Given that most of the world doesn’t want Israel to win any wars, it’s natural that the media is full of criticisms of Israel for exploding hundreds of beepers (and some walkie-talkies) that were in the hands of Hezbollah operatives. (You can see critiques, for example, here, here, and here, and the beeper attacks were also criticized by the miscreant AOC, who never said word one about Hezbollah violating international law with its repeated rocket attacks or about ther death of 12 Druze Israeli children from those rockets.
Israel’s pager attack in Lebanon detonated thousands of handheld devices across of a slew of public spaces, seriously injuring and killing innocent civilians.
This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a…
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 18, 2024
Further, beepers were in fact invented by a Jew, which I suppose makes them doubly nefarious.
At any rate, I just discovered that Sam Harris has a Substack site, and I got a subscription by begging for it. Sam, as you may recall, wrote after October 7 a terrific and eloquent criticism of Hamas terrorism as being deeply immoral. It’s one of the best short pieces he’s written.
Now Sam’s taken up the Grim Beeper episode, and defends it as a precision targeted operation that had almost no “collateral damage”. Those who say it was a war crime or violation of humanitarian principles of war are simply off the rails. Click below (I think the article is free), or you can find the piece archived here.
An excerpt (long one):
Thousands of electronic pagers—and later, hand-held radios—exploded simultaneously, killing dozens and injuring vast numbers of jihadists. This attack, the ingenuity of which cannot be denied, has been widely criticized as a dangerous escalation, as a breach of the rules of war, and most ludicrously, as an act of terrorism.
But if this Trojan Horse operation was as precise as it appears to have been, then it ranks among the most ethical acts of self-defense in memory. There are no “innocent” members of Hezbollah—whose only contributions to human culture have been the ruination of Lebanon and the modern evil of suicide bombing. This Iranian proxy has been firing rockets into northern Israel since October 8th, in response to… well, nothing at all. Israel’s occupation of Lebanon ended a quarter century ago.
If the Israelis managed to target members of Hezbollah by turning their personal electronic equipment into bombs—without seeding such bombs indiscriminately throughout Lebanon—then they achieved a triple victory. First, they killed or maimed the very people who have been trying to murder them, and who have displaced 70,000 innocent Israeli civilians from their homes. Second, they marked actual jihadists among the survivors, presumably making them easier to capture or kill in the future—and, one can only hope, reducing their status in Lebanese society. And third, they have stripped away some of the glamour of jihad. The promise of Paradise is one thing; the prospect of living without fingers or eyes is another.
Again, the righteousness of this attack depends on whether it was as targeted as it seems. Tragically, four children are reported to have been killed. However, compared to almost any other military operation, this act of mass sabotage appears to have produced very few unintended deaths. It is an example of exactly the sort of calibrated violence that Israel’s critics claim to support. And it has delivered a profound psychological blow to one of the most ruthless jihadist organizations on Earth.
Of course, many assert that any acts of retaliation, however precise, simply breed more violence. They seem to believe that pacifism, in some form, must be the ultimate answer to Israel’s existential concerns. After all, how else will the killing stop?
Sam then goes after pacifism with an argument reminiscent of Orwell’s, and in general I agree. Pacificm is injurious to the moral side in a just war, like WWII or, in this case, the war of Israel against Hezbollah. But, as a CO, I would not be able to fight in a war I consider unjust, such as that in Vietnam (my college term paper in Ethics was on figuring out what I considered to be a just war, and I used that paper as supporting evidence in my CO application.)
Sam ends with a question:
. . . . If you are uncomfortable with an operation that precisely targeted a group of jihadists who aspire to commit an actual genocide, just what sort of self-defense on Israel’s part would you support?
It’s an honest question, but of course for many NO form of self-defense is justifiable when it’s Israel defending itself.
I subscribe to Sam’s Substack – as well as to his podcasts Making Sense and Waking Up. So sane, so eloquent.
Agreed.
But I heard someone point out how the beepers/pagers could have been in other places besides the intended targets … won’t venture to say where – gave me pause to this tactic – but do not put it past them to be that highly accurate.
“pause for cause” is a good phrase in this case. I had very mixed reactions to it. A very conservative friend of mine who knows I’m on “his side” (the side of Israel) in this current mess, also knows I have family (ex family in that my ex husband is from Lebanon — Tripoli — and currently, two of his younger siblings are living in Beirut), anyway, he asked what I thought about all this and the first word out of my mouth was “diabolical”. I went onto say it’s ingenious and funny (in an extremely dark humor kind of way) and that Hezbollah & co definitely asked for and deserved this, such methods frighten me. What does this portend for the future? A couple readers here discussed possible difficulties this may cause for boarding planes, costs of cellphones in the future. It’s a nasty trend. Hezbollah is nasty. The whole mess is nasty.
Excellent. Sam has spoken eloquently and at length on his (youtube) podcast since Oct 7.
I contribute my own small effort to the debate in my own syndicated column: https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
He has a more nuanced and… I admit… more eloquent take along the same lines.
It is very possible to be secular/atheist Jewish, critical of small aspects of Israeli policy without the asymmetrical, woke endorsement of Islamism. Who knew? (sigh)
I can’t believe the voices against the pager operation are serious, but then when it comes to moral retardation… there’s a lot of it about sadly.
D.A.
NYC
Well, I am generally a supporter of Israel, I am reasonably serious, and I prefer not to be called morally retarded. To my mind, Netanyahu within one week managed to snatch antipathy from the jaws of sympathy with a punitive and vastly overreactive bombing campaign against Gaza. Though *most* of the casualties of the pager “operation” were no doubt members of Hezbollah, I cannot support it and indeed think it was more like a sneak attack than anything else. As for anti-Semitism, all I will say is that Israel’s tactics on both its northern and southern borders have done much to stoke anti-Semitism, which I frankly consider another reason for opposing them.
Antisemitism is there, wether you stoke it or not. And for sure will grow unopposed if you don’t oppose the harmful physical actions it promotes.
Netanyahu (as much an undesirable a prime minister he is), didn’t snatch anything, from october 8 there were lot’s of voices condemning Israel before a single bomb was dropped. Does anyone remember the criticism to the kids in Nova for partiying on “stolen land”?
So in your opinion, how should Israel have responded, Matt? If you think Israel could have responded better, let’s hear how. I’m curious. However, I would not consider your answer honest or complete without some mention of the Palestinian’s (and Iranian’s) role in the conflict.
Too many questions to answer in a simple comment, but here is part of the answer: The pogrom by Hamas (yes, that is what it was) required a severe response, probably air strikes. If the return of the hostages was a goal, then the air strikes needed to be very limited and stopped in favor of some kind of deal. Instead, half the hostages are probably dead. Unlimited bombing killed countless Gazans and destroyed whatever goodwill Israel had (early on, there was even at least one call for a siege of Gaza).
Some problems are almost impossible to solve and can only be managed. Eliminating Hamas is a pipe dream. Bombing them out of existence will be as effective as the bombing of Vietnam.
I do not know why it is relevant to this question, but Hamas is supplied by Iran. They also steal aid supplied by the UN. What Palestinians are you asking about? The inhabitants of Gaza are Palestinians. As for the Palestinians on the West Bank, the settlers have seized the opportunity to drive many of them out of their homes, reportedly with the connivance of the IDF.
Thank you for asking.
Netanyahu is surely a (metaphorical) bastard. So was Churchill, and both were plausibly the right bastards in the right place at the right time. History will judge.
How better might Israel respond to months of rocket attacks that have displaced tens of thousands from the north?
In other words Israel had it coming. I wonder what it did on the northern border because it didn’t do anything except return fire when Hezbollah fired missiles at Israel. Nobody’s calling you morally retarded, but I think you’re ignorant (not in the pejorative sense, but that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nowhere did I say or imply that Israel had it coming. Indeed, I began my comment by saying that I was a supporter of Israel. Nice of you to say that I am not morally retarded, but I am not ignorant either. See my reply to EdwardM if you like; right now it is for some reason under moderation.
I shall follow da roolz scrupulously and most likely have nothing more to say on this thread.
This sounds an awful lot like that: “As for anti-Semitism, all I will say is that Israel’s tactics on both its northern and southern borders have done much to stoke anti-Semitism”. Umm. . what has Israel done on those borders to “stoke anti-Semitism.”
If you explain to me what Israel did before the wars to Gaza or Lebanon that has stoked anti-Semitism, I’ll withdraw my characterization of ignorance.
It is so good to hear intelligent comment on the ‘Grim Beeper’. The planning and execution of this ‘precision attack’ was splendiferous. I cannot understand why
people condemn Israel and not Hamas and Hezbollah. The world has gone crazy.
You know why: Israel is not allowed to win a war. Also, Israel is said to be a white colonialist oppressor state and thus deserves constant condemnation.
I hold higher ed 100% responsible for indoctrinating college students with the oppressor/oppressed paradigm as one based on truth. Then compounding the problem by identifying for students which people belong in each group, and demanding special privileges for members of the oppressed groups they so identified. Then turning a blind eye when some members of groups higher ed identified as oppressed harassed and excluded from campus spaces and activities students from groups not deemed oppressed. Could be wrong about that indictment but the dysfunctional and discriminatory oppressed/oppressor philosophy that also underpins DEI philosophy seems to have infected many too many in the education profession. If students are confused about the conflicts involving Israel, higher ed needs to look in the mirror to identify a major source of that confusion.
Brilliant and justified.
Harris’s is a rational and responsible voice. Of course, killing terrorists with pinpoint accuracy is a highly *moral* way to eliminate them with as few collateral casualties as possible. With 80,000 Israelis displaced from their homes thanks to Hezbollah, Israel has an obligation to make its citizens whole. And regarding pacifism. I’ve been lately reading analyses in the press writing of aggression *versus* diplomacy, as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not. Force is often needed to bring about the conditions for a negotiated peace. The two function together.
+1.
“Force is often needed to bring about the conditions for a negotiated peace.”
Agreed.
Instead of force against their enemies, critics would prefer Israelis to use the Clevon Little defense, taking himself hostage and begging the townsfolk not to threaten the gunman. “He’s just crazy enough to do it!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I
+2
I am not a conscientious objector; in fact, I retired from a 34-year Air Force career in 2001. And yet, I find myself largely in agreement with you and Sam: the “grim beepers” minimized civilian casualties while effectively terrorizing terrorists.
We often judge ourselves by our intentions, but we judge others by the consequences of their actions. By either standard, Hamas’ Oct 7 attack was horrendous. The relentless bombing of Gaza may have had laudable intentions, but 40,000 dead Palestinians support arguments that this too was an atrocity. In contrast, despite being technically illegal, the beeper attack seems to me to be very defensible.
Back days when we had a draft, the military contained a more politically diverse group of individuals. A group of us with liberal values attended the Air Force Academy. We even set up our own alternative to mandatory chapel and spent our time on Sunday mornings discussing moral issues including the war in Vietnam in the unused Tabernacle under the chapel’s 17 aluminum spires.
One frequent topic was the question of the moral culpability of those who avoided the draft (whether due to bone spurs or for other reasons), for atrocities like My Lai committed by those who would not or could not avoid military service. The last people we want representing us in combat are those who most want to be there.
I am reminded of the General Gordon’s quotation from the late 19th century: Any society that insists on a broad line of demarcation between its soldiers and its philosophers will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/06/11/what-i-learned-from-being-charged-with-blasphemy-at-the-air-force-academy/
40.000 deaths according to… Hamas. Very reliable source of information. Even if true, the civilian:combatant ratio (acording to IDF’s number of militants killed) is near 1:1.4. And hace in mind the use of civilian population as human shields. 1.4 It’s astonishingly low for moder urban combat, and shows the extreme care IDF puts in reducing civilian casualties.
So no, 40.000 deaths it’s not an indefensible atrocity in the sense you later seem to use “defensible”. There’s no contrast between this and the “defensible but ilegal” beeper attacks.
Of course 40.000 deaths is an atrocity, whose sole responsible actor is Hamas.
I think Mark Twain was right: “It ain’t so much the things a feller don’t know that gits him into trouble; it’s the things he knows that just ain’t so…”
sooooo…..?
To Dave: I appreciate hearing you weigh in on this particularly given your history of service. Important post.
The question he makes in the end it’s key. It’s, of course, a rethorical question. No critic of Israel it’s coing to answer it. I’ve asked this question many times (not rethorically) and I never get an answer, at least a direct one. I’ve done it in at least two ways, generally, about what can, in general, Israel do in his defense and what could have been a legitimate answer to october 7. This is not about me, of course, I am just using my experience as an example.
I am convinced that beyond the lack of a real answer it’s the asumption that Israel has no rigth to exist, that it’s very exitence is evil; therefore has no right to defend itself and any act of violence against it it’s justified.
And seeing that this criterium it’s only applied to jews (to Israel, the only and very small jewish country in the world), this can only be antisemitism.
Jerry, not my intention to put you on a spot, but as far as I can remember you don’t use the antisemitism explanation ever. Am I right? Would it be because you don’t think there’s antisemtism or because somehow you don’t think it neccesry to put it out front?
Sam is a national treasure and one of the most sane voices on the most crucial topics humanity deals with.
Indeed!
I loved the Grim Beeper attack. As Sam and others say, it’s sad any innocents died, but that’s always likely in any military action. With that said, this was brilliant. About as targeted as possible, innovative, psychologically powerful, and bloody amusing.
But what I actually wanted to whinge about is having to pay for Making Sense and Sam’s Substack! I don’t really have a valid reason mind, it just feels like having subscribed to Making Sense for many years he could throw a little Substack my way haha
I have no doubt I’m being completely unreasonable!
However, substack’s model does make it quite hard to support more than a handful of content producers. I hope they can come up with a better idea but, in the meantime, I certainly can’t justify supporting Sam twice and ending one of my other subscriptions.
Have you written to him as a Making Sense subscriber and told him this? I would! And I hear you on the Substack front. There are simply too many for a person without money to burn to support. I remember when he grandfathered in Making Sense subscribers to Waking Up if they chose to join. I ended up dropping Making Sense and lost that privilege. I am a member of Waking Up now… again.
Don’t pick the yearly option. You won’t get a refund, even if the author produces absolutely nothing.
The archived copy is not readable. It demands I subscribe.
I’ve subscribed to a lot of Substacks lately and his is pricey for only publishing twice a month.
Some of the people I took out year long subscriptions for didn’t produce any content. There’s a no refund policy at Substack.
I’d suggest people be careful in choosing to subscribe by the year.
I ran into the same problems at Substack way back when they first hit the scene. I also had problems simply ending subscriptions once the period I’d paid for ran out. Big hassle. I wanted to support people’s writing and, early on, ithere weren’t so many authors. Now everyone’s got a freakin Substack. Too many asking for too much.
Agree!
He’s got a post about how he’s charging, apparently for people who have already paid elsewhere.
He chose not to make even that one free to read!
Absolutely no sale for me.
Comparing this to the other post about the apprehension of the shooter who tried to take out Trump on the golf course. Was the would-be assassin justified in trying to eliminate the man who will take away democracy, eliminate women’s rights, and send the country back into a time where racism was the order of the day?
With media and the left making him into such a villain is it any wonder that he felt justified in doing what he did?
“Dear World, This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you,” the handwritten note from Ryan Wesley Routh said. “I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It’s up to you to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.” This reads to me as a jihadist type letter to take out a great (perceived) evil.
Note: I agree with the pager attack (brilliant) and totally disagree with any attempt on any candidate’s life, regardless of rhetoric.
The criticism of the Grim Beeper attack exposes the insincerity of many of Israel’s critics regarding how the country has prosecuted the war in Gaza. Critics like to frame Israel’s actions in Gaza as having been “indiscriminate,” therefore morally unjust. Then Israel launches a hyper-discriminant attack, and the criticism is that it, too, was morally unjust. What they really mean is, “From the river to the sea…. because Israel, regardless of what it does, is unjust.” It’s dogma, not considered reflection.