By David French
Monday, May 06, 2019
As of this moment, a fragile truce holds in southern
Israel. After Hamas volleyed 600 missiles at Israeli civilian targets on
Saturday and Sunday, prompting Israel to attack hundreds of targets in Gaza,
the air-raid sirens have fallen silent, for now.
But over the weekend, when the rockets fell, we saw all
the old arguments against Israel’s acts of self-defense crop up. The air raids
were “disproportionate,” we were told. There were arguments over individual
civilian casualties, as if it would somehow discredit Israel if its precision
strikes killed more than a handful of noncombatants. Yes, there were rote
condemnations of Hamas’s efforts to kill as many civilians as it could, but
once again all too many voices on the left rose at once, demanding that the nation
under attack — the nation defending its schools, hospitals, and homes from an
indiscriminate rocket barrage — exercise restraint.
It’s important, however, to be very clear about Israel’s
legal obligations. When it comes to Hamas, “restraint” is Israel’s choice — one it may make for tactical
and strategic reasons of its own. The actual law of war would allow Israel to
invade Gaza, utterly destroy Hamas, and occupy Gaza City until Israel’s safety
is ensured, even if it burned in the fight.
Let’s break this down as simply as possible. First,
firing 600 rockets at civilian targets in a neighboring country is an act of
war. It’s an attack by an army against a nation-state, and as such it grants
the nation-state the authority under the international law of armed conflict
not just to disable the specific military assets used to carry it out but to
destroy those who carried it out.
For example, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor,
America had the right not just to sink the Japanese fleet but to defeat Japan’s
military, invade its sovereign territory, and overthrow its government. The
threat to the United States came not just from the Japanese armed forces (which
could be rebuilt after defeat) but from the government that built that military
and empowered it to attack America. Similarly, when America and its allies
launched their war against the ISIS caliphate, they had the right not just to
destroy ISIS’s military assets but to take ISIS’s territory. They had the right
to fight house to house in Mosul, Raqqa, and elsewhere to eliminate not just
ISIS’s ability to fight but also its ability to govern.
Second, a terrorist army cannot lawfully protect itself
from destruction by blending in with civilian populations, fighting from
civilian structures, or using civilians as human shields. As the Department of
Defense’s Law of War Manual states, the principle of distinction “enjoins the
party controlling the population to use its best efforts to distinguish or
separate its military forces and war-making activities from members of the
civilian population to the maximum extent feasible so that civilian casualties
and damage to civilian objects incidental to attacks on military objectives
will be minimized as much as possible.”
This means physically separating military and civilian
facilities. This means using uniforms, markings, and other measures to make
sure that military forces and civilians are “visually distinguished from one
another.” And this means refraining from using “protected persons and objects”
— civilians or civilian structures — “to shield military objectives.”
Hamas violates every single one of these commands. It
uses civilian facilities for military purposes, it tries to blend in with the
civilian population, and it uses civilians as human shields. This is crucial —
under the law of war none of these things in any way limit Israel’s right to defend
itself. So long as Israel otherwise complies with the laws of war, the
resulting civilian casualties and damages to civilian structures are Hamas’s
moral and legal responsibility. It’s that simple.
Think of it like this: Nations have a right to defend
themselves, and that right of self-defense is not abrogated when an opponent
fights dirty. If an army tried to march into Philadelphia behind a wall of
women and children, the citizens of Philadelphia would not have to surrender if
fighting meant killing those human shields. Instead, they could fight back and
then hold war-crimes trials against the
attackers for the resulting civilian deaths.
Nor does the imbalance of power between Israel and Hamas
tie Israel’s hands. The more-powerful nation has the right to use its power to
win. It does not have to fight with one hand tied behind its back. Whenever
Israel responds to Hamas, you see much misuse of the term “proportionality,” as
if there is something inherently wrong with using more-powerful weapons to destroy
a less-powerful foe. There is not. Under the law of war, “proportionality”
doesn’t mean responding with similar force. It means avoiding attacks when the
expected harm “incidental to the attack” would be “excessive in relation to the
military advantage anticipated to be gained.” To take an example, if you know a
sniper is in a building, and you can destroy the building without destroying
the city block, then you use force against the building, not the entire block.
There’s nothing within that principle that grants any
immunity to hostile armed forces. The right to defeat the hostile force
remains; the response just must be mounted with an economy of force that’s
consistent with the dictates of military necessity.
What does that look like when a hostile terrorist force
embeds itself in a civilian population, disguises itself as civilian, and
fights from civilian buildings? The recently finished Battle of Mosul is
instructive. There, American forces fought alongside Iraqi allies and rooted
out ISIS from the heart of one of Iraq’s largest cities. Here (from
the New York Times) is just one
before-and-after view of the sheer devastation in the city center. First, this
is the Mosul Hotel area in November 2015:
And here’s the same area in July 2017:
This devastation is ISIS’s moral and legal
responsibility. ISIS occupied Mosul. ISIS fought from civilian spaces. ISIS waged a futile fight from block to
block and house to house. I could show you similar scenes of before-and-after
devastation from America’s fights in cities such as Fallujah, Najaf, and Raqqa.
This is what Hamas courts from Israel, and Israel would be well within its
rights to oblige if it so chose.
But rather than recognize this legal reality, the
international community subjects Israel to two separate anti-Semitic double
standards.
First, attacks against its civilian population are
rationalized and justified to an unprecedented extent. There are still all too many people who see Hamas
as heroic freedom fighters facing off against terrible oppressors, rather than
evil terrorists with genocidal aims.
Second, the world then holds Israel to a standard of
military restraint that it applies to no other military force on the planet. If
Israel even used American rules of
engagement or applied American
military doctrine, the devastation in Gaza would be orders of magnitude greater
than anything we’ve yet seen. The Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have
been far more aggressive and “kinetic” than Israel in our response to terror.
We’ve destroyed far more urban territory, and we’ve inflicted vastly more
civilian casualties. Yet, with isolated exceptions, we’ve done so under
self-imposed rules of engagement that are stricter
than the law of war requires.
It’s time to change the terms of the international
debate. It’s time for the world community to stop imposing these double
standards on Israel, and start doing what international law requires: holding
Hamas responsible for the devastation that results from Israel’s legal,
necessary, and proper responses to its provocations. Only then will Hamas know
that if it sows the wind, it could truly reap the whirlwind, and it will have
no powerful international friends come to its aid.
No comments:
Post a Comment