Excellent article. I have been thinking this for a while. War crimes were part of what I taught at the Joint Forces Staff College. Israel’s actions are not war crimes. The problem is that many journalists, members of human rights groups and others know nothing about the law of war. Likewise, quite a few are very skewed in their morals to blame Israel of committing war crimes, just because.
Since Hamas has spent years building their command centers, communications fasciitis’s, tunnels, bunkers, supply and ammunition depots in around and under apartment buildings, hospitals, other medical facilities, schools, mosques, and churches, they have made Gaza a living hell for its inhabitants. Targeting in such an environment is difficult, especially when high value targets are identified and can escape if not immediately hit. Hamas wants Israel to hit the innocents, that’s while they do this. They are the war criminals.
Thank you for this article. All the best and be safe.
American Center for Law and Justice; M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy
Robert Ash
M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy; American Center for Law and Justice; Regent University - School of Law
Abstract:
One of the most highly charged accusations aimed at the State of Israel today is that Israel is an “apartheid” State that engages in widespread, state-sanctioned, racially-motivated discrimination against the “Palestinians,” which term is understood to mean by Israel’s accusers the Arabs living anywhere within the confines of the former Mandate for Palestine plus those identifying as Palestinian who live in third countries. Yet, an honest look at the facts utterly destroys such charges. Apartheid was the South African system that denied certain racial groups access to the political and judicial systems in their country, consigned them to inferior living spaces and educational opportunities, and controlled every aspect of their lives. In this paper, we trace the history of apartheid and note that racial animus and motivation for differential treatment of groups are essential for determining whether apartheid exists.
We note first that the Arabs living in the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine (which includes Israel, the “West Bank,” and the Gaza Strip) are racially identical. Yet, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis, including the right to form political parties and stand for election, opportunities to serve as members of the Knesset, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, the police, and so on—rights and privileges totally foreign and anathema to an apartheid State—thereby eviscerating claims of racial discrimination, which underlie apartheid. As such, differences in Israel’s treatment of Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip and Arabs citizens of Israel are not—and, indeed, cannot be—“racially” motivated for the simple reason that both groups of Arabs are racially identical. For the claim of apartheid to be true, one would expect Israel to devise racially discriminatory policies against all Arabs under its control, which Israel clearly does not do. Hence, there must be another reason for the disparate treatment.
So, how does one explain the differences in treatment between Arab Israelis and Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip? The answer is not complicated. Arabs residing in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are not now—and never have been—Israeli citizens and, therefore, cannot claim rights due to Israeli citizens. All countries favor their own citizens vis-à-vis non-citizens, and doing so is not an indication of apartheid simply because the two groups are treated differently. Moreover, many Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Israel. Israel is faced with a hostile Arab population which has yet to come to terms with Israel’s existence and which actively seeks to destroy the Jewish State. That requires Israel to take certain measures for its national security. Because of the ongoing conflict, the relationship of Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip with Israel is governed primarily by the terms of the Law of Armed Conflict. As such, any acts or policies of alleged discrimination by Israel against the Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip must be viewed through the lens of the Law of Armed Conflict. As long as Israel’s actions and policies comply with applicable international law, they are lawful. Israel’s actions are based on well-recognized national security needs, not racial animus.
The bottom line is this: Israel treats all of its citizens—be they Jew, Arab, or Druze—equally before the law, irrespective of any racial or ethnic differences. And, Israeli policies regarding application of military law, administrative detentions, defensive use of force, security check points, etc., in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are all lawful security measures permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all.
Keywords: Apartheid, Israel, Palestine
So much for that routine claim, really just a stereotyped smear tactic, but it hornswoggles the rubes of all varieties, so there's that, right?
I think we entirely agree. the difference is that you say it a whole lot better. my response to the issue is emotional enough that laying ANYTHING out in logical terms becomes impossible. in my particular case, laying ANYTHING out in logical terms might just be a non-starter. but I KNOW that using terms like "genocide" and "apartheid" just raises the temperature in a way that's not helpful.
so thanks, Richard.
one small quibble: I'm not entirely comfortable being in the company of Jay Sekulow...isn't he one of Rapture scumbags? wasn't he TFF's lawyer at some point?
Interesting, it's not Apartheid. We have laws on the books to protect the rights of all citizens, yet we still to this day have systemic racism. Is that what these countries are suffering from, systemic racism?
Ah, Rich. We of the long memories. I don't like to use the term inevitable in most cases. But let us say that the U.N. High Commission left the scene in 1947 with only a 1/2 baked cake.
I have always been under the impression that Israel's special forces, by reputation, were top notch. I realize Entebbe was a long time ago but I would guess they have only improved since then, if anything. My career specialty was physical surveillance and the Mossad was always considered the gold standard in that area. Not the same thing, but it is a trend. I have a feeling the issue preventing a covert action in this case had more to do with not being able to get within 15 blocks of the target without the entire operation being blown. How do you land a helicopter in that? How do you move through the streets undetected? It's a logistical nightmare.
Wrote about this a day or so again. The IDF is not the US Mil. The US Mil has no school of urban warfare. Only in the past few years is one trying to get up off the ground. And as the US Mil rather than the subject being urban warfare it is called: Mega-Cities. (The bigger is better motto will change someday, just not now).
Rather than bore you with the distinct differences of the 2nations force structure can say the distinctions are from the bottom up and the top down as well as across. Includes weaponry, weapon systems, kits, unis, and on and on. Can't think of a single thing the IDF prefers to use straight off the US Mil-Mil Industrial Complex rack.
Since you mentioned helos, check out the prego belly on their Apaches. Or the setup on their tanks and heavy equipment. Even the F-35. Most of all the IDF does NOT think like the US Mil nor embraces US Mil doctrine. They are fully trained in urban warfare including special units for tunnels. And unlike the US Mil, their tunnel weasels fall under where they belong, the Core of Engineers.
What you are saying supports things I have heard as well. And I try, but don't always succeed in doing so, to be cautious about repeating things I hear just because I have faith in the people who are saying them.
Anyway just from looking at that overhead shot of the section of Gaza which was hit, it appears to be the personification of worst case scenario when it comes to executing an op.
The ord that was used clearly was a munition fused to explode at a depth certain. Lots of speculation as to its American name and actual weight of the warhead. Am confident the Israel tech-weenies modified it to fit the dirt of the region.
At first glance to some the crater(s) and surrounding destruction screamed MOAB-family rather than what is colloquially known as bunker busters. To my old eyes looks more like a modified US MOP (sld be called Whoppers) that penetrates both dirt and concrete.
Those can and will take down poorly constructed adjacent buildings. Keep in mind Gaza buildings get cheated out of concrete and rebar so they can be repurposed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In every pic or vid the amount of destruction is not consistent with a well-built concrete building taking a 250 affirming those buildings are poorly constructed. Adjacent buildings shouldn't crumble as if they too were struck. Survivors are the ones that sold me on the idea when interviewed they recall the sound not coming from their building rather hearing it then afterwards theirs began collapsing down on them.
YOur thoughts?
Agree from overhead the US mil would wave off the target or if they didn't the cadre of attorneys and ethicists would say, C'mon man try somewhere else or change what y'all are drinking and smoking. (Trying to give that group some human flavor)
The U.N. has proven itself, once again, toothless.
As for your information re what is, and is not a war crime, it is appreciated by me, at least. Israel's trying to defend itself has loosed all the anti-Semitism that has been waiting for a "reason" to show its face.
Again, Lucian, what an informative article. I/we certainly learned what a war crime is and isn't. Thank you for educating us and keeping us up to date.
This comprehensive comparison between defensive damage to repel aggression and unprovoked, wanton attacks upon civilians in a sovereign nation is astonishing. What you, Lucian, have made eminently understandable is the difference between the two forms of warfare. One is a fight for existence of a persecuted nation by a sworn enemy, while the other is a tragic and heartbreaking betrayal of a long-suffering people who have been refused settlement by their own brethren so that the poison of hatred is allowed to spread and inflict the healing process.
It is up to the experts to sort out the subtle nuances of warfare. While we are all appalled by violence, and defensive and offensive wounds bleed out with the same ferociously, the international community will discern the cause and effect, assigning blame, even as pain and suffering persists throughout.
Keeping track of the ramifications of bloodshed requires an informed assessment and the skills to know the difference. Kol ha Kavod! We now bear the onerous responsibility of justifying murder. It is a sad day for us all!
May the reconciliation begin and bring further clarity and a renewal of the healing process. We cannot be too hasty. The thirst for revenge is powerful. More powerful still is the desire for peace.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Curtis LeMay
I'm not sure there will be any "winners" when this is over. Hamas wanted to set off an uncontrolled frenzy of chaos and death to try and prevent any further peace efforts from succeeding. Sadly, I fear they may have gotten their wish.
(whispers in the softest of tones) nevah evah use Curtis LeMay in any discussion related to properly prosecuting a war. Look at what he said and how he said it. He is an individual however upped himself to a we to cover his own fat arse.
Glad you did leave yours, my Friend. Readers need to see the overlap expressed by some as well as the individual thoughts that don't. And you're welcome
I think there was more than just Lemay who would have been held accountable, though. As much for the March firebombing (napalming?) of Tokyo, as for whatever else you could cite.
He may have also been "accidentally" correct, in that the Japanese fascists wouldn't have bothered with fine distinctions, they were world-class racists who enthusiastically engaged in mass murder across China and the rest of East Asia and the Pacific, no reason to think that wouldn't have ramped up for the USA, for all the populations irrespective of ethnicity.
Yeah not an angel for sure, but I think his overall point is valid - the "winners" dominate the narrative of what happened. Don't think there will be any winners when this ends - if it ever ends.
Because even IF Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction (not just the chemical and biowarfare weapons they used against both Iran and the Kurds and their own "marsh Arabs" in the south of their own country, nukes) there would have to be the further showing they posed a credible imminent threat to us or a NATO ally, not only no WMD in the sense of "nukes," no showing of imminent threat.
Hussein could also have faced a host of charges as serious as any war crimes Bush et. al. would have faced, mind you --- mass murder of the Kurds, and population around Mosul, kidnappings and rapes by Uday and Qusay as well, but the point remains: the invasion was illegal and the "shock and awe bombings," war crimes.
Doesn't help Putin or Hamas or Hizbollah or the Mad Mullahs in Iran, though.
Lucian said above "..a line has to be drawn somewhere..." can't help but wonder. I've had an opinion, for quite some time, that "war crimes" mean nothing as there appears to be no accountability for said crimes.
I learned today from a broadcast by an important Hamas leader that their goal is to eliminate Israel and kill all Jews and that they will continue again and again to attack Israel until they achieve their goal.
Just as the protestors here and abroad urging ceasefire, those among them who chant slogans repeating their goal to push Israel into the sea, they tell us who they are. What empathy I have for them dissolves. Bloodthirsty and mindless.
Get real, I had to reconsider my DSA membership dues about to be sent, and research the background of that furor - it's as likely to be "on the Left" as anywhere, your jokes to the contrary notwithstanding.
I learned to expect some unpleasant surprises many years ago at Macalester during my "Trotskyist phase," it did have the useful consequence of opening my eyes to really bizarre irrationality on the part of people whose politics I naively believed would be above that.
did he mean "all Jews everywhere" (he'd have no religion if there hadn't been Jews before the Prophet's obvious Temporal Lobe Epilepsy epiphany) or "all Jews in Israel."
I used to try to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, but whenever they'd start talking about their hatred of the Israelis it'd take half a minute before they'd start talking about "the Jews" in that sort of very general way favored by Cossacks et al in the old pogrom days my grandparents came here to avoid.
I sure do wish that these kids who hate Israel so much would, at the very least, examine the implications of their rhetoric. having said that Palestinians obviously have had plenty to beef about
I visited Israel once, and (despite the fact that after ten days, it seemed like the whole country wanted me GONE) it was impressive. the kibbutzim I visited were miraculous and endlessly fascinating. the Arab Israelis I met were friendly and loved the country. suffice it to say that it was a period during which all social niceties always included an offering of cannabis and for about two bucks you could sit in a circle and share a hookah ALL NIGHT. it was all nothing like what I expected. I realize my semi-tourist experiences over half a century ago mean nothing to anyone but me, but I'm trying to show that there's nothing "abstract" about any of this and Palestinians are no more human and no less flawed than Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter). a lot of people are losing perspective about this.
this is why I'm so bugged at some of the signs I read and chants I hear. as much as I hate to re-use anything once spewed by TFF, right and wrong exist on both sides.
I remember that, even just before his death, Christopher Hitchens (I count myself as a fan, most of the time) was still expressing his belief that Jews aren't farmers or sheepherders but are,rather, intellectual types who would one day realize that they didn't need their little country and...he never talked about what would happen AFTER they left their crowded, bustling little speck of geography.
I fear I might have stopped making sense. but this is very hard to talk about...
We now know that Gaza City is surrounded and ground forces are being ambushed by the terrorists popping out of hidden trap doors from the tunnels. This even though according to an Israeli spokesman they have dropped those big ground penetrating bombs that explode a 100 feet into the ground creating the big craters we see.
A Hamma leader tonight speaking on Lebanon television claimed it was a crime what was being done by IDF to Gazan civilians but what they did on Oct 7 to Israeli civilians was deserved and that they would do it again and again (so much for those advocating for a cease fire!).
No mention either of Hamas deliberately keeping civilians from leaving Gaza City so they could gain world sympathy and cries for a halt to hostilities. Of course they have never built bomb shelters for the same reason, meantime they themselves can run into the tunnels at anytime for protection.
Hamas even confiscates food and medical suplies that come into Gaza from around the world and sell them and pocketr the money.
Allied bombers killed over 70,000 French civilians in liberating France. This was daily collateral damage. It was awful for the French, but it was necessary to defeat the Germans and liberate them.
As Gen Sherman said, “War is hell.” By locating its HQs where they do, it is Hamas, not the Israelis, that makes war hell on Gaza’s civilians.
Lucian, this is a magnificent piece of reporting, analysis, and clarity. You are right--Dresden, etc represent barbarity; the Jabalia bombing is very different. I wouldn't realize the latter without your clarity and calmness in writing. The tragedy continues to unfold. Would that MSM would have something this clear on the front page. Thank you. And the Two State situation has to be a result of this bloodshed on both sides (but that is aspirational prose....)
Defensive wars are not crimes, self-defense and defense of others in our daily existence are not crimes, aggressors and victims are not morally equivalent, but for rhetorical purposes, sure "War" writ large and with no distinctions at all in its application " is a crime.
Seems harmless enough to agree with that, Janice, as I have a strong pacifist streak but the anarchist common sense streak might be just as real, I can't judge objectively of course!
I meant that as a compliment, although a few folks I know might consider that any statement of similarities between us might better be interpreted as something else.
Lucian,
Excellent article. I have been thinking this for a while. War crimes were part of what I taught at the Joint Forces Staff College. Israel’s actions are not war crimes. The problem is that many journalists, members of human rights groups and others know nothing about the law of war. Likewise, quite a few are very skewed in their morals to blame Israel of committing war crimes, just because.
Since Hamas has spent years building their command centers, communications fasciitis’s, tunnels, bunkers, supply and ammunition depots in around and under apartment buildings, hospitals, other medical facilities, schools, mosques, and churches, they have made Gaza a living hell for its inhabitants. Targeting in such an environment is difficult, especially when high value targets are identified and can escape if not immediately hit. Hamas wants Israel to hit the innocents, that’s while they do this. They are the war criminals.
Thank you for this article. All the best and be safe.
Peace,
Steve
I think this is an amazing piece of reporting and analysis. Thanks for writing it.
I have been worried that Israel would turn northern Gaza into a parking lot with indiscriminate attacks.
At some level this needs to end with disarmament of Hamas and a second state for the Palestinian population.
And discontinuing the apartheid Israeli government.
A 2 state solution is probably the best approach.
Palestine deserves its own state and right to exist peacefully.
Israel has a right to existence and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4343950
34 Pages Posted: 1 Feb 2023
Jay Sekulow
American Center for Law and Justice; M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy
Robert Ash
M.G. Robertson Global Centre for Law & Policy; American Center for Law and Justice; Regent University - School of Law
Abstract:
One of the most highly charged accusations aimed at the State of Israel today is that Israel is an “apartheid” State that engages in widespread, state-sanctioned, racially-motivated discrimination against the “Palestinians,” which term is understood to mean by Israel’s accusers the Arabs living anywhere within the confines of the former Mandate for Palestine plus those identifying as Palestinian who live in third countries. Yet, an honest look at the facts utterly destroys such charges. Apartheid was the South African system that denied certain racial groups access to the political and judicial systems in their country, consigned them to inferior living spaces and educational opportunities, and controlled every aspect of their lives. In this paper, we trace the history of apartheid and note that racial animus and motivation for differential treatment of groups are essential for determining whether apartheid exists.
We note first that the Arabs living in the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine (which includes Israel, the “West Bank,” and the Gaza Strip) are racially identical. Yet, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis, including the right to form political parties and stand for election, opportunities to serve as members of the Knesset, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, the police, and so on—rights and privileges totally foreign and anathema to an apartheid State—thereby eviscerating claims of racial discrimination, which underlie apartheid. As such, differences in Israel’s treatment of Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip and Arabs citizens of Israel are not—and, indeed, cannot be—“racially” motivated for the simple reason that both groups of Arabs are racially identical. For the claim of apartheid to be true, one would expect Israel to devise racially discriminatory policies against all Arabs under its control, which Israel clearly does not do. Hence, there must be another reason for the disparate treatment.
So, how does one explain the differences in treatment between Arab Israelis and Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip? The answer is not complicated. Arabs residing in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are not now—and never have been—Israeli citizens and, therefore, cannot claim rights due to Israeli citizens. All countries favor their own citizens vis-à-vis non-citizens, and doing so is not an indication of apartheid simply because the two groups are treated differently. Moreover, many Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Israel. Israel is faced with a hostile Arab population which has yet to come to terms with Israel’s existence and which actively seeks to destroy the Jewish State. That requires Israel to take certain measures for its national security. Because of the ongoing conflict, the relationship of Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip with Israel is governed primarily by the terms of the Law of Armed Conflict. As such, any acts or policies of alleged discrimination by Israel against the Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip must be viewed through the lens of the Law of Armed Conflict. As long as Israel’s actions and policies comply with applicable international law, they are lawful. Israel’s actions are based on well-recognized national security needs, not racial animus.
The bottom line is this: Israel treats all of its citizens—be they Jew, Arab, or Druze—equally before the law, irrespective of any racial or ethnic differences. And, Israeli policies regarding application of military law, administrative detentions, defensive use of force, security check points, etc., in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are all lawful security measures permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all.
Keywords: Apartheid, Israel, Palestine
So much for that routine claim, really just a stereotyped smear tactic, but it hornswoggles the rubes of all varieties, so there's that, right?
I think we entirely agree. the difference is that you say it a whole lot better. my response to the issue is emotional enough that laying ANYTHING out in logical terms becomes impossible. in my particular case, laying ANYTHING out in logical terms might just be a non-starter. but I KNOW that using terms like "genocide" and "apartheid" just raises the temperature in a way that's not helpful.
so thanks, Richard.
one small quibble: I'm not entirely comfortable being in the company of Jay Sekulow...isn't he one of Rapture scumbags? wasn't he TFF's lawyer at some point?
Interesting, it's not Apartheid. We have laws on the books to protect the rights of all citizens, yet we still to this day have systemic racism. Is that what these countries are suffering from, systemic racism?
75 years and counting.
I'm not holding my breath.
Ah, Rich. We of the long memories. I don't like to use the term inevitable in most cases. But let us say that the U.N. High Commission left the scene in 1947 with only a 1/2 baked cake.
Tom, I think the Palestinians are facing the bible's Grapes of Wrath, and Gaza will become a dust bowl.
Rich, I think the Palestinians are the American Indians of the Middle East.
half baked? Sounds like an empty cake to me. 😊
lmrao
I have always been under the impression that Israel's special forces, by reputation, were top notch. I realize Entebbe was a long time ago but I would guess they have only improved since then, if anything. My career specialty was physical surveillance and the Mossad was always considered the gold standard in that area. Not the same thing, but it is a trend. I have a feeling the issue preventing a covert action in this case had more to do with not being able to get within 15 blocks of the target without the entire operation being blown. How do you land a helicopter in that? How do you move through the streets undetected? It's a logistical nightmare.
Wrote about this a day or so again. The IDF is not the US Mil. The US Mil has no school of urban warfare. Only in the past few years is one trying to get up off the ground. And as the US Mil rather than the subject being urban warfare it is called: Mega-Cities. (The bigger is better motto will change someday, just not now).
Rather than bore you with the distinct differences of the 2nations force structure can say the distinctions are from the bottom up and the top down as well as across. Includes weaponry, weapon systems, kits, unis, and on and on. Can't think of a single thing the IDF prefers to use straight off the US Mil-Mil Industrial Complex rack.
Since you mentioned helos, check out the prego belly on their Apaches. Or the setup on their tanks and heavy equipment. Even the F-35. Most of all the IDF does NOT think like the US Mil nor embraces US Mil doctrine. They are fully trained in urban warfare including special units for tunnels. And unlike the US Mil, their tunnel weasels fall under where they belong, the Core of Engineers.
What you are saying supports things I have heard as well. And I try, but don't always succeed in doing so, to be cautious about repeating things I hear just because I have faith in the people who are saying them.
Anyway just from looking at that overhead shot of the section of Gaza which was hit, it appears to be the personification of worst case scenario when it comes to executing an op.
The ord that was used clearly was a munition fused to explode at a depth certain. Lots of speculation as to its American name and actual weight of the warhead. Am confident the Israel tech-weenies modified it to fit the dirt of the region.
At first glance to some the crater(s) and surrounding destruction screamed MOAB-family rather than what is colloquially known as bunker busters. To my old eyes looks more like a modified US MOP (sld be called Whoppers) that penetrates both dirt and concrete.
Those can and will take down poorly constructed adjacent buildings. Keep in mind Gaza buildings get cheated out of concrete and rebar so they can be repurposed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In every pic or vid the amount of destruction is not consistent with a well-built concrete building taking a 250 affirming those buildings are poorly constructed. Adjacent buildings shouldn't crumble as if they too were struck. Survivors are the ones that sold me on the idea when interviewed they recall the sound not coming from their building rather hearing it then afterwards theirs began collapsing down on them.
YOur thoughts?
Agree from overhead the US mil would wave off the target or if they didn't the cadre of attorneys and ethicists would say, C'mon man try somewhere else or change what y'all are drinking and smoking. (Trying to give that group some human flavor)
The U.N. has proven itself, once again, toothless.
As for your information re what is, and is not a war crime, it is appreciated by me, at least. Israel's trying to defend itself has loosed all the anti-Semitism that has been waiting for a "reason" to show its face.
So true. The anti-semites now can point to this conflict as their reason for hating Jews. They'll be coming out of the woodwork now!
The antisemites already ARE out of the woodwork and spewing their nastiness everywhere.
thank you. now I don't have to say the same thing.
True...all that TFG and his band of stalwarts may have missed unleashing.
Margo, between you and Richard, my perspective is evolving. Thank you.
What a swell compliment. 🙏
Again, Lucian, what an informative article. I/we certainly learned what a war crime is and isn't. Thank you for educating us and keeping us up to date.
Yes indeed. I personally feel that I have been educated in the difference between defending oneself and a war crime.
This comprehensive comparison between defensive damage to repel aggression and unprovoked, wanton attacks upon civilians in a sovereign nation is astonishing. What you, Lucian, have made eminently understandable is the difference between the two forms of warfare. One is a fight for existence of a persecuted nation by a sworn enemy, while the other is a tragic and heartbreaking betrayal of a long-suffering people who have been refused settlement by their own brethren so that the poison of hatred is allowed to spread and inflict the healing process.
It is up to the experts to sort out the subtle nuances of warfare. While we are all appalled by violence, and defensive and offensive wounds bleed out with the same ferociously, the international community will discern the cause and effect, assigning blame, even as pain and suffering persists throughout.
Keeping track of the ramifications of bloodshed requires an informed assessment and the skills to know the difference. Kol ha Kavod! We now bear the onerous responsibility of justifying murder. It is a sad day for us all!
May the reconciliation begin and bring further clarity and a renewal of the healing process. We cannot be too hasty. The thirst for revenge is powerful. More powerful still is the desire for peace.
Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is either moral or ethical.
But a line has to be drawn somewhere, don't you think?
There are no easy solutions and no clear lines. But there always choices. Some choices result in innocent deaths, some spare those suffering people.
Ok sure. Soon enough Israel will have killed 10x the number they lost to Hamas’s slaughter.
That’s a decent line.
Accomplishing what beyond the near term?
Yes, but as you have articulated, everyone breaks the rules. Even Lil Bush.
Tg
Your excellent article reminded me of this quote:
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Curtis LeMay
I'm not sure there will be any "winners" when this is over. Hamas wanted to set off an uncontrolled frenzy of chaos and death to try and prevent any further peace efforts from succeeding. Sadly, I fear they may have gotten their wish.
(whispers in the softest of tones) nevah evah use Curtis LeMay in any discussion related to properly prosecuting a war. Look at what he said and how he said it. He is an individual however upped himself to a we to cover his own fat arse.
if I'd scrolled down and seen YOUR post, I wouldn't have needed to leave mine.
so thanks as usual...
Glad you did leave yours, my Friend. Readers need to see the overlap expressed by some as well as the individual thoughts that don't. And you're welcome
I think there was more than just Lemay who would have been held accountable, though. As much for the March firebombing (napalming?) of Tokyo, as for whatever else you could cite.
He may have also been "accidentally" correct, in that the Japanese fascists wouldn't have bothered with fine distinctions, they were world-class racists who enthusiastically engaged in mass murder across China and the rest of East Asia and the Pacific, no reason to think that wouldn't have ramped up for the USA, for all the populations irrespective of ethnicity.
whenever anyone quotes LeMay, I get very, very nervous.
remember, LeMay is the guy who counseled JFK to use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an excuse to start WWIII.
so I don't consider him any kind of tzaddik.
Yeah not an angel for sure, but I think his overall point is valid - the "winners" dominate the narrative of what happened. Don't think there will be any winners when this ends - if it ever ends.
(New word for today - tzaddik 😊)
So our invasion of Iraq was a war crime.
I thought our invasion of Iraq was nuts. But I don’t know enough about the law to say it was a war crime.
Just read Truscott's narrative.
Because even IF Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction (not just the chemical and biowarfare weapons they used against both Iran and the Kurds and their own "marsh Arabs" in the south of their own country, nukes) there would have to be the further showing they posed a credible imminent threat to us or a NATO ally, not only no WMD in the sense of "nukes," no showing of imminent threat.
Hussein could also have faced a host of charges as serious as any war crimes Bush et. al. would have faced, mind you --- mass murder of the Kurds, and population around Mosul, kidnappings and rapes by Uday and Qusay as well, but the point remains: the invasion was illegal and the "shock and awe bombings," war crimes.
Doesn't help Putin or Hamas or Hizbollah or the Mad Mullahs in Iran, though.
Lucian said above "..a line has to be drawn somewhere..." can't help but wonder. I've had an opinion, for quite some time, that "war crimes" mean nothing as there appears to be no accountability for said crimes.
I learned today from a broadcast by an important Hamas leader that their goal is to eliminate Israel and kill all Jews and that they will continue again and again to attack Israel until they achieve their goal.
Just as the protestors here and abroad urging ceasefire, those among them who chant slogans repeating their goal to push Israel into the sea, they tell us who they are. What empathy I have for them dissolves. Bloodthirsty and mindless.
Probably a GOP House member.
Get real, I had to reconsider my DSA membership dues about to be sent, and research the background of that furor - it's as likely to be "on the Left" as anywhere, your jokes to the contrary notwithstanding.
I learned to expect some unpleasant surprises many years ago at Macalester during my "Trotskyist phase," it did have the useful consequence of opening my eyes to really bizarre irrationality on the part of people whose politics I naively believed would be above that.
did he mean "all Jews everywhere" (he'd have no religion if there hadn't been Jews before the Prophet's obvious Temporal Lobe Epilepsy epiphany) or "all Jews in Israel."
I used to try to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, but whenever they'd start talking about their hatred of the Israelis it'd take half a minute before they'd start talking about "the Jews" in that sort of very general way favored by Cossacks et al in the old pogrom days my grandparents came here to avoid.
I sure do wish that these kids who hate Israel so much would, at the very least, examine the implications of their rhetoric. having said that Palestinians obviously have had plenty to beef about
I visited Israel once, and (despite the fact that after ten days, it seemed like the whole country wanted me GONE) it was impressive. the kibbutzim I visited were miraculous and endlessly fascinating. the Arab Israelis I met were friendly and loved the country. suffice it to say that it was a period during which all social niceties always included an offering of cannabis and for about two bucks you could sit in a circle and share a hookah ALL NIGHT. it was all nothing like what I expected. I realize my semi-tourist experiences over half a century ago mean nothing to anyone but me, but I'm trying to show that there's nothing "abstract" about any of this and Palestinians are no more human and no less flawed than Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter). a lot of people are losing perspective about this.
this is why I'm so bugged at some of the signs I read and chants I hear. as much as I hate to re-use anything once spewed by TFF, right and wrong exist on both sides.
I remember that, even just before his death, Christopher Hitchens (I count myself as a fan, most of the time) was still expressing his belief that Jews aren't farmers or sheepherders but are,rather, intellectual types who would one day realize that they didn't need their little country and...he never talked about what would happen AFTER they left their crowded, bustling little speck of geography.
I fear I might have stopped making sense. but this is very hard to talk about...
We now know that Gaza City is surrounded and ground forces are being ambushed by the terrorists popping out of hidden trap doors from the tunnels. This even though according to an Israeli spokesman they have dropped those big ground penetrating bombs that explode a 100 feet into the ground creating the big craters we see.
A Hamma leader tonight speaking on Lebanon television claimed it was a crime what was being done by IDF to Gazan civilians but what they did on Oct 7 to Israeli civilians was deserved and that they would do it again and again (so much for those advocating for a cease fire!).
No mention either of Hamas deliberately keeping civilians from leaving Gaza City so they could gain world sympathy and cries for a halt to hostilities. Of course they have never built bomb shelters for the same reason, meantime they themselves can run into the tunnels at anytime for protection.
Hamas even confiscates food and medical suplies that come into Gaza from around the world and sell them and pocketr the money.
Allied bombers killed over 70,000 French civilians in liberating France. This was daily collateral damage. It was awful for the French, but it was necessary to defeat the Germans and liberate them.
As Gen Sherman said, “War is hell.” By locating its HQs where they do, it is Hamas, not the Israelis, that makes war hell on Gaza’s civilians.
Lucian, this is a magnificent piece of reporting, analysis, and clarity. You are right--Dresden, etc represent barbarity; the Jabalia bombing is very different. I wouldn't realize the latter without your clarity and calmness in writing. The tragedy continues to unfold. Would that MSM would have something this clear on the front page. Thank you. And the Two State situation has to be a result of this bloodshed on both sides (but that is aspirational prose....)
Thank you for your clear explanation and setting us straight on this war crimes thing....war itself is the crime. Peace be with you!
Defensive wars are not crimes, self-defense and defense of others in our daily existence are not crimes, aggressors and victims are not morally equivalent, but for rhetorical purposes, sure "War" writ large and with no distinctions at all in its application " is a crime.
Seems harmless enough to agree with that, Janice, as I have a strong pacifist streak but the anarchist common sense streak might be just as real, I can't judge objectively of course!
jeez, Richard...you're starting to sound like me.
I meant that as a compliment, although a few folks I know might consider that any statement of similarities between us might better be interpreted as something else.
Thank you for the clarity on this issue.