian deaths in wartime, what figure would not be too many.
How many Gazan civilians have been killed in comparison to Gazan combatants? This of course must always be an approximation. The Hamas-run Gazan Ministry of Health estimates a total of over 35,000 Gazans have been killed since October 7, not breaking them down by status as combatant or noncombatant. These Ministry of Health figures were of course reported uncritically by the world’s media.
In May the UN itself revised Hamas’s overall death toll, saying that 24,686 Gazans who were dead have been “fully identified.” This again includes both civilians and combatants (some of which are “children” according to the convention of “people under 18 years old”), and realize that some of the dead were killed by misfired Hamas rockets or directly by Hamas themselves. It’s not clear whether how many of the “unidentified” dead were really killed, and whether they were combatants or civilians.
We can assume, then, that the number of Gazans killed lies somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000, depending on whether you are closer to accepting Hamas’s figures or the UN’s. These include both fighters and civilians.
How many of these were combatants? Newsweek reports: about 15,000 from a month ago. Note that this is Israel’s estimate, and of course is also an approximation. In this messy urban warfare, we’re going to have to make do with rough guesses.
Finally, how many Israelis have been killed? 1200 were killed on October 7, and about 700 Israeli soldiers and reservists have been killed since October 7, making a total of roughly 2000, including Israeli civilians killed since October 7. This is relevant, as we’ll see, only to a misguided notion of “proportionality.”
If you calculate, then, the ratio of Gazan civilians killed to Gazan combatants killed using these rough figures, you figures ranging from 0.64 to ([24,686-15,000/15,000, using the UN’s figures) to 1.3 ([35,000-15,000]/15,000). Note again we’re using Israel’s figures for the deaths of Gazan combatants in both calculations, but using higher (Hamas) and lower (UN) estimates for total deaths of Gazan civilians.
The point I want to make is that figures for ratios of Palestinian civilian/combatant deaths in Gaza, ranging from 0.64 to 1.3, are extraordinarily low for warfare—lower than any figures I’ve seen bandied about in other conflicts (see below). Note that these figures are in the ballpark calculated by military and urban warfare expert John Spencer: about 1 to 1, though, if you use Hamas’s figures, you get 1.5 or 1.6 to 1.
How does this compare with estimates from other modern wars? Spencer adds this:
In the 2016-2017 Battle of Mosul, the biggest urban battle since WWII, the U.S. led Iraqi Security Force killed 10,000 civilians to destroy 4,000 ISIS in the city. That is a 1 to 2.5 combatant to civilian death ratio [JAC: 2.5 in the calculations above]. In the 1945 Battle of Manila (which did have some variables similar to Gaza like high number of defenders, tunnels, and hostages), the American military killed 100,000 civilians to destroy 17,000 Japanese defenders, that is a 1 to 6 ratio [or 6 to 1 by my ratio]. The 1950 Second Battle of Seoul (another battle with similar variables to the battles in Gaza) American forces likely killed 10s of thousands (there is no record out how many died in the city battle out of the 2 million civilians that died in the war) to kill 7,000 North Korean enemy.
Spencer adds two caveats:
It is these figures that give the lie to the fact that Israel is committing a genocide, or is producing an inordinately high ratio of civilian deaths to combatant deaths. Even given Hamas’s figures (and remember, the estimates of deaths of Hamas combatants comes from Israel), the data themselves cannot be what’s angering the world. Why the world is angry about this reflects, in my view, the fact that it is the Israeli army (mostly Jews) who are doing the fighting, and Jews cannot be allowed, as Douglas Murray says, to win a war.
Will knowing such figures and their historical context get the world to stop baying at Israel? I wouldn’t count on it, for the howls come not from data, but from feelings about Israel and the Jews.
A fine article. Much good it’ll do shifting the global drift towards dislike of anything Israel does and Israelis do, especially fighting and dying in a war for survival against a vast body of surrounding enemies who seek its annihilation as a nation and the destruction of all Jews.
Israeli Generals, Low on Munitions, Want a Truce in Gaza. New York Times, July 2, 2024
Israel’s military leadership wants a cease-fire with Hamas in case a bigger war breaks out in Lebanon, security officials say. It has also concluded that a truce would be the swiftest way to free hostages.
https://archive.ph/57TQv
I read that NYT first thing this morning, and I have severe doubts about that reporting based on other people in Israel that I’ve heard from.
The apartheid argument comes in 2 flavors:
1.Apartheid inside of Israel wrt to the @20% who are not Jewish.
2.Apartheid in the sense that Israel militarily governs the West Bank but those in the West Bank don’t have the same rights as Israelis do.
It is the 2nd that I think most anti-Zionists mean currently.
With respect to genocide-the definition does not state that the intent need be to destroy a people in whole (it says “in part or in whole”).
Just to clarify-I don’t think what is going on is genocide, and the apartheid thing is not meaningful to me, although the issue of post 67 land seized by Israel is and has been problematic obviously.
“Seized” in an Arab initiated war, don’t forget. A war of annihilation.
Start a war of aggression you might lose some land if you don’t win.
Japanese and Germans quietly nod at that one.
D.A.
NYC
Right of Conquest. It’s the basis of American (and Canadian) sovereignty, too. King George III defeated the French in the Seven Years War and obtained possession of New France at the Treaty of Paris 1763.
Obviously this is one of the things that bothers me most about current American protests-we are occupiers and worse, are much more clearly “white colonial settlers” than Israelis are. I mean we are talking about 150 years vs 75, in my scientific way of thinking that’s the same.
By invoking right of Conquest, I wasn’t criticizing our right to live here and make the laws if that’s what you’re getting at. I couldn’t care less if someone calls me a white colonial settler or a genocidaire. If the conquered want to take the land back, they can try. We ain’t giving it back, though. Nor should Israel. Israel refers to Judea and Samaria as “disputed territory”, not as occupied to conform with diplomatic sensibilities.
To Leslie below:
No I was agreeing and also pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-Israel protestors who come from Canada, USA, etc.
67 has been a real issue for Israel. First-despite all obvious indications that the Egyptian-led Arab forces were aggressors and about to attack, the Israeli’s attacked first. Second, land taken in a war is not legal regardless by international law. Of course, it happens (cf Crimea) and no one cares. However, the issue is destabilizing for Israel more than for Russia for some obvious reasons.
1) Even the UN, no friend to Israel, does not consider the 1967 war a war of aggression by Israel.
2) Land taken in a defensive war can be legal. Some land in the Golan Heights was legally taken by Israel, for example. Israel had the legal right to keep the Sinai Peninsula.
3) In the case of Israel broadly, nothing since May 14th, 1948 has changed its legal borders, save for a few territories relinquished by Israel under treaty (the Sinai peninsula, for example, was returned to Egypt in a peace treaty after the 1967 war).
The obsession with the 1967 partition proposed by the UN, which was never adopted and is therefore void, is a tactic used by the enemies of Israel, who want to distract the discussion away from the fact that Israel does indeed have legal borders and they were determined by the League of Nations, not the UN, and were valid under International law before the first Arab army attacked Israel in 1948.
It’s unfortunately not a tactic because there are several million adversarial people (as viewed from both sides) on that land. That’s what you are missing here-it’s not the land it’s the people. There aren’t many modern examples of this. The Golan heights, for example, is different. That’s why this has been a problem since…1967.
…post 67 land seized by Israel…
Seized back from the 1948 Arab war against the 1947 boundaries of Israel defined by the UN.
The UN has no power to define a border or boundary – it can not make valid International law; it is not a Legislative body.
The borders of Israel were defined by the League of Nations in ~ 1920. They became the legal borders of Israel when it declared Independence of May 14th, 1948. The Arab armies attacked Israel in a war of aggression after that, illegally occupying Judea, Samaria, and Gaza until they were liberated in 1967.
IIRC, only one country recognized Jordan’s sovereignty over the West Bank. The rest of the world did not, and Jordan has since relinquished all claims to that land.
Thank you for the correction.
There is no “moral equivalency” between a democracy verses a terrorist ruled land.
Framing it as such is a terrible category error.
There’s no terrorist state like Gaza anywhere on earth (maybe… Afghanistan… we can talk about that later if you like. I’ll take random parts of Somalia maaaaybe).
ISIS-land was a contender. It is mainly defunct like Hamas will be soon.
Even terrorist “sponsors” like Iran or Syria have the traditional trappings of a state, a real state with institutions.
Gaza since the last Jew left 19 years ago hasn’t even been a state – just a gangster terrorist paradise.
LEBANON used to be a “state” – a real state – a prosperous country – before Hezb swallowed it – now a beautiful country is a gangster playground. This in large credit to the Palestinians as a matter of fact.
Know your history. Here. I’ll help:
https://themoderatevoice.com/worst-houseguests-ever-the-palestinians/
The moral asymmetries here are profound, the fact many westerners don’t get this is surreal. And disappointing.
So there are no two sides in Gaza. As I wrote, to wit:
https://themoderatevoice.com/there-are-no-two-sides-in-gaza/
D.A.
NYC
As usual, I agree with David Anderson.
+100%
Excellent article! Civilians suffer from all wars. Terrorists’ objectives are always to kill as many innocent, unarmed, civilians as possible!!!
One precedent often forgotten in this matter is Operation Overlord, the properly revered liberation of Normandy from the Nazis in World War II. The allies’ heavy bombing campaign killed about 20,000 French civilians, injured many more, virtually destroyed St. Lô, Caen, Le Havre, and other towns, and so on. See Wikipedia re Overlord, and:
https://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/en/french-civilian-victims-battle-normandy .
Yes, but that was the two horrible war that led to the post war consensus to never do stuff like this again. Standards have been stricter of late. I’d say that’s why the comparison in the articles is with more recent example, not the many, many from WWII.
Yes, Ruth, indeed.
Standards and acceptable conduct in wars do change over time.
Consider if the US had fire bombed Baghdad in 2002 like it was 1944 Tokyo. It’d never be accepted in any democracy. For humanity this is a good thing – we should not take it for granted. And it is quite new.
Wind the clock back before our grandparents time – or our parents – and after Oct 7th if Israel had burnt Gaza and all its people to the ground… nobody would even worry about that. Even as late as 1940s the Japanese Empire had a “kill all, loot all, burn all” policy – which wasn’t out of step with norms then.
——————-
One problem is that not everybody plays by our rules. Consider that it appears that Russia’s behavior in taken Ukrainian lands is worse than Ukrainian treatment of captured Russian troops. That’s cool with most Russians it seems.
————
Israel plays by decent, modern acceptable norms of conflict.
Terrorists like Hamas do not.
That people don’t understand this asymmetry perplexes.. and angers me.
D.A.
NYC
John Spencer has been doing some really good work on Urban Warfare.
This is a good watch on the topic:
Almost Everything We’re Told About Gaza is Wrong – Urban Warfare Expert John Spencer
+++++
“John Spencer joins “Live From The Table” for an in-depth interview to discuss the moral, legal, and strategic implications of Israel’s actions in the Gaza War.”
“Also discussed: hostages, day-after plans, and other matters.”
Thanks for this.
Proportionality as a military concept is weighing cost of an attack (in civilian lives and environmental degradation) vs the military advantage to be gained.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/russian-attacks-ukrainian-utility-infrastructure-water-and-power
Hard for me to connect the military concept with much being said in the media.
Yes, proportionality in military action refers to the cost in civilian lives relative to the value of the intended military target. A high-value command and control target, for example, would justify a higher number of civilian casualties. An enemy private hiding in the basement of a civilian-filled apartment building would not justify destroying the building; if the general directing the enemy in battle was in the building, it might be justified.
Proportionality does not refer to the relative numbers of casualties on the two sides.
GCM
Greg,
It’s clear what I was talking about in the article: the number of Gazan civilians killed versus Hamas members kiled. I know what it means in military terms but I’m addressing the world’s take, not the military-action definition.
Comment by Greg Mayer
Jerry– Yes, I was trying to make clear (as was Tom B) that “proportionality” is not being used in its usual (i.e. military) sense in world media.
GCM
I’m not an expert on international humanitarian law, but as I understand it ‘proportionality’ in law doesn’t refer to the ratio between combatant and civilian casualties, or to the ratio between enemy and own casualties. An action is said to be ‘proportionate’ if the value of the military objective being sought is large enough to outweigh the civilian casualties that can be anticipated. Of course this is pretty subjective, but that’s inevitable in war.
Any lawyers present?
Yes, but with a ratio close to 1:1, even the legal definition is met by Israel. But the world is reacting to the “too many civilians dead” claim, not the “judge a target based on value vs. harm to civilians” one you mentioned. The latter argument seems sensible to me.
Large enough in the eyes of the country applying the force is an important qualifier here. A good example is the recent freeing of four Israeli hostages in an action that killed some dozens of Gazans some of whom were probably bona fide non-combatants trapped in the line of return fire when Hamas started shooting at the IDF exfiltrators. Israel and her friends regarded this as a good trade at ten times the price. Friends of Hamas were outraged that more Gazans died than hostages were freed. They wanted dead IDF soldiers instead. Not only is proportionality subjective but it is also partisan.
The concept is best regarded as aspirational, not legalistic. Militaries should try to avoid gratuitous civilian deaths not because they will get any thanks for it but to avoid brutalizing their own soldiers who eventually have to go home to their families and be trustable to hug their babies.
Hello! Thought experiment here: a proportional response would have been for an Israeli militia to head into Gaza and kill over a thousand civilians in cold blood and do all of those other nasty things while recording it all on video and calling their parents to boast about what they’ve done.
Got it!
No, proportionality in this context is not judged against the enemy’s actions, it is judged against your side’s likely gains.
Perhaps we can temporarily bracket the discussion about proportionality and begin with the question of military objectives, as defined within the Protocols to the Geneva Conventions:
“Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage” (art. 52(2) Additional Protocol I).
The debate on proportionality cannot even begin without shared recognition of legitimate military objectives. Note the subjective nature of “effective contribution,” “circumstances ruling at the time,” and “definite military advantage” in the above definition. Now, ask Israel’s opponents on the international stage whether they believe Israel has ANY legitimate military objectives in Gaza. My take is that opposition is less to proportionality than it is to denial of Israel having any legitimate objectives. If I am correct, then a single dead child would be one child too many. The debate will be interminable.
More charitably, Israel’s opponents are leading with their hearts and don’t, in principle, deny that Israel might have legitimate objectives. But, in practice, such people are unable to determine legitimate military objectives without FIRST considering whether civilians will be harmed. This sentiment will be shared by some Israeli citizens. The extremes of either cold-hearted calculation or of feeling overriding rational sense, whether that feeling be hate or empathy, can both lead to failure in war. But if one must err when fighting ruthless men, then only one of these extremes holds the possibility of military success—and survival. Perhaps the citizens of Israel can remain fixed on a suitable option somewhere between these poles. It is always a danger that one becomes what one fights and hates, whether in war or in politics.
The below links to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions address protection of the civilian population and the precautions one must take in attack.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-57
For those interested in more detail, Part IV, Articles 48-79 regard the civilian population. Some may also find of interest the extensive Commentary of 1987.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries
Sorry, but it’s not clear to me whether you YOURSELF think Israel has no legitimate military objectives in going after Hamas. I disagree with you that the world doesn’t think that Hamas is not a legitimate military objective. They think that too many civilians are killed trying to achieve those objectives.
So, what is your view given that you brought this up: is destroying Hamas a legitimate military objective? We’re not worrying now about the death ratio, as I think I’ve already opined that, given history, the deaths of any civilians are regrettable but the ratio achieve so far is very good compared to the figures I gave for the U.S
I’m not sure, in view of what I just said, what compromise you think is acceptable. It would be hard to get a ratio lower than 1:1, especially in urban combat.
Jerry, there is not a ray of daylight between your overall view and my own. If anything, I worry even less about the civilian casualties than do you. I might accept a significantly higher ratio if I were in Israeli shoes. In battles of survival against ruthless men, a cold-hearted pursuit of military objectives is to be preferred over endless fretting about innocent lives. Yes, that sounds harsh, and yes, one can debate whether this is about survival, but as I earlier said, Israel can and has found a less extreme approach. I hope they remain fixed upon it.
The lack of clarity might come from me trying to keep my comment broader rather than reflective of my own views on the propriety of Israeli actions. But one point needs clarification owing to my own sloppiness and assumptions about terminology. I said, “My take is that opposition is less to proportionality than it is to denial of Israel having any legitimate objectives.” My reference to “any legitimate objectives” is at the tactical / operational level of war: using these weapons to destroy this bunker, etc. The use of “any” was unfortunate.
In contrast, consider Netanyahu’s goal of “destroying Hamas.” While we can rightly call this a “military objective,” we might be better off calling it a strategic goal, one that I advocate. We could call it a “national objective,” one that some (not me) would argue is better pursued through nonmilitary means. But let’s call it a “military” objective since Israel is now at war. Once the Israeli political leadership has set that objective and has determined to use primarily the military instrument of power, as opposed to economic or diplomatic, what does meeting that objective look like, in practice, to the IDF? It requires attacking specific objects. At this lower level of tactics and operations, it requires developing further “military objectives,” albeit ones subordinate to the larger, ultimately political, objective of “destroying Hamas.” And there is the rub. It is these further military objectives that many (not me) oppose, even if they claim to support the more abstract idea of defending against Hamas. I’ll leave it to others to gauge whether most of Israel’s opponents do, in fact, support the broader objective of defeating Hamas.
Let’s set aside those who favor diplomacy instead of war, particularly those who see the war as illegal and, thus, every Palestinian civilian death as a crime. How many dead children is too many when considered against the military value of a target? How many have the knowledge and situational awareness to even know the value of a target? Dead children, that they can know. Clearly, the lowest level of civilian casualties in modern urban warfare is not low enough for many people. Perhaps they are just ignorant and need data like you provide; this is surely true in some cases. But if there is a point of disagreement between us, it is in that I don’t believe the global opposition is to the number of civilian casualties. If Israel could halve those casualties tomorrow, I believe that they would still face global opposition. Indeed, if there were not a single death of an innocent person in Gaza, we would still hear the clamor about destroyed houses, businesses, schools, infrastructure, and the resultant quality of life for innocents. The world would still be opposed to Israeli military action. I am not one of those people.
Excellent reply and explanation of your position, one I agree with wholeheartedly.
That’s an expert exposition, Doug. I’ve incorporated it into my own lay thinking on the matter.
I don’t think that there is any practical ratio that will satisfy critics. This is because I don’t think that the numbers are the basis for the criticism, although they are always cited.
I think that the opposition is more abstract. Specifically, I think that the objection that critics have to civilian deaths in Gaza comes down to the fact that Israel is the much stronger force. Consequently, many people think of Israel as punching down, using overwhelming force against a weak—and even helpless—opponent. Additionally, many critics think that Gazans are trapped in Gaza, with access and egress controlled by Israel (which it largely is). Consequently, any civilian death is seen as patently unjust, as Gazan civilians are seen as sitting ducks. Israel is a strong country, backed by the United States. Gaza is weak and its people are needy.
You’ll notice that I don’t need to bring up the antisemitism, anti-Zionism, anti-colonialism, and all the other “anti’s” that critics bring to the table. Just the apparent lopsidedness of the battle is enough to sustain the criticism (whether or not the anti’s just described also come into play). Under the view I just espoused, the numbers themselves don’t matter, and critics wouldn’t be able to provide any number that they would accept as justified.
I do think that if Israel does its job and eliminates Hamas as a fighting and political force, the number of civilian deaths will be lower than if Hamas is allowed to continue. Even so, that view is an abstract counterfactual that won’t appeal to anyone and certainly won’t appease the critics. Israel has no choice but to endure the criticism.
The numbers are ALWAYS cited and I swear, I’ve never seen a critic say that Israel is picking on a weak nation. (One that, by the way, started the war.)
Gazans aren’t trapped in Gaza except because the Egyptians won’t let them in! Egypt should be criticized for that, but I rarely see it.
I would think that if the lopsidedness were the real issue, I’d see it mentioned in all the criticism of the war, but it never is. I would respond that I’ll believe what the critics say when they criticize, and they always seem to be criticizing the number of civilians killed, not the fact that Israel is overpowering Gaza militarily.
The media has learned that criticizing Israel for civilian deaths—whether they really care about them or not—resonates with both the public and with policymakers. Hamas will continue to produce exaggerated numbers (lies) as long as doing so remains effective, meaning as long as the media continues to publish them and use them to demonize Israel. I don’t think we can expect critics of Israel to cite any number that they would accept as justified. Either way, Israeli policymakers will need to endure the criticism and fight on.
This has been very informative. Thanks for taking it on, Jerry. I don’t have any expertise in these warfare type areas and issues, relying on weit readers to tease out the many points. But I have not seen anyone mention what seems to me to be the grand daddy of civilian deaths, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S. in 1945. What do I not understand?
The fire bombing and almost total destruction of all major Japanese cities by the US using napalm ,phosphorus, and high explosives and this prior to both Nuclear weapon attacks caused more fatalities, not really ever talked about much, except in Japan.
Jim, the use of nuclear weapons raises interesting questions. The short answer is, of course, if nobody is strong enough to challenge the user, then they can do as they please. Such was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The subsequent, largely unresolved concerns regarding nuclear weapons and humanitarian law are discussed at length in the below section of the 1987 commentary to the Geneva Convention protocols. These issues will remain unresolved as long as at least one nuclear state sees a deterrence value in retaining its weapons.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/part4-section1/commentary/1987?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries
Thanks for the reference and link, Doug.
Double standards in war reporting have been the rule for as long as I can think. The exact same military action will be called a war crime if it’s war party A who does it, and a successful and perfectly legitimate operation if it’s war party B or “our guys”.
The real question is this: Why has Israel now become one of the countries that are seen critically and thus gets the superstrict and not the lax standards (even more so than previously)?
There are three factors working in unison.
A. The post/de/anticolonial-critical whiteness-complex as elite culture
B. Rising influence of immigrants from countries who have traditionally sided with Israel’s enemies, and whose views are given authority by A.
C. Israel has a governing coalition with true blue ultraright religious racist extremists in it who are hugely distasteful to politicians in the West (like Betsalel Smotrich). Also, two of the moderate and not religiously crazy people in that government, Netanyahu and Gallant, have, in the first days after 9/7, said stuff that sounded very genocidal to my Hebrew-understanding ears, stuff that goes beyond the “things usually done in wars post-1945” stuff, and is closer to what the Ottomans did with the Armenians in the Eastern provinces and for very similar reasons, and all of that in the smartphone age. I suspect the joint pressure of Blinken and Biden got those two to desist from their original plans.
Point C has made Western politicians and some media originally sympathetic to Israel waver. Israel largely interprets “never again” as: This shall never again happen to the Jews!, the rest of the West as “this shall never again happen to any group of people”. Which becomes a bit problematic when the two axioms are in conflict with each other.
Stuff like what? Would you give an English translation?
And also please give citations for the speeches if you can.
Perhaps I need to preface this saying that I think all of Hamas are genocidal maniacs in my eyes, while the Israeli army chiefs aren’t in the slightest, and in contrast to Israel the Hamas don’t even care about their own people, they would gladly sacrifice all 2 million Gazans and use the dead as propaganda against Israel. Egypt, too, would gladly have all 2 million Gazans die behind their border closed to refugees, and blame all deaths on Israel.
Links and context:
Netanyahu, fighting for his political future (the weak border to Gaza was his fault), read a carefully crafted speech after 10/7 that dogwhistles “genocide” to the religious right in Israel. I started out listening moved to tears, then was alienated. Some parts of the speech I find objectionable and why (my translations from memory, you can check it on the video):
“We are standing in the footsteps of Yehoshua bin Nun”:
Yehoshua conquered the promised land by genociding its previous inhabitants according to divine orders that said ”kill them all and leave no-one alive, not even the cattle”.
Leading up to this, Netanyahu said: “We will wreak powerful revenge” (revenge is not the same as destoying your military enemy so he is no longer a danger), “city of evil” (like Sdom and Gomorrha?), and “render it into a desolate wasteland”, referring to all the places where Hamas are, but this is of course everyhwere in Gaza.
Link to that speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeZJulgUuD8
At a press event, he said “Zakhor et Amalek” (Remember Amelek!), which refers to a people that should have been completely annihilated according to a divine command, but wasn’t quite (one person and the cattle were not killed), and neglecting to destroy them completely later had bad consequences, as they became an enemy again:
The context is about the troops and “eliminating this evil from the world”, and you can judge for yourselves how plausible it is that he was only using “Zakhor” to commemorate the victims, and was not rather referring to the “annihilate them from the earth” part of the Zakhor text (https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/73232/jewish/Zachor-in-a-Nutshell.htm) and the widely shared identification of Palestinians with Amalek among the Israeli right.
For further context: Soldiers singing “destroy the seed of Amalek” and “there are no innocent civilians”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ejGTw7QuE, see also https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-11-02/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israel-beware-nationalist-haredis-are-in-a-state-of-ecstasy/0000018b-8c23-d7a8-afcf-aea34fd90000
A minister (Bismuth): “There is no place for humanitarian considerations, the seed of Amalek needs to be destroyed”. https://www.inn.co.il/flashes/954554
Gallant (only one as this gets too long):
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba. “We are fighting human animals [i think it was chayyot adam ] and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/
I am aware that Hamas profits from the supplies, but that is the dilemma with humanitarian aid in every war, it’s always the fighters prolonging the war who get first pick, and sell the rest.
I like Yoav Gallant (in contrast to Netanyahu). But an existential war breeds cruel war actions and “genocide” has a wide definition now.
Yes, I’ve heard some of these before. But such pronouncement hardly amount to genocide. And I disagree that Israel has been engaged in cruel actions (there may be isolated one, but the war is being prosecuted with care for the civilians). I guess your definition of “genocide” is contained only in words, not actions. I disagree; you are the one who’s changed the definition of genocide to include purely verbal expressions and no actions.
Here are the Oxford English Dictionary’s two definitions of genocide:
There is no indication of an “expanded definition” that includes phrases like the ones you mentioned.
I’d add here that after October 7 some Israelis, in anger, made comments that could be construed as sounding genocidal. But the same could be said after someone’s child is killed; the parents might say, “I want to kill the S.O.B.” But that’s not the same thing as murder, and a couple of comments made by Israeli officials are not the same as genocide. For crying out loud, genocide is an ACT, not words spoken in anger, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Israel is intending to wipe out the Gazans or Palestinians. Since you said “stuff” from each of two guys, we’re waiting for at least two quotes from each of Gallant and Netanyahu.
Surely you can’t be serious in saying that “stuff that sounded very genocidal to your Hebrew-understanding ears” is equivalent to saying that Israel intended to commit or is committing genocide. Using that as a reason to accuse Israel of genocide is, to me, merely a ruse to use to go after Israel. I do not take seriously people who use those quotes as evidence for Israel committing genocide.
But yes, give the quotes by all means, esp. the ones from Netanyahu
One thing about my motivation that I should perhaps add: I wasn’t even trying to take a position here. Who am I to decide what to do in such a dire military situation, and with such an enemy with whom peaceful coexistence seems impossible. I was trying to point out that some early reactions of some Israeli politicians (one of which I like and I believe to be sincere and honest) were one part of several developments that brought Israel into a difficult propagandistic situation with the woke West.
I wasn’t sure what was meant by “apartheid state” either, so here’s a fairly balanced response by ChatGPT:
You: How is Israel an apartheid state?
ChatGPT: The claim that Israel is an apartheid state is a highly contentious and debated issue. Those who argue that Israel practices apartheid typically point to several factors:
Separate Legal Systems: Critics argue that Israel maintains two separate legal systems in the West Bank—one for Israeli settlers and another for Palestinians. They claim that Israeli settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law, which they argue leads to systematic discrimination.
Restricted Movement and Residence: Palestinians in the West Bank face restrictions on movement and residency due to Israeli checkpoints, barriers, and permits. Critics argue that these restrictions limit Palestinians’ freedom of movement in ways reminiscent of apartheid-era South Africa.
Settlements: The growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is seen by many as a form of segregation, with Israeli settlers living in separate communities under Israeli civilian law, while Palestinians live under Israeli military rule.
Resource Allocation: Critics argue that Israel allocates resources unequally between Israelis and Palestinians, with Palestinians often receiving less funding for infrastructure, healthcare, and education compared to their Israeli counterparts.
Political Representation: Palestinians living in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship and cannot vote in Israeli elections, despite Israeli control over many aspects of their lives.
However, supporters of Israel argue against the apartheid label, stating that Israel is a democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens within its recognized borders. They contend that security concerns and historical context justify the policies and actions criticized by opponents.
Ultimately, the classification of Israel as an apartheid state remains a deeply polarizing and complex issue, heavily influenced by political perspectives and interpretations of international law.
Regarding lack of Israeli citizenship for Arab residents of Judea and Samaria. Can someone please tell me how Israel could extend citizenship to people living in territory that the world does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over? If Israel were to formally annex the disputed territories the world would complain about that, before it got around to demanding that Israel make the residents citizens with free movement inside greater Israel, and voting rights.
Israel probably does not want to add another two million hostile Arabs to its roll of citizens. So the current military governance of the disputed territories is probably the best that can be expected. The land was part of Israel’s 1948 borders, re-taken in 1967, so is legitimately under Israeli control. If Israel’s numerical superiority over the Arabs was the same as, say, North American settlers now enjoy over largely pacified aboriginal people, one could see making them citizens of all one country, as Canada and the U.S. have done, but we wouldn’t have dared do that in 1763. We would literally have been voted off the (Turtle) Island. “British subjects” was as far as King George would go with “his children.” Realistically, Israel has to do the same. It can’t simply relinquish the territory for the same reason King George couldn’t abandon his colonies in the New World to France. (His failure to repress both the Indians and the residual French in conquered New France (“Quebec”) to the satisfaction of the 13 Colonists led to their revolution, a cautionary tale for those Israelis who urge magnanimous rapprochement with the Palestinians.)
I wonder how many lives Hamas would have saved by NOT embedding themselves amongst civilians, the IDF may have set a perverse benchmark for conducting wars. Do they model for this ratio before the violence starts, pretty sure Hamas didn’t, it’s possibly a fail by their accounts, not enough dead!
I’ve posted this before; but it is apropos: Most incompetent “genocide” in history: https://jwbliliephoto.net/M/Palestinian_Terr_Pop.png
“A fair fight is always the result of poor planning.” a bit of wisdom from the USMC.
There is a mission to be accomplished, which seems to be to eliminate facilities and individuals that otherwise would leave Hamas the ability to do more 10/7 attacks.
The IDF is performing that mission under extraordinarily cautious rules of engagement. Following those rules might save some innocent civilians ( few actually seem very innocent) , but at the cost unnecessary deaths in IDF members and others.
The protesters arguments are not based on objective reality. Any concessions we make to their demands just waste our time which extends the time the IDF needs to be on the ground to complete the mission.
I’m one of those Israel critics, and my points are two:
1) the public statements and actions by Israeli government officials (second Nakba, Amalek comparisons, starving Gaza, they are animals, worse than Nazis etc.) do not inspire any confidence at all that saving Palestinian civilians is a priority here.
2) the laws of war are good, and I want all countries to follow them. It is very important that they always apply, and cannot be tossed aside if the enemy is considered inferior in some way, be it moral, racial etc.
The tale of WW2 as a struggle between good and evil is used to justify further atrocities, and this had made me more critical of D-Day celebrations and the like. That was a low point in human history, where millions of people died after participating against their will. The lesson of this war is not that humanitarian restraints in war are wrong (which atrocities against Axis civilians would you recommend?), but nonnegotiable.
I recommend this article: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/we-did-it-too-the-ugliest-excuse-for-israel/