And if they don’t, that frees every other party in this conflict from having to behave morally?
Of course not. But the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is constantly framed with a subtext (or explicit statement) that Israel is the only party here with any agency.
The acceptable amount of civilian casualties is equal to the absolute bare minimum number of civilian casualties that a successful operation to destroy Hamas would incur. If that number is zero, then that’s the acceptable number. If it’s 2.5 million, then that’s the acceptable number.
1,300 Israelis were killed last weekend. Comparisons to 9/11 are apt. What would we have done to prevent another 9/11? Would there have been any number of Afghan civilian casualties that would’ve kept us from ousting the Taliban? I don’t think so, and I don’t think we have the right to hold Israel to a higher standard than the one to which we held ourselves.
In the same way that we couldn’t be expected to continue tolerating the existence of the Taliban after 9/11, Israel cannot be expected to put up with the existence of Hamas, in any form, for one moment longer after 10/7. Israel needs to make sure that they do everything they can to minimise civilian casualties, but not at the expense of achieving the goal of destroying Hamas.
In other words, you think the U.S. will launch a war or something to oust and eliminate them?
I have over and over said that I think Hamas should be destroyed, so I’m not especially interested in their agency. But if you want me to make it clear, yes: I call on Hamas either to commit mass suicide, or to lay down their weapons and surrender unconditionally, freeing all hostages in the process. I call on Iran to cut off all support for Hamas and to immediately stop any actions that lead to civilian deaths, before submitting their leaders to the International Criminal Court. I call on Egypt to cooperate fully with the humanitarian effort. Anything less from Hamas and Iran constitutes continuing war crimes–of which they’re obviously guilty; and anything less from Israel risks humanitarian catastrophe, although I’m not clear enough on war crimes to know if inaction on Egypt’s part would qualify.
Is that what you’re looking for?
So, I absolutely hold the US to a higher standard than you apparently do. War crimes are war crimes, and genocide is genocide, and those aren’t conditional terms. Some terrorist fucks murdering a whole bunch of our people doesn’t give us a “one free genocide” card. If we have a goal that can only be accomplished through mass murder of civilians, we don’t get to accomplish that goal.
I have been very clear on this standard since I was about fifteen, and nothing I’ve seen in the three decades since has changed my mind on it. I’m in line with Red Cross, the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, and many other groups on this, so I hardly think it’s a wacko fringe position that you don’t get to commit war crimes.
Edit: in one respect, though, I think this analogy is pretty helpful. 22 years later, how’s that “ousting the Taliban” thing working out? In retrospect, do you think that was our finest accomplishment as a nation?
The problem with that, especially with the WHOs recommendations in relation to Gazan hospitals, is that Hamas uses hospitals (and other locations full of vulnerable civilians) as munitions dumps and as bases from which to launch attacks. Therefore, Israel can’t follow the WHO’s recommendations. In fact, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that following them might increase the number of civilian casualties in the long run because if Hamas knows that Israel won’t attack hospitals then before long those will be the only places Hamas will operate from.
Israel’s problem, ultimately, is that they’re fighting an enemy with absolutely no scruples whatsoever, who will turn Israel’s own scruples against them at every opportunity, and who will simultaneously take overt steps to maximise their own civilian casualties because it makes for good PR. Hamas hides within the civilian population because their most potent weapons against Israel are photos and videos of their own dead civilians. That’s why they’re actively encouraging people to stay in the North, and why, despite the large amount of foreign aid they’ve received since 2006, they don’t seem to have built even a single civilian bomb shelter. They want their own citizens dead, and if Israel declares any potential target “off-limits” for humanitarian reasons, then that’s where Hamas will plan and launch the next 10/7 massacre. So Israel can’t declare any potential target off-limits.
…I’m sorry, but there is no problem with complying with international law. Especially based on evidence-free assertions.
Don’t make excuses for it. You either support the WHO position or you don’t. And it appears that you don’t. Which is fine. We all know where you stand. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
But what if that goal is purely to prevent the mass murder of our own civilians? We all know it’s only a matter of time before Hamas launches another 10/7. What if they ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon (or, more realistically, on enough fissile material to make a dirty bomb)? Is there any doubt whatsoever that they’d use it to inflict as many Israeli civilian casualties as possible? Why should Israel have to tolerate the presence of a threat like that?
I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this. While I fully agree that Israel has a moral obligation to minimise Palestinian civilian casualties, they also have a moral obligation to their own citizens to destroy Hamas, and I believe that latter obligation takes precedence.
Now that’s fucked up.
They still exist. So in fact we absolutely are expected to continue tolerating their existence.
In fairness to me, the key words in my previous post (which, in retrospect, I probably should’ve done more to emphasise) were ‘absolute bare minimum’. Israel has a moral obligation to minimise Gazan civilian casualties. At the same time, they can’t let Hamas’s eagerness to use human shields deter them because if they do then they’ll never eradicate Hamas, and then it’ll only be a matter of time before Hamas regroups and carries out another 10/7, perhaps with even deadlier weapons.
If my post is fucked up, it’s only because Hamas’s tactics are fucked up, and they’ve forced us into a situation where the only options available are horrible.
They won’t eradicate Hamas no matter what they do.
The only options you are willing to entertain.
Since when have Muslim Arabs needed a reason to have a blood feud with Israel?
Maybe. I’m more a believer in impersonal historical forces myself. I’m skeptical that human will ever overrode situational causes that rewarded certain beliefs and behaviors and disincentivized others.
It’s not just “Muslim Arabs”. I mentioned the PFLP for instance…
What non-horrible option are you willing to entertain that he is not?
I don’t pretend to know what’s going to work, but if Walter is willing to entertain “kill 2.5 million Palestinians” as a viable option because every choice is “horrible”, I suggest that there are a plethora of less-horrible (I do not know that there are any absolute non-horrible) options that could be taken. And the moral justification for military action ends well before 2.5 million dead.
And though you didn’t ask, I’ll re-ask my fairly pragmatic question: what is the expected outcome of the current military action? And, if the answer is “that there is no Hamas when we are done,”
I suggest that that is an un-achievable goal, and so the taking of life toward that aim is a waste.
I agree, as I said above. And I also don’t think that 2.5 million (or even 0.5 million as I said in another thread) dead is within an order of magnitude of something that would actually occur.
Hamas needs to be destroyed as a governing force in the region. I don’t doubt that some occassional morons will continue to kill and die in Hamas’ name, but they need to no longer be the people in control of Gaza.
Clearly we should’ve committed more war crimes.