Questioning the Accusations: Is Israel’s Conflict with Hamas Just?
The State of Israel finds itself under rigorous scrutiny from Western governments, representing their citizens, due to its ongoing conflict with Hamas. These observers condemn Israel for the high civilian casualty count, seen as a violation of international laws. Yet, is this accusation just? Initially, it’s instructive to clarify that Israel is inherently compelled to adhere to international law, as it aligns with one of the seven Noahide commandments upheld by the nation — the establishment of courts. Thus, there are certain ethical and legal concepts universally understood and agreed upon in our shared societal setting, such as the prohibition of purposeful harm towards innocent civilians in times of warfare.
These principles are not the subject of debate among legal scholars, whether conservative or liberal. Importantly, international law does, in fact, grant nations the right to engage in warfare for self-defense and to neutralize threats. If an adversarial entity chooses to exploit civilians, transforming everyday settings like kindergartens and hospitals into military strongholds, it forfeits its entitlement to civilian protection. Rather, the onus of harm inflicted on civilians present in these zones falls on the adversary.
In such circumstances, as far as possible, civilians should be given the chance to evacuate these areas, recognizing there might exist certain instances where it may prove risky. Consequently, legal professionals worldwide have proposed some regulations to target the enemy effectively whilst minimizing collateral damage to civilians. However, it must be unequivocally articulated that the focus on minimizing civilian harm should never impede the ultimate intentions in a warfare scenario, which is to annihilate the enemy’s military forces, or alternatively, secure their ultimate capitulation.
In conflicts involving Arab adversaries, a significant portion of the civilian populace is often actively engaged in the warfare activities. Evidence of this was visible on the day that marked the onset of the war, as civilians enthusiastically partook in heinous violent acts. The public response rang hollow, with neither the ordinary Gazan civilians nor religious figures staging any notable protest against the violence.
Such complicity from the population rarely comes as a shock, as they frequently concur with serving as human shields for enemy combatants, remaining steadfast even when offered opportunities for evacuation. There seems to be little moral incentive to extend leniency to such a populace and international law echoes this assertion.
Yet, Western societies steeped in generations of antisemitism continue to berate Israel. This bias is reflected in the way Western societies have historically made baseless “moral claims” against Jewish people, paradoxically portraying them as the embodiment of immorality. A notorious example is the hideous myth alleging Jewish people murdered children to use their blood in the process of baking matzah, a palpable example of prejudice fueled lies.
Even in contemporary times, as antisemitic claims evolved, so did the ‘moral’ justifications for them. Jews were frequently denounced as a community that undermined cultural and human development, a sentiment propagated by the Nazis leading up to the ‘Final Solution’. This slander found takers even beyond Nazi leadership, with European societies either actively or passively supporting these views.
This so-called ‘moral claim’ proved to be nothing more than a dreadful deception. Far from being detrimental to societal progress, the Jewish community has been instrumental in propelling the Western world’s advancements in various domains such as science, economy, and culture.
Moreover, present-day allegations about Israel committing ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’ distinctly bear the hallmarks of antisemitism. Wars elsewhere, like Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia, have seen civilian casualties manifold higher compared to combatants, yet seldom have these conflicts been characterized as events of genocide or war crimes.
Unlike other conflicts, the modus operandi in these wars did not involve civilian human shields, a strategy adopted by Hamas in Gaza. Nevertheless, Israel continues to be denounced, despite its strenuous efforts to safeguard non-combatants.
In conclusion, accusations against Israel, particularly in regard to its conflict with Hamas, need to be objectively scrutinized against the backdrop of international law as well as the unique realities of warfare tactics adopted. The lens through which these actions are viewed should account for the societal norms proscribed by international law and the necessity for a nation to defend its sovereignty and safety of its citizens.
Further, it’s essential to dispel harmful prejudices that have been propagated for generations, and instead make fair assessments based on factual evidence. A fair standpoint will acknowledge the difficult circumstances under which Israel operates and its commitment to uphold international law.
Lastly, in the midst of criticism, it’s vital not to forget that Israel remains committed to its legal and ethical obligations, always striving in its warfare engagements to strike a balance between neutralizing its adversaries and safeguarding innocent civilians.