A group consisting of senior military figures from several countries recently released a report detailing its extensive investigation of Israel’s conduct of the 2014 war in Gaza. It finds that, contrary to evaluations issued by the UN and Human Rights Watch, not only was the war justified under international law but Israel’s conduct also went above and beyond accepted legal and ethical requirements. From this, however, the authors draw a disturbing conclusion, as Tom Wilson notes:

[They] point out that if [the] new, rigorous level of humanitarian concern adopted by Israel comes to be accepted as the norm in the international community, then it will become impossible for other militaries to fight future wars effectively. . . .

Israel’s experience in Gaza has very profound implications for other democracies seeking to wage war against terrorist non-state actors. Terror groups who not only have no regard for international human-rights law but that also have no fear of their international standing being tarnished . . . do not need to worry about condemnation at the UN having repercussions such as the imposition of sanctions. In fact, these groups are clearly learning from Hamas tactics and seeing that it is possible to gain an advantage over western armies that restrain themselves in accordance with the stipulations of international law. . . .

They know that by hiding behind civilians, they can achieve a wide range of strategic objectives. . . . [They] know full well how a high civilian casualty rate can be made to play out in the court of public opinion. Journalists, international observers, campaigners, and many in government—all apparently suffer from having an incredibly poor grasp of where international law and, particularly, the laws of armed conflict, stand on a whole range of issues. As we’ve seen with Israel’s wars, world opinion now expects Israel to conduct its wars without anyone being harmed.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”