The Dangers of Holding the IDF to an Impossible Standard

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.

Read more at Commentary

More about: IDF, International Law, Israel & Zionism, Laws of war, Protective Edge, Terrorism

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF