Some people, including the author of this column have lost their moral compass when it comes to the Israel/Palestine question. Luckily some people (Prof. Robert Reich) have talked to both sides to help them find it. Here are some principles everybody could agree too:
"1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable.
Some people, including the author of this column have lost their moral compass when it comes to the Israel/Palestine question. Luckily some people (Prof. Robert Reich) have talked to both sides to help them find it. Here are some principles everybody could agree too:
"1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable.
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable.
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong.
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate."
Seen from this perspective, of a moral compass, this answer is not only masterful but right. Because for every single principle listed above, Donald Trump will make it worse.
PS: Kudos to Kathleen Weber for pointing me to this Substack.
Hi Alejandro! Thanks for reading. I don't think those rules are as straightforward as they appear. For example, if there's a genocide going on, are we morally allowed to go to war to stop it, even if civilians will die in that war? Are we morally required to do so? Laying out rules is useful, but it's the beginning—not the end—of the analysis.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.
Hamas would like to perform a genocide, but can't, which is why the stick to horrible acts of terrorism. What the state of Israel does is partly apartheid, partly mass displacement and heavily risks becoming a genocide.
Bibi and co. have been actively destroying any possibility for a two state solution since at least the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo accords. It's a life goal of his. That's way he funneled money for Hamas in the 2000s and he lend a hand in making sure they would become the facto government in Gaza. But that is a political question, before that, there is a moral one: What moral ground do we share? What could be the moral foundation of an agreement?
Rabin was assassinated in the 90's. The Oslo process did move forward in the aughts under a Labor PM--I believe Elud Barack. Labor lost control specifically because of the the relentless terror attacks of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade. So who is to blame?
I doubt that either Hamas or Hezbollah or any other Palestinian entity are any more interested in a two-state solution than Netanyahu or the Israeli right.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
There was a preliminary investigation where they found a bunch of problems and that the last was killed despite an officer ordering a halt on firing. The IDF decided that they're going to ignore it.
There obviously were problems with prosecuting them as well, it seems. In any case, hanging the entire indictment of the IDF on one case is unwarranted.
I think it speaks to the lack of care permeating their operations. See also the numerous TikToks reveling in the destruction of homes or firing machineguns indiscriminately in populated areas.
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
Unfortunately, defense is often the justification for offensive war. Hitler claimed that Poland had attacked Germany. GW Bush, perhaps deceived by others, claimed that attacking Iraq was defending against WMD's.
I consider the actions of the Netanyahu government in Gaza to be war crimes of the first degree. What Israel is doing in Gaza, however reprehensible and counter productive, is not genocide and it is morally inexcusable to abase the term genocide by suggesting that it is.
It's not like any of the other Arab countries have been lining up to open their borders to Palestinian refugees. One could make a moral case they are complicit in Bibi's war crimes. It's not like the countries surrounding Ukraine didn't demonstrate how to handle a massive flow of war refugees.
I agree not genocide, but what war crimes in the first degree? While it's possible war crimes have been committed, I have not seen that proven, either in court or in the court of rational discourse. ( And Hamas propaganda is not proof; neither is the fact that civilian Gazans have been injured or killed proof. Sadly, civilians are injured and killed in war.)
Apartheid is a tricky term: I, and I think most people, view it as dejure discrimination within a country. I've never seen the term used in the context of occupied territory. Unless you are contending that Israel proper practices apartheid. Which is a big stretch. If Israel incorporates Gaza and the West Bank into itself, then yes, it would be apartheid. Which is why so many Israelis want a two-state solution.
Agree about the term. However, here is an update on Israelis and a two-state solution: "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
In what occupation would there NOT be apartheid? Occupation, by its nature, previleges those who are occupying. In any case, the Court did not rule in its advisory opinion that Israel itself is an apartheid state. But half the student protesters will think it is. I'd also be interested to know what percentage of protesters think ALL of Israel is 'occupied'.
The problem for Kamala to comment on Gaza while a ceasefire is being negotiated, is that it could prove counterproductive.
We’ve seen how Bibi reacted when Biden threatened to withhold some offensive weapons being used to bomb civilians in Gaza. He and his messianic Jewish cohorts in the Knesset, annexed another 2,000 acres of land in The West Bank for settler development.
Make no mistake, Bibi is a friend to no one, least of all Israel and America. His religious wing-nuts are even worse. They don’t care about the hostages, civilian casualties in Gaza, or the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.
Additionally, they will not agree to a two state solution, or Palestinian governance in Gaza. They even ruled out international occupation. In short, Bibi has no solution to the problem once an ultimate ceasefire is reached, which is a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, Bibi continues to have delusions of grandeur; believing Hamas can be defeated. News flash: an ideology cannot be defeated. If we learned anything from 9/11, it’s when you defeat one terror group, several more emerge from the shadows.
Case in point. Al Qaeda, which never existed before we invaded Iraq, eventually splinted into two groups: one being ISIS, the other, Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Today, after the US spent over $6 trillion fighting the war on terror, we actually created more terrorist groups, currently operating in countries where Muslim extremism never existed before. Bottom line: we created more terrorists than we killed and suffered more casualties than during 9/11, and we’ve been playing whac-a-mole ever since.
Furthermore, Israel is heading down the same rabbit hole we did, and they aren’t America. They can’t just print money like we do, and their military isn’t built for long wars of attrition. Their military is 80% reservists, and their economy is currently the third largest in all of Western Asia and the Middle East; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
A long war on several fronts will eventually destroy their robust economy which is one of the riches per capita in the world. It is a country of 9 million (not including the Palestinian territories), with a GDP just under $600 billion.
Bibi and his incompetent and demonic allies are willing to throw this all away for what? And the US would be stupid supporting a suicide pact with a morally bankrupt, narcissistic sociopath like Bibi; yet here we are.
I’m Jewish and love Israel, but revenge isn’t the same as defense. We should have learned that emotional reactions are never the best way to solve a conflict or deal with a terror attack. Actions need to be thought out and deliberate. Bibi has shown he has no idea what he is doing, and we should not follow this man into the abyss.
Not sure I can agree with #3. Please explain what Israel should have done in response to the Hamas attack that would have been morally right. As you yourself said, "war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas." How can Reich be so sure about what is morally wrong?
As to #5, that statement is incomplete. Yes, Palestinians have been segregated based on religion and ethnicity. But why? Because the Israelis are just like white people everywhere [this is Ta-Nehasi Coates' view]? Or is it because their leaders don't accept Israel's right to exist and they therefore threaten Israeli security?
You should read the article, this is not what Reich thinks, but what came out of bringing together and facilitating a discussion between pro-israel and pro-palestine students. It just summarizes the common ground they found together.
Bothsides-ism. Hamas painted themselves and Gazans into the corner by their tireless pursuit of terror over decades. Hamas began this war on October 7, shattering the peace. Hamas committed a half dozen clear war crimes. Israel's attack on Hamas in response been judged to be self-defense and therefore just. While it is possible that Israel has also committed war crimes, that remains to be seen--unless one mindlessly accepts the statements of Gaza health authorities (Hamas health authorities) at face value).
You left out that it is morally wrong for Hamas to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. While one can complain that Israel's response isn't targeted sufficiently narrow, if Hamas weren't using civilians as human shields, that wouldn't be near the problem that it is.
Some people, including the author of this column have lost their moral compass when it comes to the Israel/Palestine question. Luckily some people (Prof. Robert Reich) have talked to both sides to help them find it. Here are some principles everybody could agree too:
"1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable.
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable.
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong.
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate."
Seen from this perspective, of a moral compass, this answer is not only masterful but right. Because for every single principle listed above, Donald Trump will make it worse.
PS: Kudos to Kathleen Weber for pointing me to this Substack.
Source: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/moral-clarity-on-campus-about-the
Hi Alejandro! Thanks for reading. I don't think those rules are as straightforward as they appear. For example, if there's a genocide going on, are we morally allowed to go to war to stop it, even if civilians will die in that war? Are we morally required to do so? Laying out rules is useful, but it's the beginning—not the end—of the analysis.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
Btw, I also never served. I just write about foreign policy and military topics a lot. Trying to close the civ-mil gap one paragraph at a time.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Everything else I agree with.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
Two-state solution? "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
The only way out is for the Gazans to accept Israel's right to exist. Without that, there can be no two-state solution.
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.
Also, if there’s genocide going on, isn’t Hamas complicit?
Hamas would like to perform a genocide, but can't, which is why the stick to horrible acts of terrorism. What the state of Israel does is partly apartheid, partly mass displacement and heavily risks becoming a genocide.
I guess you missed the blown up busses and rockets which made bottling Hamas up in Gaza imperative for Israel.
I do think that Bibi and at least some of the rest of Likud should be in prison for what they're doing in the West Bank.
Bibi and co. have been actively destroying any possibility for a two state solution since at least the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo accords. It's a life goal of his. That's way he funneled money for Hamas in the 2000s and he lend a hand in making sure they would become the facto government in Gaza. But that is a political question, before that, there is a moral one: What moral ground do we share? What could be the moral foundation of an agreement?
Rabin was assassinated in the 90's. The Oslo process did move forward in the aughts under a Labor PM--I believe Elud Barack. Labor lost control specifically because of the the relentless terror attacks of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade. So who is to blame?
I doubt that either Hamas or Hezbollah or any other Palestinian entity are any more interested in a two-state solution than Netanyahu or the Israeli right.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
Putting the West Bank aside, what evidence is there that the IDF has not acted according to the law of war? (Hamas propaganda doesn't count.)
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
Do you think they should have shot the 3 shirtless guys approaching them with a white flag?
Probably not.
It should be investigated.
There was a preliminary investigation where they found a bunch of problems and that the last was killed despite an officer ordering a halt on firing. The IDF decided that they're going to ignore it.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4366786-idf-spokesperson-says-no-changes-on-ground-after-hostages-mistakenly-killed/
There obviously were problems with prosecuting them as well, it seems. In any case, hanging the entire indictment of the IDF on one case is unwarranted.
I think it speaks to the lack of care permeating their operations. See also the numerous TikToks reveling in the destruction of homes or firing machineguns indiscriminately in populated areas.
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
(Under #2, I tried to change "military damage" to just damage, but the edit didn't take.)
That last point is almost blanket permission to attack Iran, which promotes hate and kills civilians through proxy forces.
Unfortunately, defense is often the justification for offensive war. Hitler claimed that Poland had attacked Germany. GW Bush, perhaps deceived by others, claimed that attacking Iraq was defending against WMD's.
I consider the actions of the Netanyahu government in Gaza to be war crimes of the first degree. What Israel is doing in Gaza, however reprehensible and counter productive, is not genocide and it is morally inexcusable to abase the term genocide by suggesting that it is.
It's not like any of the other Arab countries have been lining up to open their borders to Palestinian refugees. One could make a moral case they are complicit in Bibi's war crimes. It's not like the countries surrounding Ukraine didn't demonstrate how to handle a massive flow of war refugees.
I agree not genocide, but what war crimes in the first degree? While it's possible war crimes have been committed, I have not seen that proven, either in court or in the court of rational discourse. ( And Hamas propaganda is not proof; neither is the fact that civilian Gazans have been injured or killed proof. Sadly, civilians are injured and killed in war.)
I agree with you, for now is just mass displacement and apartheid.
Apartheid is a tricky term: I, and I think most people, view it as dejure discrimination within a country. I've never seen the term used in the context of occupied territory. Unless you are contending that Israel proper practices apartheid. Which is a big stretch. If Israel incorporates Gaza and the West Bank into itself, then yes, it would be apartheid. Which is why so many Israelis want a two-state solution.
Agree about the term. However, here is an update on Israelis and a two-state solution: "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid It's a court fact.
In what occupation would there NOT be apartheid? Occupation, by its nature, previleges those who are occupying. In any case, the Court did not rule in its advisory opinion that Israel itself is an apartheid state. But half the student protesters will think it is. I'd also be interested to know what percentage of protesters think ALL of Israel is 'occupied'.
Thx. I was unaware of that decision.
I don’t agree with the “genocide” label. If anything, it probably makes a rational analysis of an intractable foreign conflict more difficult.
The problem for Kamala to comment on Gaza while a ceasefire is being negotiated, is that it could prove counterproductive.
We’ve seen how Bibi reacted when Biden threatened to withhold some offensive weapons being used to bomb civilians in Gaza. He and his messianic Jewish cohorts in the Knesset, annexed another 2,000 acres of land in The West Bank for settler development.
Make no mistake, Bibi is a friend to no one, least of all Israel and America. His religious wing-nuts are even worse. They don’t care about the hostages, civilian casualties in Gaza, or the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.
Additionally, they will not agree to a two state solution, or Palestinian governance in Gaza. They even ruled out international occupation. In short, Bibi has no solution to the problem once an ultimate ceasefire is reached, which is a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, Bibi continues to have delusions of grandeur; believing Hamas can be defeated. News flash: an ideology cannot be defeated. If we learned anything from 9/11, it’s when you defeat one terror group, several more emerge from the shadows.
Case in point. Al Qaeda, which never existed before we invaded Iraq, eventually splinted into two groups: one being ISIS, the other, Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Today, after the US spent over $6 trillion fighting the war on terror, we actually created more terrorist groups, currently operating in countries where Muslim extremism never existed before. Bottom line: we created more terrorists than we killed and suffered more casualties than during 9/11, and we’ve been playing whac-a-mole ever since.
Furthermore, Israel is heading down the same rabbit hole we did, and they aren’t America. They can’t just print money like we do, and their military isn’t built for long wars of attrition. Their military is 80% reservists, and their economy is currently the third largest in all of Western Asia and the Middle East; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
A long war on several fronts will eventually destroy their robust economy which is one of the riches per capita in the world. It is a country of 9 million (not including the Palestinian territories), with a GDP just under $600 billion.
Bibi and his incompetent and demonic allies are willing to throw this all away for what? And the US would be stupid supporting a suicide pact with a morally bankrupt, narcissistic sociopath like Bibi; yet here we are.
I’m Jewish and love Israel, but revenge isn’t the same as defense. We should have learned that emotional reactions are never the best way to solve a conflict or deal with a terror attack. Actions need to be thought out and deliberate. Bibi has shown he has no idea what he is doing, and we should not follow this man into the abyss.
IMHO!…:)
Not sure I can agree with #3. Please explain what Israel should have done in response to the Hamas attack that would have been morally right. As you yourself said, "war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas." How can Reich be so sure about what is morally wrong?
As to #5, that statement is incomplete. Yes, Palestinians have been segregated based on religion and ethnicity. But why? Because the Israelis are just like white people everywhere [this is Ta-Nehasi Coates' view]? Or is it because their leaders don't accept Israel's right to exist and they therefore threaten Israeli security?
You should read the article, this is not what Reich thinks, but what came out of bringing together and facilitating a discussion between pro-israel and pro-palestine students. It just summarizes the common ground they found together.
Yes.
Bothsides-ism. Hamas painted themselves and Gazans into the corner by their tireless pursuit of terror over decades. Hamas began this war on October 7, shattering the peace. Hamas committed a half dozen clear war crimes. Israel's attack on Hamas in response been judged to be self-defense and therefore just. While it is possible that Israel has also committed war crimes, that remains to be seen--unless one mindlessly accepts the statements of Gaza health authorities (Hamas health authorities) at face value).
You left out that it is morally wrong for Hamas to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. While one can complain that Israel's response isn't targeted sufficiently narrow, if Hamas weren't using civilians as human shields, that wouldn't be near the problem that it is.