No, I don't agree with your statement: Israel, despite claims to the contrary, has not always done everything it could to avoid civilian suffering. I struggle to see how a casual observer could deny this, even if acknowledging the obvious distortions and Hamas propaganda efforts.
Gazan civilians are very supportive of this war and many of them rushed into Israel on Oct 7 to aid in the killing and looting. Plus which in terms of any war the civilian casualties are far lower so I believe your statement to be incorrect.
I wonder if the reason Hamas may refuse to specify how many dead are militants and not civilians is really a propaganda ploy at all. Perhaps they simply believe that they have the right to kill Israelis as much as they want since they are fighting occupation and Israel as a wrongdoer has no right to defend itself against them (there are various academics and so called human rights people who say that kind of stuff). So in their view they are all civilians whom the IDF has no right to target, even the ones launching missiles and shooting guns.
This is interesting but they do specify the names of their fighters in the West Bank, which I think makes the propaganda explanation more likely - in the West Bank it's more important for them to show that their people are fighting against Israel.
Unless one is privy to the information underlying every IDF targeting decision, the only way in which compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict may be measured, comments based on the resulting death and devastation are, by definition, uninformed and unhelpful.
The obvious problem faced by the IDF is that revealing that targeting information - which seems rather detailed as the names of the targets are often identified - may expose sensitive intelligence gathering capabilities which, if revealed, will result in countermeasures by a future adversary - a category hardly limited to Hamas.
What should be getting far more media exposure than it has is South Africa’s request for additional months to compile evidence to support its “genocide” case before the International Court of Justice. This case was brought on an emergency basis with South Africa claiming that a “genocide” was so obviously occurring in real time that ICJ intervention was mandated.
As we know, even the ICJ refused to fall for this propaganda ploy, especially given how taking any of the requested action would irreparably damage its reputation for impartiality should it turn out that the facts never supported the claim. And it’s not as if the ICJ’s integrity in matters relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict was previously unimpeachable . One need only consider its earlier uninformed advisory opinions on the “Separation Wall” and subsequently its historically and legally illiterate finding on “occupation” to see an ongoing bias.
The only difference I can see is that these two advisory opinions are one-offs, limited to Israel and hence of no other real world application (will the rationale of the “occupation” decision be used to liberate Northern Cyprus from Turkish control, Tibet from China’s or the Kuril Islands from Russia’s, to take only the most obvious examples? I won’t hold my breath).
A ruling finding Israel guilty of “genocide” on the facts would effectively devalue this important human rights concept and drain it of its special meaning. If Gaza is a genocide, then pretty much any military intervention can be one. Worse, it will validate Hamas’ strategy of embedding your forces among a civilian population and sacrificing them for military and political advantage. Not even the ICJ is prepared to take that fateful step.
What South Africa’s request for additional time reveals is the moral and legal bankruptcy of the “genocide” claim. It quite obviously brought this case in bad faith and for ulterior motives. South Africa is worthy of sanction for its duplicity and abuse of the legal system - but that will never happen as we know.
The ICJ, however, has been presented with a golden opportunity to extricate itself from embarrassment by denying this request and dismissing the case. Will it?
Whatever course it follows, the “protesters” will continue to peddle the genocide libel and the press will repeat it for the simple reason that what is now deemed newsworthy is not the truth of the claim asserted but that such a claim is being made regardless of the clear lack of supporting evidence.
somewhat relatedly https://bsky.app/profile/almagroschool.bsky.social/post/3l3mvni7dnc2x
No, I don't agree with your statement: Israel, despite claims to the contrary, has not always done everything it could to avoid civilian suffering. I struggle to see how a casual observer could deny this, even if acknowledging the obvious distortions and Hamas propaganda efforts.
Gazan civilians are very supportive of this war and many of them rushed into Israel on Oct 7 to aid in the killing and looting. Plus which in terms of any war the civilian casualties are far lower so I believe your statement to be incorrect.
Excellent piece of analysis, Alex
I wonder if the reason Hamas may refuse to specify how many dead are militants and not civilians is really a propaganda ploy at all. Perhaps they simply believe that they have the right to kill Israelis as much as they want since they are fighting occupation and Israel as a wrongdoer has no right to defend itself against them (there are various academics and so called human rights people who say that kind of stuff). So in their view they are all civilians whom the IDF has no right to target, even the ones launching missiles and shooting guns.
This is interesting but they do specify the names of their fighters in the West Bank, which I think makes the propaganda explanation more likely - in the West Bank it's more important for them to show that their people are fighting against Israel.
Unless one is privy to the information underlying every IDF targeting decision, the only way in which compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict may be measured, comments based on the resulting death and devastation are, by definition, uninformed and unhelpful.
The obvious problem faced by the IDF is that revealing that targeting information - which seems rather detailed as the names of the targets are often identified - may expose sensitive intelligence gathering capabilities which, if revealed, will result in countermeasures by a future adversary - a category hardly limited to Hamas.
What should be getting far more media exposure than it has is South Africa’s request for additional months to compile evidence to support its “genocide” case before the International Court of Justice. This case was brought on an emergency basis with South Africa claiming that a “genocide” was so obviously occurring in real time that ICJ intervention was mandated.
As we know, even the ICJ refused to fall for this propaganda ploy, especially given how taking any of the requested action would irreparably damage its reputation for impartiality should it turn out that the facts never supported the claim. And it’s not as if the ICJ’s integrity in matters relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict was previously unimpeachable . One need only consider its earlier uninformed advisory opinions on the “Separation Wall” and subsequently its historically and legally illiterate finding on “occupation” to see an ongoing bias.
The only difference I can see is that these two advisory opinions are one-offs, limited to Israel and hence of no other real world application (will the rationale of the “occupation” decision be used to liberate Northern Cyprus from Turkish control, Tibet from China’s or the Kuril Islands from Russia’s, to take only the most obvious examples? I won’t hold my breath).
A ruling finding Israel guilty of “genocide” on the facts would effectively devalue this important human rights concept and drain it of its special meaning. If Gaza is a genocide, then pretty much any military intervention can be one. Worse, it will validate Hamas’ strategy of embedding your forces among a civilian population and sacrificing them for military and political advantage. Not even the ICJ is prepared to take that fateful step.
What South Africa’s request for additional time reveals is the moral and legal bankruptcy of the “genocide” claim. It quite obviously brought this case in bad faith and for ulterior motives. South Africa is worthy of sanction for its duplicity and abuse of the legal system - but that will never happen as we know.
The ICJ, however, has been presented with a golden opportunity to extricate itself from embarrassment by denying this request and dismissing the case. Will it?
Whatever course it follows, the “protesters” will continue to peddle the genocide libel and the press will repeat it for the simple reason that what is now deemed newsworthy is not the truth of the claim asserted but that such a claim is being made regardless of the clear lack of supporting evidence.